> When do you get declined for health insurance, or have jacked up premiums, because the insurance company bought a report from 23andMe that says you have a predisposition to expensive disease?
Now it does, but it might not be this way in the future. Health insurance companies fought tooth and nail about covering pre-existing conditions. This is just going 1-step prior.
They could easily frame this as "hey 80% of the population who are pretty healthy -- do you like paying extra high rates for this small population of people with a predisposition for really rare, complicated diseases? if we drop this unfair law we could lower your rates by X%".
Not saying it's right or ethical, but that I wouldn't be shocked if healthcare started lobbying hard to get this tweaked.
The interesting thing about modern genetics is that it turns out everybody has some elevated risk for some disease or condition, which means the vast majority of people have an interest in prohibiting genetic discrimination.
The specific insurance example was just a theoretical example. I'm less concerned about someone trying to kill me, there are much easier ways to do that without targeting me based on my DNA!
Laws are purely a technicality. Especially with the US lobbying situation being the way it is, I don't think it's reasonable for anyone to expect that some bad thing heavily incentivised for won't happen just because it's not allowed now.
They could easily frame this as "hey 80% of the population who are pretty healthy -- do you like paying extra high rates for this small population of people with a predisposition for really rare, complicated diseases? if we drop this unfair law we could lower your rates by X%".
Not saying it's right or ethical, but that I wouldn't be shocked if healthcare started lobbying hard to get this tweaked.