Sure, but it's a law, and any change like that would be major national news, debated extensively in Congress, and then, if turned into a new law, would roll out over years.

And it's unlikely it would be passed as a law, because (currently) most people favor privacy for their genomic information.

Personally, I can see the value in allowing health insurance to access genomic information. Assuming it truly correlates with health outcomes, the data would be valuable in accurately personalizing contracts. I believe other indicators are already used.

Like net neutrality?

There can easily be a hole punched in the law with some weasel words in an omnibus bill that nobody pays attention to until 5 years later and we are hearing about the problems in a 60 minutes exclusive.

So if things were different, they would be different.

What value are you adding with this meaningless comment?

I was refuting the parent’s point:

“any change like that would be major national news, debated extensively in Congress, and then, if turned into a new law, would roll out over years.

Which is manifestly false for the reasons I outlined.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

The problem is you gave a single anecdotal example, and there was a bunch of attention paid at the time anyway and lots of people complained.

You can't insert major changes to health laws in omnibus spending bills.

There is nothing anecdotal about it, since it is a fact.

Almost nobody complained, there was no meaningful mainstream coverage, and most people don’t even know there was a change even now.

And you don’t need to insert a major change to punch a hole in the law. A small exception will do it.

Personalized contracts means no more spreading of risk, which completely negates the value of insurance companies.