If I could compare it to something recent, it's the whole Content -> LLM -> Content loop that was created and we're all upset over now to various degrees. Our DNA is the content and up until now has been an opaque black-box with only minor views into it for very specific genetic diseases. Once they open up the box that allows them to get to things like IQ, height, muscle-density, resistance to diseases, fertility, etc, then the human race is in for a wild down-hill ride.
Insurance companies will offer a "DNA discount" and ask for DNA directly, and simply charge more to anyone who refuses, and then grade the amount of "discount" based on the risk profile back from the DNA sample.
If you hold out and refuse, you'll simply get lumped in with the riskiest.
People love a "discount".
As we were insuring over a million in the mortgage/loc, I guess they have diff requirements.
They sent over their own funded nurse, who collected vitals and blood samples which we signed off them running any number of tests.
I should have checked if any clause for DNA. But that's not needed... Insurance is already all over you now.
Mostly in past was just a quick questionnaire. Then I was use to be sent to Dr for physical.
Now they contracting their own nurses and labs.
They probably already collecting your dna
Is having a bad recessive a “pre-existing condition”? Or do genotypes form already legally protected classes?
Clearly we need good lawyers here, or careful regulation, or public medical insurance.
I hope it doesn’t go the way of car insurance.
Sure. There are some conditions that are purely genetic, but many genes can be switched on and off depending on the environment - or even recoded in the replication process. DNA isn’t as static as we once thought and knowing a person’s DNA is not quite as useful as we imagined.
This isn’t as big of a deal as we imagined. It’s going to take some incredible processing to uncover causal patterns, and a huge amount of experimentation to determine whether they are stable against epigenetic changes. In my opinion, this is quite exciting.
Applying this broad principle to auto insurance, it isn't doing well. Auto ins is ~mandated. Participants are forced to pay for risk pools they aren't part of.
ex: Car repair costs are skyrocketing. Premiums are also skyrocketing, including for people who don't carry collision.
It's basically just pointing out that perfect knowledge makes risk 0, and that insurance doesn't make sense in a world with no risk. At that point the question is basically just whether you distribute medical costs evenly across everyone or let there be winners and losers on those costs.
I asked them what the end game is. What happens when everyone's insurance policy is exactly tailored to them? What is the point of insurance then? If they get it too right they put themselves out of business. They didn't have a good answer.
Protection from unlikely events.
>If they get it too right they put themselves out of business.
No, they don't. Getting it too right just means they are able to more effectively compete on pricing since they know the lowest price they can offer while still making profit.
the point of insurance is to cover for unlikely events not expected events (like you needing increase healthcare support as you age)
What? How is it you think insurance companies make money exactly? And why would getting better at predicting risk stop them doing that?
The value of insurance (and why we pay for their profits) is in spreading risk across populations. They already target particular demographics (when the law allows them to), but I'm talking about targeting individuals.
If the insurance company can predict exactly how much they will be paying out to you in the next 10 years, say, then they just become a glorified savings account with a cost attached (their profit). The value is then essentially telling you how much you need to save. Data companies like 23&Me could then offer this without bothering with the savings account part.
My feeling is people won't accept this and will want actual insurance policies that actually spread risk across populations because people don't want to be told "you need to save twice as much as your neighbour because of your cancer in 15 years time".
Unless they have a crystal ball and can tell you whether or not you will be involved in an accident leading to serious injury (and the nature of those injuries) then you still need health insurance.
I know a guy who was robbed and shot. Had to have surgery and spent a few weeks in the hospital.
I have a neighbor that was jogging, tripped over a bump in the sidewalk and broke his arm. Few weeks in a cast.
I know plenty of blue collar workers who had on the job injuries that required medical treatment.
Your DNA isn't going to help with that. And in America, a simple 4 hour visit to the ER can result in a multi-thousand dollar bill. And if you're unfortunate enough to need a surgery and a multi-week stay then we're talking 5 figures minimum.
As a result the incentive to get comprehensive health insurance rather than just disaster insurance would plummet, as an MSA would be more cost effective and you also get to take advantage of better than predicted health outcomes in the form of interest earned and at EOL a potential inheritance gift.
Sounds great, except you jhave to understand that this would mean that society would somehow need to deal with the burden of the least healthy, who would be very unlikely to purchase, or be able to afford, insurance under this scheme. It’s like trying to charge up front for building roads. You just end up with no roads. Socialism (or in the case of insurance,capital funded socialism) is extremely beneficial to society in certain specific verticals.
The whole point of insurance is (or was) pooled risk. The more the insurance company knows about my risk (even risks I don't know about), the less point there is in me buying insurance; I may as well just put my premiums into a private sinking fund.
> NHS is also chronically underfunded.
That's very much by ideological design. A recent ex-health minister even co-wrote a book which contained this:
> Our ambition should be to break down the barriers between private & public provision, in effect denationalising the provision of health care in Britain.
Notably he became health minister after this, not before, so the appointment says a lot about what the Party has in mind.
If you look at the graph of waiting times, his tenure is from 2012-2018, and the party is in place from 2010 and quickly has the knives out to ruin the then-recent improvement. https://www.statista.com/chart/27447/nhs-hospital-waiting-ti...
The latest squeeze on "efficiency" (dragging this back into technology) is throwing AI (read: more consultancy contracts) at it.
Actual teeth to bite back or remidiate non-compliant activity of a company that the executives have decided to file under the "fuck it, nobody's looking" risk heading are basically not there.
Point being, just because the law is on the books doesn't mean it isn't being elided at every opportunity. You have been warned.
>GINA prohibits health insurers from discrimination based on the genetic information of enrollees. Specifically, health insurers may not use genetic information to determine if someone is eligible for insurance or to make coverage, underwriting or premium-setting decisions.
.....please get back to us on how that opinion ages once your insurance companies get ahold of the data.