The same people who would install driving monitoring devices to lower their auto insurance[1]. Not everyone cares about privacy.

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/business/seeking-cheaper-i...

It is not just privacy...how about human rights?

"Sorry sir your infant child is not eligible for that heart operation due to the genetic marker we discovered in your profile."

That's not how insurance works now; if you already have insurance for your family, they don't render family members ineligible for therapy based on evidence of predisposition to illness.

And as of 2014, regardless of the nature of the evidence, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to exclude customers based on predisposition to illness or preexisting conditions.

It's not just privacy or human rights; it's an apparently pervasive misconception about what insurance is.

The premise of insurance is that you are insuring against the unknown. If you know that something is the matter with you, then it's no longer insurance. It's getting someone to pay for a treatment that you know you will need. Whether other people should be paying for that is another discussion.

While I think it is important for people to understand the difference between health insurance and a health care plan, there's no actual problem with people banding together and creating health care plans that are no longer, strictly speaking, insurance.

I do think a nontrivial amount of the mess in the health care system is the confusion between the two. People want to create health care plans, but they are trying to make it out of insurance companies, which is going to be problematic at best. Further, people want health care plans but don't want to think about it from an actuarial perspective... because they don't like the answers that come out. That doesn't prevent the answer from coming out, but it does mean we end up trying to build glorious systems that seal themselves away from reality from the get go, and that also can only be problematic at best, total failures at worst.

I think that the more certainty people have about their future medical issues the less likely health care plan groups are to work. What incentive does a future-healthy person have to join with someone who is certain to have high expenses? And why would you trust someone to tell you that they haven't been tested and know what lies ahead?

That's what I'm getting at. The more knowledge all the participants have (and that's both insurance and users), the more the fundamental contradictions between "insurance" and "health care plans" emerge. But closing your eyes and just remaining ignorant is a terrible choice too, because in the medical domain, knowledge isn't just power, it's life.

Already illegal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimi...

In fact, HIPAA might have already forbidden that. The law wasn't clear but it's entirely moot now.

Why not ? laws could be passed to forbid the use of genetic profiles in establishing premium rates the same way gender or ethnicity are not allowed for use when calculating credit scores. We're talking about a win-win-win (consumer, insurance company, state/ fed) situation for everybody if only we could learn to trust a lil bit. Why does every relationship between a consumer & a service provider has to be rooted in mistrust ? EDIT : Why is this being down-voted ?

> Why does every relationship between a consumer & a service provider has to be rooted in mistrust ?

Because of money.

The law was already passed in the U.S.:

"`(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of this section, a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage in connection with a group health plan, may not adjust premium or contribution amounts for the group covered under such plan on the basis of genetic information."

This might be the way we're going even if people don't want to share their genetic profile with their insurance company.. what if 23AndMe and UHC (insurance co.) get into a deal where they provide this service for free? And what if UHC raises premiums on everyone that does not take this test? What if employers require their employees to do this much like drug / background checks?

> And what if UHC raises premiums on everyone that does not take this test?

Don't think that's legal.

> What if employers require their employees to do this much like drug / background checks?

Also don't think that's legal.

In which case they could make it a "voluntary" check. Like the shady employers that demand candidates' Facebook credentials.

Sure, and you say no. Just like you say no to the checkout clerk asking for your phone number when you make a purchase. Same way you so no to a cop when he asks to search your vehicle.

I don't disagree, and that is an easily imaginable scenario. But much like the cop they can still make things at best, uncomfortable, or at worst, nearly intolerable, for you. Creating that sort of de facto requirement is where the real problem lies (there's no legal obligation, but most of those vehicle search requests are performed anyway).

We already have employers requesting "voluntary" disclosure of health information (e.g., cholesterol check) as a condition of continuing group insurance coverage. Since it's illegal to require this information, they make it voluntary - but anyone who opts-out also opts-out of a hefty premium "discount". In reality, the "discounted" rate is closer to what employers would expect to pay for comparable group plans, while the non-discounted premium is high enough that 99% of employees line right up to have their blood drawn by the visiting nurse (conveniently stationed in the conference room down the hall).