Re: Bryant @GATTACA
There is what I would consider a fatal flaw in your argument: there is a difference in between what you are and what you do. They are asking for genetic information - that's not something you can change. Think of it like having, oh maybe black skin.
Now if they were asking if you smoke or run 5 miles every day or eat at McDonald's, that would be ok - that's behaviour that can be changed.
Let's take the information request to the extreme. If we had perfect information about health problems and behaviour, we wouldn't have insurance. Everyone would just be paying for themselves because we would have precise premiums which match circumstances.
In this case, we are creating a class of people who are uninsurable because no-one will want to take on the risk. So they get no healthcare. The genetic analysis may even be wrong but there's no harm to the companies in jacking up the prices or excluding them completely. Who think big data produces accurate relevant results for every data point?
The family car vs Ferrari argument doesn't hold water with health insurance unless you think that some humans are expendable and others should be preserved at great cost.
That's why the government should be providing healthcare. The market doesn't do it well. It may turn a profit, but universal service provision is not something markets do well.
... and we haven't even touched on whether its a good idea to have a large database identifying all the Semites. Was one of your grandparents from a Muslim country? Do we have some "extreme vetting" and a "travel plan" for you!
Biting the hand that feeds IT
