3 ms·
Currently it is. That can change.
by lostcolony 7y ago
Currently it is. That can change.
- dekhn 7y agoSure, 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.
- zepto 7y agoLike 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.
- LanceH 7y agoSo if things were different, they would be different.
- zepto 7y agoWhat 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?
- dekhn 7y agoThe 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.
- zepto 7y agoThere 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.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- zepto 7y agoPersonalized contracts means no more spreading of risk, which completely negates the value of insurance companies.