This stuff still seems frankly theoretical. I finally opted into long-term disability insurance after using the maximum short-term twice in the span of two year

This stuff still seems frankly theoretical. I finally opted into long-term disability insurance after using the maximum short-term twice in the span of two years because of spinal degeneration in my late 30s. You have to agree to a medical exam and send records to apply for this insurance anyway, and in spite of trying to get it specifically because I'd used up the max short-term, and I am seemingly quite a high risk to actually become disabled, I was still approved. In practice, in talking to co-workers also applying for the same things, the only people who ever got denied were all obese. This is all setting aside that, assuming somewhat symmetric distributions of genetically determined traits, half of all people will have above average genetics. The conversation on the Internet always seems to fixate on people being denied coverage or charged more, but that seems to assume pricing models are just plain malicious, in which case they could charge more and deny you anyway, with or without data. Assuming they're actually using the data and building real predictive models, half the population would benefit from insurance companies having more data. All that said, I would still never submit data to a company like 23andme, and would also never allow the police to have camera feeds of my house, even though I'm extremely confident they would never find a reason to arrest me. It's creepy, feels invasive, and I just don't want it.