5 ms·

Genetic Discrimination Is Coming for Us All

49 points by elsewhen 2y ago

lm28469 2y ago
Who could have predicted this... I still remember the discussion on this very forum years ago when these cheap DNA services opened and it was about 50/50 between people saying there was no risks and people saying we were opening pandora's box.
- LinuxBender 2y ago
  In the 90's I brought this up to my squadron commander. He asked if I was afraid they would clone me. I said, "No sir, you should be afraid you would clone me." and we both had a chuckle because that was true. I had explained that multiple people already had their insurance retroactively cancelled whilst laid up in a hospital bed with a $100K+ bill because their DNA indicated the individual had a high probability of becoming an alcoholic some day. The commander sent me down the path of FOIA knowing it would stall the requirement to submit blood to Washington DC for classified reasons and I was able to get out of the military by the time FOIA had completed. I ended up with several big boxes of paperwork that amounted to - they can do whatever they want with my DNA and hold it for any period of time and provide access to whomever they wanted. I have zero regrets for fighting/stalling that one. To this day people are still dismissive about DNA privacy. I can not wrap my head around that. Countries are already working on duel-use medicine that can also be used as highly targeted genetic weapons. I can think of thousands of highly dystopian uses for DNA.
Rinzler89 2y ago
Wait, hol'up, GATTACA was suppose to be a work of fiction, not a model to implement IRL. Stop the planet, I wish to get off.
currymj 2y ago
An important fact (illustrated wonderfully in “Gattaca” which everyone rightly loves) is that there is not naturally any such thing as genetic privacy. If someone wants your DNA, you are constantly leaving it everywhere you go, and sequencing and checking SNPs just keeps getting cheaper and easier. So genetic privacy, or at least nondiscrimination, is something we need to actively create with laws and social norms, if we want it.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- krunck 2y ago
  Yep. For example, I can see a person is black/asian/whatever. And our society (well, most of it) acknowledges that to discriminate based on that is wrong. Someone can get my DNA data. Society needs to also acknowledge that discrimination based on that is also wrong.
  - underlipton 2y ago
    What should terrify you is that "most of it" is highly contingent on context. "I can excuse racism, but I draw the line at _____," is a real thing. (Last week, it was "egg prices.") Never underestimate people's willingness to ruin or end your life, and the lives of those they can put in a box with you, over something that is transitory and/or fixable. Genetic discrimination is just another, perhaps more versatile, box.
- Phanyxx 2y ago
  Data privacy is an instructive example of what happens in a more free-for-all situation. If there were stringent protections in place, the data broker industry wouldn't exist.
OutOfHere 2y ago
Only get tested anonymously for such sensitive tests, not the regular way.
- sneed_chucker 2y ago
  Your genes are the mother of all PII.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    When they do a specific gene test, they don't do full genome sequencing. I don't know why this is difficult to understand.
- maeil 2y ago
  And then a family member uses a non-anonymois service. Now you have to hope that those two never end up in the same pile of data, and our experience says that it's an inevitably for that to happen at some point. Anonymous testing also seems very limited in availability.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    When the lab does a specific gene test, they don't do full genome sequencing. I don't know why this is difficult to understand. Even if a family member does the same test later, the same logic applies. The two results can't then be linked because their full genomes were not sequenced, and wouldn't be cost effective to sequence anyway.
andrewlgood 2y ago
I must confess this does not seem to be a problem to me. Private insurance is not meant to be a welfare product. It is meant to be a risk transfer. In a competitive market the expected value should be slightly negative to the consumer as the insurance company needs to make a reasonable profit. An important aspect of the transaction is information symmetry. If you knew you had a terminal disease and only 3 months to live and could buy a $1 million life insurance policy after finding out the information and had no obligation to share the diagnosis with the insurance company, life insurance companies would all go bankrupt. If they raised their rates high enough to cover this scenario, non-terminally ill people would never be able to afford it (significantly negative expected value). This is the same issue with health and long term insurance. Once the genetic test is completed and the individual realizes they have a higher chance of getting ALS, the rate for their specific insurance should go up. They have a greater chance of having it pay out. Any other method either leads to bankrupt insurers. In my opinion, what Bill should have done is bought the long term care BEFORE he had the genetic test done.
- d--b 2y ago
  Insuring companies could mandate DNA tests before setting the contract price. As they already do with blood tests and ECG. Health insurance is not welfare - IN THE USA. With universal health care, it goes without saying that society as a whole covers for the people that are more at risk.
- triceratops 2y ago
  In other words private insurance is unable to make a profit while providing value to all customers. There's a word for businesses like that...
  - gruez 2y ago
    A business? I'm not sure why you seem to have the impression that businesses should serve any and all customers, even at a loss to them.
    - throwanem 2y ago
wjnc 2y ago
From the perspective of "European" insurance... this is what you get if you let unbridled adverse selection into your market(s). Health insurance is perfectly manageable (if and only?) if you accept (some) mandatory coverage. Otherwise the market will unravel. Same for other types of coverage with medical acceptance (life, disability). Once you start on that treadmill, you will lose large parts of the market where the product / coverage would actually be most benificial in terms of utility. You do need some way of making the product work both ways (could be long term contracts, prohibition on using certain types of information, ...). Example: My firms has a niche. It turns what usually is an individual disability product (where you have to have extensive medical checks up front to deal with adverse selection), into a product sold to employers for most or all employees at once (that is the key). Yes, in my country disability is a subject that employers and unions actually talk about in collective bargaining. That pretty small change takes away the adverse selection. It makes the average claim manageable, it shares burdens and keeps pricing acceptable. We are even experimenting with blank acceptance for employees who opted-out earlier. That's tricky since that brings back the adverse selection on the individual level. Still learning about how to reduce that effect, while keeping our product affordable and manageable.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Health insurance is perfectly manageable (if and only?) if you accept (some) mandatory coverage. Otherwise the market will unravel. Isn't that what obamacare was supposed to solve by making health insurance "mandatory"?
  - nemomarx 2y ago
    I think it ended up having too much variability in coverage, so like car insurance everyone gets pretty cheap plans? mandatory medicare would have a very wide risk pool in comparison right
    - telgareith 2y ago
      Basically.
  - 2y ago
codeptualize 2y ago
You could focus on the discrimination, or you could fix the healthcare system. It seems that this can only be a problem if there isn't universal access to healthcare with some form of mandatory health insurance, medicare for all, whatever system that makes healthcare a right and covers everyone regardless of pre existing conditions and economic situation.
- hcidhfc 2y ago
  That doesn't fix the issue because then people will stigmatize things that have negative health consequences which is what already happens in pieces like Europe.
  - philosopher1234 2y ago
    Stigmatizing things that have negative health consequences seems good..?
  - codeptualize 2y ago
    It does solve this problem. Sure healthy things are promoted, unhealthy things are sometimes taxed more (like smoking), that's a good thing. But I can do what I want, and if I get sick or injured because of my actions, my genetics, or whatever reason, I can still get insurance and healthcare. Doesn't mean our system is without problems, of course it has plenty, but not these..
jagger27 2y ago
Cmd+F eug Are we using "genetic discrimination" now? I thought we already had a perfectly serviceable word.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Bill doesn’t have ALS. He’s a healthy 60-year-old man [...] The word you're thinking of isn't even applicable in this case. At 60 year old, the chances of him passing on genes is highly unlikely. Denying him insurance might suck for different reasons, but it's hardly going to affect the gene pool.
  - throwanem 2y ago
    > At 60 year old, the chances of him passing on genes is highly unlikely. Better than even odds is "unlikely" by you? > JUNE 13, 2019 – About 61.6% of men (74.7 million men) age 15 and over are fathers, and of those, 72.2 million men have a biological child, according to a new Men’s Fertility and Fatherhood: 2014 report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. [1] [1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/mens-fertility.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/mens-fer...
    - gruez 2y ago
      You missed the point. He might have had kids back when he was 25 or whatever, but denying him insurance when he's 60 is like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
      - throwanem 2y ago
        Fair enough; on review my argument was indeed not on point. The perils of commenting while distracted, I suppose.
    - technothrasher 2y ago
      The poster wasn't talking about men over 60 that are fathers, it was men over 60 who will likely have another child. Your statistics drop from ~62% of men who father children to ~0.1% of men over 45 who father a child (and undoubtedly that goes to almost 0% after 60).
trevyn 2y ago
[flagged]
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  Another friendly reminder: The Washington Post is Jeff Bezos' vanity blog. Don't assume all hate of Elon Musk is purely political when the owner also runs Blue Origin. (Blue Origin has also, arguably, done more lawsuits against SpaceX particularly than actual innovation.)
htrp 2y ago
> In 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was signed into law, ensuring that employers couldn’t decide to hire or fire you, and health insurers couldn’t decide whether to issue a policy, based on DNA. But lawmakers carved out a host of exceptions. Insurers offering life, long-term-care, or disability insurance could take DNA into account. Too many high-risk people in an insurance pool, they argued, could raise prices for everyone. Those exceptions are why an insurer was able to deny Bill a long-term-care policy. Technically Gattaca is off the table at least for health insurance and employment.
Hizonner 2y ago
> Bill’s family had always thought it was a freak coincidence that his father and grandfather both had ALS. Bill's family isn't too bright. > An ALS specialist ordered Bill a DNA test. ... and Bill took it, which shows that Bill isn't too bright either.
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Plenty of smart people are not experts on chronic diseases and trust what their healthcare providers suggest. There’s no need to be rude about it.
  - Hizonner 2y ago
    It has nothing to do with being an "expert on chronic diseases", and everything to do with not getting yourself formally diagnosed while you're applying for insurance.
jmclnx 2y ago
I also think this may depend upon the State you live in. At this moment of time, I expect Bill lives in a Red State. But as time goes on, I can see this spreading to all States as the US continues on with Privatizing Medical Care. With the new incoming admin., I expect this will get worse. Not that the Current administration did a great deal fix health care for the US. He did lower some drug costs for Medicare, but nothing for other people.
- zackmorris 2y ago
  Ya this is the fallacy with leaving human rights up to the states. There are certain shared values which must be defended in order to have a free society. Which means that people who don't see a problem with these eventualities (due to their intolerance) can't be allowed to control government. The tolerant can't tolerate intolerance because the intolerant break the rules of the game and eventually collapse civil society. Unfortunately I've watched intolerance reign for most of my life, definitely the last 25 years, which is roughly everything after the Dot Bomb, 9/11, etc. Now ignorance fueled by propaganda created by billionaires under wealth inequality determines our election outcomes and I worry that it may be too late to stop the global societal collapse that's coming.
  - jmclnx 2y ago
    Yes, I agree with you on this. But we are seeing one big bomb coming our way. Climate Change. It is a race on what happens first. To me Climate Change will be like a cleansing, and since most governments of "first world" countries refused to address it over the past 50 years. Everyone will get to pay the price now :( Now/soon the US is doubling down on speeding up Climate Change, and as usual the young will suffer the most.
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
smiley1437 2y ago
Did you know you can buy an Oxford Nanopore sequencer for about $2000 euro? It sits on your desk and it will sequence DNA or RNA at about 450 bases per second https://nanoporetech.com/platform/technology https://nanoporetech.com/platform/technology It somehow grabs a free strand of DNA\RNA and pulls it through a specially constructed pore on a membrane. It reads the voltage change as it goes through because each type of base (ATGC) changes the voltage differently, and interprets the sequence and outputs the data in a file. Doesn't even need PCR amplification because it reads a single strand. I thought it must be fake because it sounds like something out of science fiction but Nature did an article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01108-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01108-x Mind blowing
- gruez 2y ago
  What's the accuracy of this compared to commercial sequencing services, and what's the actual TCO? Can 20 people do a group buy for one machine, and use it to get truly private DNA sequencing for $150 ($100 capex + $50 for consumables)?
GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago
Since this is focusing on US law: You cannot be denied health insurance based on the outcome of a genetic test, even in the pre-ACA days. Back before the ACA, you COULD be denied insurance once you have a manifest disease (which would then be considered a pre-existing condition.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim... However, "The law does not cover life, disability, or long-term care insurance, which may cause some reluctance to get tested."
red-iron-pine 2y ago
man we're really heading for that corpo cyberpunk dystopia, huh?

49 points by elsewhen 2y ago

Who could have predicted this... I still remember the discussion on this very forum years ago when these cheap DNA services opened and it was about 50/50 between people saying there was no risks and people saying we were opening pandora's box.

LinuxBender 2y ago
In the 90's I brought this up to my squadron commander. He asked if I was afraid they would clone me. I said, "No sir, you should be afraid you would clone me." and we both had a chuckle because that was true. I had explained that multiple people already had their insurance retroactively cancelled whilst laid up in a hospital bed with a $100K+ bill because their DNA indicated the individual had a high probability of becoming an alcoholic some day. The commander sent me down the path of FOIA knowing it would stall the requirement to submit blood to Washington DC for classified reasons and I was able to get out of the military by the time FOIA had completed. I ended up with several big boxes of paperwork that amounted to - they can do whatever they want with my DNA and hold it for any period of time and provide access to whomever they wanted. I have zero regrets for fighting/stalling that one. To this day people are still dismissive about DNA privacy. I can not wrap my head around that. Countries are already working on duel-use medicine that can also be used as highly targeted genetic weapons. I can think of thousands of highly dystopian uses for DNA.

Rinzler89 2y ago

Wait, hol'up, GATTACA was suppose to be a work of fiction, not a model to implement IRL. Stop the planet, I wish to get off.

currymj 2y ago

An important fact (illustrated wonderfully in “Gattaca” which everyone rightly loves) is that there is not naturally any such thing as genetic privacy. If someone wants your DNA, you are constantly leaving it everywhere you go, and sequencing and checking SNPs just keeps getting cheaper and easier. So genetic privacy, or at least nondiscrimination, is something we need to actively create with laws and social norms, if we want it.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
krunck 2y ago
Yep. For example, I can see a person is black/asian/whatever. And our society (well, most of it) acknowledges that to discriminate based on that is wrong. Someone can get my DNA data. Society needs to also acknowledge that discrimination based on that is also wrong.
- underlipton 2y ago
  What should terrify you is that "most of it" is highly contingent on context. "I can excuse racism, but I draw the line at _____," is a real thing. (Last week, it was "egg prices.") Never underestimate people's willingness to ruin or end your life, and the lives of those they can put in a box with you, over something that is transitory and/or fixable. Genetic discrimination is just another, perhaps more versatile, box.
Phanyxx 2y ago
Data privacy is an instructive example of what happens in a more free-for-all situation. If there were stringent protections in place, the data broker industry wouldn't exist.

OutOfHere 2y ago

Only get tested anonymously for such sensitive tests, not the regular way.

sneed_chucker 2y ago
Your genes are the mother of all PII.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  When they do a specific gene test, they don't do full genome sequencing. I don't know why this is difficult to understand.
maeil 2y ago
And then a family member uses a non-anonymois service. Now you have to hope that those two never end up in the same pile of data, and our experience says that it's an inevitably for that to happen at some point. Anonymous testing also seems very limited in availability.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  When the lab does a specific gene test, they don't do full genome sequencing. I don't know why this is difficult to understand. Even if a family member does the same test later, the same logic applies. The two results can't then be linked because their full genomes were not sequenced, and wouldn't be cost effective to sequence anyway.

andrewlgood 2y ago

I must confess this does not seem to be a problem to me. Private insurance is not meant to be a welfare product. It is meant to be a risk transfer. In a competitive market the expected value should be slightly negative to the consumer as the insurance company needs to make a reasonable profit. An important aspect of the transaction is information symmetry. If you knew you had a terminal disease and only 3 months to live and could buy a $1 million life insurance policy after finding out the information and had no obligation to share the diagnosis with the insurance company, life insurance companies would all go bankrupt. If they raised their rates high enough to cover this scenario, non-terminally ill people would never be able to afford it (significantly negative expected value). This is the same issue with health and long term insurance. Once the genetic test is completed and the individual realizes they have a higher chance of getting ALS, the rate for their specific insurance should go up. They have a greater chance of having it pay out. Any other method either leads to bankrupt insurers. In my opinion, what Bill should have done is bought the long term care BEFORE he had the genetic test done.

d--b 2y ago
Insuring companies could mandate DNA tests before setting the contract price. As they already do with blood tests and ECG. Health insurance is not welfare - IN THE USA. With universal health care, it goes without saying that society as a whole covers for the people that are more at risk.
triceratops 2y ago
In other words private insurance is unable to make a profit while providing value to all customers. There's a word for businesses like that...
- gruez 2y ago
  A business? I'm not sure why you seem to have the impression that businesses should serve any and all customers, even at a loss to them.
  - throwanem 2y ago

wjnc 2y ago

From the perspective of "European" insurance... this is what you get if you let unbridled adverse selection into your market(s). Health insurance is perfectly manageable (if and only?) if you accept (some) mandatory coverage. Otherwise the market will unravel. Same for other types of coverage with medical acceptance (life, disability). Once you start on that treadmill, you will lose large parts of the market where the product / coverage would actually be most benificial in terms of utility. You do need some way of making the product work both ways (could be long term contracts, prohibition on using certain types of information, ...). Example: My firms has a niche. It turns what usually is an individual disability product (where you have to have extensive medical checks up front to deal with adverse selection), into a product sold to employers for most or all employees at once (that is the key). Yes, in my country disability is a subject that employers and unions actually talk about in collective bargaining. That pretty small change takes away the adverse selection. It makes the average claim manageable, it shares burdens and keeps pricing acceptable. We are even experimenting with blank acceptance for employees who opted-out earlier. That's tricky since that brings back the adverse selection on the individual level. Still learning about how to reduce that effect, while keeping our product affordable and manageable.

gruez 2y ago
>Health insurance is perfectly manageable (if and only?) if you accept (some) mandatory coverage. Otherwise the market will unravel. Isn't that what obamacare was supposed to solve by making health insurance "mandatory"?
- nemomarx 2y ago
  I think it ended up having too much variability in coverage, so like car insurance everyone gets pretty cheap plans? mandatory medicare would have a very wide risk pool in comparison right
  - telgareith 2y ago
    Basically.
- 2y ago

codeptualize 2y ago

You could focus on the discrimination, or you could fix the healthcare system. It seems that this can only be a problem if there isn't universal access to healthcare with some form of mandatory health insurance, medicare for all, whatever system that makes healthcare a right and covers everyone regardless of pre existing conditions and economic situation.

hcidhfc 2y ago
That doesn't fix the issue because then people will stigmatize things that have negative health consequences which is what already happens in pieces like Europe.
- philosopher1234 2y ago
  Stigmatizing things that have negative health consequences seems good..?
- codeptualize 2y ago
  It does solve this problem. Sure healthy things are promoted, unhealthy things are sometimes taxed more (like smoking), that's a good thing. But I can do what I want, and if I get sick or injured because of my actions, my genetics, or whatever reason, I can still get insurance and healthcare. Doesn't mean our system is without problems, of course it has plenty, but not these..

jagger27 2y ago

Cmd+F eug Are we using "genetic discrimination" now? I thought we already had a perfectly serviceable word.

gruez 2y ago
>Bill doesn’t have ALS. He’s a healthy 60-year-old man [...] The word you're thinking of isn't even applicable in this case. At 60 year old, the chances of him passing on genes is highly unlikely. Denying him insurance might suck for different reasons, but it's hardly going to affect the gene pool.
- throwanem 2y ago
  > At 60 year old, the chances of him passing on genes is highly unlikely. Better than even odds is "unlikely" by you? > JUNE 13, 2019 – About 61.6% of men (74.7 million men) age 15 and over are fathers, and of those, 72.2 million men have a biological child, according to a new Men’s Fertility and Fatherhood: 2014 report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. [1] [1] https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/mens-fertility.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2019/mens-fer...
  - gruez 2y ago
    You missed the point. He might have had kids back when he was 25 or whatever, but denying him insurance when he's 60 is like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
    - throwanem 2y ago
      Fair enough; on review my argument was indeed not on point. The perils of commenting while distracted, I suppose.
  - technothrasher 2y ago
    The poster wasn't talking about men over 60 that are fathers, it was men over 60 who will likely have another child. Your statistics drop from ~62% of men who father children to ~0.1% of men over 45 who father a child (and undoubtedly that goes to almost 0% after 60).

trevyn 2y ago

[flagged]

gjsman-1000 2y ago
Another friendly reminder: The Washington Post is Jeff Bezos' vanity blog. Don't assume all hate of Elon Musk is purely political when the owner also runs Blue Origin. (Blue Origin has also, arguably, done more lawsuits against SpaceX particularly than actual innovation.)

htrp 2y ago

> In 2008, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was signed into law, ensuring that employers couldn’t decide to hire or fire you, and health insurers couldn’t decide whether to issue a policy, based on DNA. But lawmakers carved out a host of exceptions. Insurers offering life, long-term-care, or disability insurance could take DNA into account. Too many high-risk people in an insurance pool, they argued, could raise prices for everyone. Those exceptions are why an insurer was able to deny Bill a long-term-care policy. Technically Gattaca is off the table at least for health insurance and employment.

Hizonner 2y ago

> Bill’s family had always thought it was a freak coincidence that his father and grandfather both had ALS. Bill's family isn't too bright. > An ALS specialist ordered Bill a DNA test. ... and Bill took it, which shows that Bill isn't too bright either.

saagarjha 2y ago
Plenty of smart people are not experts on chronic diseases and trust what their healthcare providers suggest. There’s no need to be rude about it.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  It has nothing to do with being an "expert on chronic diseases", and everything to do with not getting yourself formally diagnosed while you're applying for insurance.

jmclnx 2y ago

I also think this may depend upon the State you live in. At this moment of time, I expect Bill lives in a Red State. But as time goes on, I can see this spreading to all States as the US continues on with Privatizing Medical Care. With the new incoming admin., I expect this will get worse. Not that the Current administration did a great deal fix health care for the US. He did lower some drug costs for Medicare, but nothing for other people.

zackmorris 2y ago
Ya this is the fallacy with leaving human rights up to the states. There are certain shared values which must be defended in order to have a free society. Which means that people who don't see a problem with these eventualities (due to their intolerance) can't be allowed to control government. The tolerant can't tolerate intolerance because the intolerant break the rules of the game and eventually collapse civil society. Unfortunately I've watched intolerance reign for most of my life, definitely the last 25 years, which is roughly everything after the Dot Bomb, 9/11, etc. Now ignorance fueled by propaganda created by billionaires under wealth inequality determines our election outcomes and I worry that it may be too late to stop the global societal collapse that's coming.
- jmclnx 2y ago
  Yes, I agree with you on this. But we are seeing one big bomb coming our way. Climate Change. It is a race on what happens first. To me Climate Change will be like a cleansing, and since most governments of "first world" countries refused to address it over the past 50 years. Everyone will get to pay the price now :( Now/soon the US is doubling down on speeding up Climate Change, and as usual the young will suffer the most.

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

smiley1437 2y ago

Did you know you can buy an Oxford Nanopore sequencer for about $2000 euro? It sits on your desk and it will sequence DNA or RNA at about 450 bases per second https://nanoporetech.com/platform/technology https://nanoporetech.com/platform/technology It somehow grabs a free strand of DNA\RNA and pulls it through a specially constructed pore on a membrane. It reads the voltage change as it goes through because each type of base (ATGC) changes the voltage differently, and interprets the sequence and outputs the data in a file. Doesn't even need PCR amplification because it reads a single strand. I thought it must be fake because it sounds like something out of science fiction but Nature did an article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01108-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-021-01108-x Mind blowing

gruez 2y ago
What's the accuracy of this compared to commercial sequencing services, and what's the actual TCO? Can 20 people do a group buy for one machine, and use it to get truly private DNA sequencing for $150 ($100 capex + $50 for consumables)?

GlibMonkeyDeath 2y ago

Since this is focusing on US law: You cannot be denied health insurance based on the outcome of a genetic test, even in the pre-ACA days. Back before the ACA, you COULD be denied insurance once you have a manifest disease (which would then be considered a pre-existing condition.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrim... However, "The law does not cover life, disability, or long-term care insurance, which may cause some reluctance to get tested."

red-iron-pine 2y ago

man we're really heading for that corpo cyberpunk dystopia, huh?