In order for health insurance coverage to be priced more specifically, genetic and other tests would have to be made available to insurance providers. There is an understandable concern that such information is "private", but since it is relevant to an insurance contract, there is no real justification for withholding it. Any reference to this kind of privacy is actually a Rawlsian appeal to social justice; one's bad luck or the price of one's bad habits should be shared with others. (Keep in mind, this point is basically a challenge to Libertarians.) Regarding some of the bad "luck", as disease-prone genes become more expensive, there will be greater demand for genetic intervention, thus the scare quotes around luck.
Recall that the distinction between "cure" and "enhancement" has long been a litmus test for the legitimacy of drug use. The double-negative (i.e. eliminating an illness) has been sanctioned while pursuing changes beyond the norms of performance and mood is usually frowned upon — but already legal drugs in the United States have been advertised in ways that blur the line between cures and enhancements, e.g. Viagra and its ilk. This is occurring unreflectively and points to a difficult philosophical problem on the horizon. Specifically, where is the line drawn between the elimination of hereditary diseases through gene therapy and the engineering of more positive traits? Especially when one is the "side-effect" of the other?
In relation to sports, performance-enhancing drugs are roundly disapproved, but life is not a zero-sum game. Excellence is not a negative externality. Should the same logic hold in genetics?
"Freedom" is "power" expressed as a double negative. Some of the most important philosophical problems of this century will relate to the identity and difference of these two concepts, whose similarity happens to be especially apparent in Mandarin Chinese.