sleight of hand Nobel Laureate Paul Nurse says the predictive power of genetics will make defunct the business models of life and health insurers. And so, he concludes, we'll need national health care:

Thirty to 50 years from now, you have to have social medicine and society-based insurance systems.

If the non sequitur isn't wholly obvious, think about the following "argument":

The internet makes defunct the business models of the recording industry. Ten to 20 years from now, you'll have to have a national music program.

What the "argument" neglects, of course, is the possibility of alternative business models. Insurance is a way to spread the risk of unpredictable (but rare) occurrences. It's true that taking a genetic test can remove the "unpredictable" piece and blow up the insurance model. But that's not a fatal flaw. Alex Tabbarok, for instance, has proposed insuring oneself against bad outcomes of genetic tests:

He proposes allowing consumers to buy insurance before taking a test to determine if an individual has a genetic predisposition for diseases such as Alzheimer's, high blood pressure and breast cancer. If the test comes back positive, the policy would cover the cost of any related increase in health insurance rates. He predicted that people who bought a policy would not avoid getting gene tests for fear their insurance rates would rise. In theory, these warnings might compel people to seek treatment earlier or take better care of themselves, thereby improving public health.

Of course, it's likely that Nurse supports national health care regardless, and that his "argument" and credentials give his politics the weight of science. But his policy prescriptions aren't as inevitable (or sensible) as he'd like you to believe.