One actuary visiting this site asked me the following question:
"I'm not sure why you assume that actuaries are healthy and therefore in favour of risk classification. Wouldn't actuaries be just as likely as anyone else to be in poor health and/or have genetic defects?"
My answer was:
NO! Definitely not.
(1) To become an actuary it is necessary to attend university, get a job as a trainee actuary, take (and pass) exams etc. All this is much less likely if you have poor health. Even a minor degree of poor health may seriously hinder your ability to PASS exams.
(2) Actuaries who suffer poor health tend to lose their jobs and drop out of the profession, or at least cease to be influential in determining the profession's policies.
The relative good health of actuaries is a very important explanation for the antipathy of the profession towards people with genetic illnesses, and also people with disabilities more generally.
Another important explanation is that actuaries are generally affluent, and so well shielded from the worst economic effects of illness (which is what insurance is about) even if they do become ill.
Relative good health and affluence are of course characteristics shared by the influential members of MOST professions. However other professions either
(a) have a professional paradigm which includes assistance for and compassion towards people who are ill (eg medicine) OR
(b) act both for and against the interests of people with disabilities, at different times and in different situations (eg plaintiff and defendant lawyers) OR
(c) disability and genetics are never professionally relevant issues (eg accountancy).
Thus discrimination against people with genetic illnesses or with disabilities as a professional project appears to be uniquely actuarial.