Is the provision to allow pricing of 'Age' as a risk in private plans a Poison pill...

Even if the final bill bars charging of additional premiums for 'pre-existing condition' - My fear is that 'Age' will become a surrogate for private insurers to cherry pick the healthier population ...


Follow me on this - Right now private insurers can keep out sick people bases on denial/ overcharging on policies. So any insurance plans that are designed to make health insurance affordable to all ( Same premiums regardsless of conditions) are doomed to failure as the plan, over time, will become saddled with sick people ( who cant get/afford the other private plans) that will either bankrupt the plan or make it increasingly costly.


The current version apparently only allows the insurers to price Age as risk factor - but common sense tells you that Age will have a positive correlation with amount of health care needed. So the public option fails to gather muster and we are left with a bunch of small individual co-ops who will not have a large base to spread their risks - the co-ops could end being saddled with older people who cannot afford to get cheaper coverage ...


Can anyone point to any analysis of the implications to allow pricing of age as a risk factor?


I am concerned about this provision.

The premiums are restricted to doubling between youth and near Medicare age. That's one hell of a lot less than the differential now, should someone actually reach their 60s without being diagnosed with any chronic illness that renders them uninsurable.

Personally, I think ALL risk selection by insurers should be banned, and they should charge the exact same price to any man, woman, or child who gets a policy. As you said, insurance companies will find a way to dump high risks, by any means possible. Even if we ban discrimination based on age, they'll suddenly decide to stop selling policies in areas with large concentrations of elderly people.

Every insurer should be required to charge the same price to anyone who applies, no applicant can be rejected for any reason whatsoever.

And if we are not going to get a public option, every policy should contain a provision that will pay your premiums for up to a year if you lose your job.

My apologies to Buffoons

I think the bill limits it so that the oldest person cannot be charged more than some multiple of the youngest. Currently is it unlimited.

Which would be much better than current practice, including the current practice of refusing to cover 'risky' applicants.