Health insurers offer to not charge the sick more

[Caliga]

So it's like every single thing that journalists write about?

It does make you wonder how much your perceptions are based on utter stupidity of journalists when it coems to topics you don't know much about.

FACT:  The dumbest kids at my university were all communication majors.

[Admiral Yi]

There is a positive effect to the healthy people out of this proposal, however.  Healthy people without insurance would actually be able to buy it.  In most circumstances, the market for individual insurance fails so substantially right now that healthy people are effectively priced out of it.

How does this proposal increase affordability for the healthy uninsured?

[DGuller]

There is a positive effect to the healthy people out of this proposal, however.  Healthy people without insurance would actually be able to buy it.  In most circumstances, the market for individual insurance fails so substantially right now that healthy people are effectively priced out of it.

How does this proposal increase affordability for the healthy uninsured?

Because in many places individual health insurance markets don't function, which results in absurdly high premiums being quoted to healthy applicants.

[garbon]

It does make you wonder how much your perceptions are based on utter stupidity of journalists when it coems to topics you don't know much about.

Just because this is the new forum doesn't mean we need you to bring up this topic again. You've already raised this issue, move on, Sally.

[DGuller]

Another thing to keep in mind is that healthy people can become not-so-healthy as time passes.  The point of insurance is to provide a peace of mind, but when it comes to health insurance, there are problems with this.  It's all too easy to fall through the cracks and suddenly become uninsurable at the worst possible time, for a variety of rather unique and intricate reasons.  In the system with mandated coverage and no screening, that shouldn't be a concern.

[KRonn]

I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish. Car insurance is mandatory, and many people still have to resort to government workarounds. If the government places the requirement, then ultimately the onus is on the government to provide the healthcare or mandate affordability programs for healthcare.

Massachusetts has a mandatory health care plan in place, has had for a few years. Seens as a new and innovative idea. But I keep hearing how the costs to the State are getting onerous, too much to afford. I think it's a good idea on paper, just now sure how it will go in the next few years.

[viper37]

This is one of those articles that make me bang my head against the wall.  It seems like every time journalists try to write about insurance matters, they just can't grasp the main point.  They make it sound like the evil health insurers are feeling threatened, and are offering to behave nice to avoid being hammered by the Democrats. 

it's not like they are trying very hard to not give that impression you know...

It does not occur to the writer of this article that this offer is a sort of a win-win proposition, as the necessity to screen for health history declines greately in system where everyone is mandated to have health insurance.  There is a quote on this right there in the article.  This is also not earth-shattering, the industry has been saying for a while that they won't need to screen the patients in systems with strong mandates.

well, there are multiples ways to see this.
1st, the insurance companies will charge you, Mr Guller, in very good healt, for Mr Viper another insured client with a so-so health and a history of accident.  It's like living in a neigbourhood with a high crime rate despite never being robbed, you'll still get charged a premium, even if you triple lock your doors and have the most sophisticated alarm system while your neighbours don't even bother to lock their doors.
Insurance companies simply can't charge 100% of the cost to a patient, otherwise, there's simply no point to having insurances.

Also, I don't get your point about the screening for health history part.
In the current situation, these people get screened and then are refused.
There's a societal costs to that, as sick workers can't work full time and pay the entirety of the taxes they should since they work less.
There's also a rise in healthcare costs since uninsured people are more likely to go bankrupt and not pay their hospital bills; then the hospital needs to raise it's base fees so it can recover the lost money from insurance companies.  You'll also quite often see the illegal practice of charging more to insurance companies than to uninsured people.  Again, rising costs of healthcare.

If they do what they propose, they will not discriminate toward the patient nor will they charge him more for a diagnosed disease like diabetes for example.  Hence, they need to recover their costs somewhere else, so their base premium increase for all clients, otherwise, they lose money.

There's also the lawyering costs.  How many times have I read a news article about people suing their insurance company to get them to pay for their medical expenses?  People tying up judges, clerks, space, lawyer's time paid for either by the insurance company that will lose, or simply won't take any money from this case hence ends up charging more the next time...

It seems to me that this system is no more efficient than our own.  Wich is really not a compliment.

Eventually, some form of universal health coverage will be necessary for the US.  It will avoid future car companies' bailout   - maybe

And I don't see a problem with this as long as the citizen are given the choice of opting out the public insurance with their own.

With any luck, it will be one more competitor on the market.  And it seems it's already working...