3 ms·

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/1119-plan-comparison.html#tab=8 http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/19/us/politics/11... This

• icey 17y ago
  Okay, this argument makes much more sense now; your issue isn't with the actual rates but with the variance between the lowest rates and the highest where age is concerned. I don't have the time to generate the full model, but generally speaking the Senate version of the bill isn't that far off from where variance is in most states today - if you compare the costs between a 20 year old and a 50 year old, you're going to see the 50 year old pays around 3 times what a 20 year old pays. A 64 year old will pay between 5 and 6 times more (these examples are using data from a state with very lax insurance regulation by the way; in states like California and Massachusetts, the variance will be lower). Insurance rates are determined by guessing at the risk of any given pool of people and the estimating costs that may be incurred given the riskiness of the pool. By forcing healthy people to buy insurance, the pool of insured people should become less risky; hopefully drawing costs down. I've got no idea as to whether or not that might happen, but assuming the actuaries continue to derive rates the way that they always have; it should lower costs on the whole.