Reply #20: The differential would be at most 1.5. It wouldn't be 10-20 like it is now.

[BzaDem]

The only provision that allows an insurance company to charge certain people more or less based upon health status is certain wellness incentives. But this amount (1-1.5x) is trivial compared to the differential between the healthy and sick today (10-20x). To even compare the two as remotely similar is sophistry.

And I hate to break it to you, but most claims are paid. There are many that aren't (certainly way too large a percentage), and this is a huge injustice, but it doesn't take away from the seemingly obvious point that someone with private insurance with a 70-80% actuarial value is MUCH better off than someone without any insurance. This has been shown in study after study, and to pretend that private insurance provides NO benefit to ANYONE is also sophistry (and is often peddled by people who are taking advantage of their own private insurance plans and would never cancel them).

While the increase in taxes for single payer is trivial compared to the amount sick people spend on premiums (and on the average person overall), the healthiest people would actually pay more in taxes (since the government won't charge healthy people less and sick people more). On the other hand, if we switch to community rating (where everyone pays roughly the same regardless of health status), then the taxes for single payer WOULD be less than the premiums paid for basically everyone.