Found this on Blue Cross/Blue Shield website. Here is how they see you

[The Straight Story]

(Apologies for any formatting issues, just cut and pasted and have to run for a few)

http://www.bcbs.com/issues/uninsured/background/Oliver-Wyman-Report-Showing-Impact-of-Healthcare-Reform-on-Premiums-pdf.pdf

Insurance Reforms Must Include a Strong Individual Mandate and Other Key
Provisions to Ensure Affordability
October 14, 2009

Mandates with meaningful penalties are highly effective in encouraging a broad cross-section of the
uninsured to purchase coverage when combined with subsidies. For example, the RAND
Corporation’s COMPARE model found that an individual mandate would have the greatest impact
on increasing insurance coverage.9 By itself, an individual mandate with a penalty of 80 percent of
premiums could increase the number of people with insurance by up to 34 million, a 75 percent
reduction in the uninsured.

Executive Summary

The nation is seeking effective solutions to meet the goals of improving the affordability of health
insurance, extending coverage to many of the 45.6 million uninsured and reforming a fragmented
healthcare delivery system. Central to the debate over healthcare reform in Washington is how to
make health insurance more accessible and affordable for millions of Americans who purchase
coverage in the individual market, as well as for small employers.

Legislation pending before Congress includes significant reforms to health insurance industry
practices in both the individual and small group markets. These reforms would require insurers to:
1) offer coverage on a guaranteed issue basis without any pre-existing condition exclusions, 2)
discontinue rating on health status and gender, 3) limit how much premiums vary because of age,
and 4) sell only insurance policies that meet at least new minimum benefit levels.

We modeled the impact of these provisions, along with a variety of other changes included in
pending bills, including subsidies, grandfathering, and reinsurance, to estimate the impact on
insurance premiums in the individual and small group markets. We have done this on a national
level and by state groupings based on their current state insurance rules.

....

Based on our review of available information, we estimate that the morbidity of the uninsured if given access to insurance would be essentially 85% of
the currently insured. We note that this assumption is roughly consistent with assumptions that the CBO used in its evaluation of the available data4.
Using premium, claims, and other available information we estimate that the morbidity of those insured through the individual market is roughly 70%
of the morbidity of the entire universe of people insured through the individual, small group, and large group markets (including self-insured). This
70% factor is the result of the fact that people insured through the individual market, in most states, are medically underwritten5. Combining these two
estimates, the uninsured will have morbidity that is roughly 20% greater than those currently covered in the Individual market.

We also used the distribution of claims expenses in the individual market to estimate the distribution
of expected costs for the uninsured. We assume that the sickest 10 percent of the uninsured are
estimated to have claims that are four to six times higher than the average in the current individual
market, which translates to annual claims of $9,000 to $10,000. This amount is similar to the typical
range observed in states’ high risk insurance pools.

Impact of Insurance Reform on Today’s Market

In most parts of the country today, insurers in the individual market are permitted to underwrite and
design benefit plans with a variety of price points. This flexibility enables a stable, competitive
insurance market. Perhaps most importantly, it offers the greatest affordability to attract younger
and healthier members and helps encourage wider enrollment in health insurance.

.... snip

The proposed insurance reforms will increase claims costs significantly in the individual insurance
market. We estimate the average medical claims for the uninsured are 20 percent higher than claims
in the current individual market. This is because some have not been receiving regular medical care
and some have been unable to obtain coverage at an affordable price as a result of having chronic
conditions.

In addition, certain segments with high medical utilization who are now insured through other
arrangements will enter the individual market as a result of guaranteed issue and modified
community rating requirements. This includes people enrolled in state high risk pools, people
COBRA through their former employers’ coverage and other group conversion policies.

Our model assumes that people will generally act in their economic self-interest. Although
individuals and families cannot predict their health care needs precisely, they often have a re
good idea of their short term needs. Insurance reforms will tend to lower barriers and create
stronger financial incentives for unhealthy people to become insured. As individuals work to
optimize the costs and benefits of different coverage options, the market will become more pro
adverse selection that will increase costs over successive years, especially if insurance reforms are
not coupled with an effective individual mandate.

full PDF here:

http://www.bcbs.com/issues/uninsured/background/Oliver-Wyman-Report-Showing-Impact-of-Healthcare-Reform-on-Premiums-pdf.pdf

[geckosfeet]

1. And we know how concerned health insurers are about the uninsured.

[mmonk]

2. They should run for the Senate.......

nevermind.

[truedelphi]

3. K & R for reading later. n/tg

[walldude]

4. I feel like a number... n/t

[begin_within]

5. They sure love that word "morbidity"

What a lovely thought for the holidays. And that is the company I have insurance with at this time.

[Barack_America]

7. Actually, I'm pretty sure they prefer "mortality". nt

[Barack_America]

6. What? You object to your health being considered a commodity?

:shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

8. "Our model assumes that people will generally act in their economic self-interest"

No shit, Sherlock.

[pitohui]

9. "our model assumes that people will generally act in their economic self interest"

that is not science, that is 18th century ideology

people can't "generally" act in their economic self interest because, in many circumstance, it is impossible to foretell what my economic self interest will be

if it is my fate to be shot dead in a driveby shooting at age 60 after a lifetime of good health where i've never used the health care system for more than routine tests -- i have a different economic self interest from someone whose fate is to be kept alive on machines in a nursing home for 20 years w. dementia (as actually happened to one of my relatives) -- had she known the future, her best ooption would have been never to have become rich, so that it would be unprofitable to keep her alive without a brain on machines and she would have been spared years of useless torture

we don't know, we can't know, what our self interest really is, we're just guessing

which is why we need/want insurance in the first place but also why we need insurance watchdogs

it's also why we need a good dose of humanity and reality in facing end of life issues

i don't trust blue cross/blue shield to make good decisions if they still think adam smith was a scientist