[chimeracoder]

> It shouldn't be a problem in the US. The ACA requires insurers to insure people with pre-existing conditions.

The ACA requires insurers to cover people under the age of 65 with pre-existing conditions and, more importantly, requires them to provide coverage at the same prices regardless of those conditions (they can only set price using a few pieces of information: age, zip code, smoking status, etc.). However, there are a lot of ways that insurers already skirt that second part, such as offering "discounts" to patients for certain elections which are strongly negatively correlated with various pre-existing conditions.

Furthermore, the ACA has seen a number of challenges over the last few years - most recently, the requirement to cover preventive care at no cost to the patient was struck down a few months ago. There's plenty of reason to suspect that this provision will be challenged in the future as well, and could easily be overturned.

[lotsofpulp]

> However, there are a lot of ways that insurers already skirt that second part, such as offering "discounts" to patients for certain elections which are strongly negatively correlated with various pre-existing conditions.

Can you give any examples?

[EvanAnderson]

I agree with you re: the ACA hanging around unscathed. That seems like a bad gamble. Striking it down completely seems politically unlikely, but then there's Roe v. Wade.

[Wohlf]

They aren't skirting anything, discounts were explicitly written in to the ACA to encourage behaviors the government and insurance companies both wanted.