[QUOTE=MS Fowler;2417227]Maybe I used the wrong term. By" single pool" I meant requiring insurance companies to base their rates on ALL the people that buy from them. As it is now, there are MANY different groups. Some groups have lower rates because they pose less risk. For instance, non smokers, and non drinkers have lower rates than people over 70 with one lung. Using a single pool might put many actuaries out of work, contributing to the massive unemployment. It also might not improve rates overall, I just don't know. I'd like to see some study on it. Isn't that why the Senate proposes a mandate? To get all those young healthy people (less risk) to join in to keep preimums low? To have comprehensive health reform in this country that delivers coverage for tens of millions of Americans, reduces healthcare costs and builds a system in which healthcare is no longer an issue you can go bankrupt over; to do that you have to have an individual mandate. The reason why is that policy makers need to ensure that both healthy and sick people are coming into the system. Otherwise you will only have sick people and it will drive up costs for everybody. That has been the experience of every state that has tried to do exchanges without an individual mandate.The history of trying to cover people without an individual mandate is generally one of complete and abject failure. The one experiment we have is Massachusetts, which has an individual mandate and is successful. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/02/tanden_interview