OT: AHCA

[MKOTiger]

rand paul's plan is the only way to go. no mandates, no coverage for pre-existing coverages (otherwise it's not really insurance), legalize interstate insurance sales, and let individuals that don't have employer coverage pool by association. Tired of this back and forth nonsense.

Sorry, the proposal is to have no coverage exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

 

[toolucky52384]

I don't think that would work very efficiently. Are you going to have a mandate for preventive care? Are you going to mandate lower rates by the high deductible carrier for citizens that purchase preventive coverage. I don't think there is any way to coordinate those rates or coverage. So, the preventive carrier charges a universal rate and the catastrophic carriers charges rates without taking into effect preventive care. So, the consumer ends up paying double, first the cost of preventive care, and second the cost of not having preventive care.

i don't think you understood my meaning... i am in favor of a 100% government single payer option for preventative care up to a certain cost point. everything after that should be supplemental coverage with most people having catastrophic.

there is no reason to have "insurance companies" involved in preventative care because everyone needs it. as someone stated above... it isn't insurance it is a payment plan at that point.

 

[toolucky52384]

Amazing to me how Medicare is accepted in our country but universal healthcare for everyone else is a polarizing topic.

so there is the little problem that medicare is the program that is forecasted to essentially plummet us into a debt death spiral.

 

[MKOTiger]

i don't think you understood my meaning... i am in favor of a 100% government single payer option for preventative care up to a certain cost point. everything after that should be supplemental coverage with most people having catastrophic.

there is no reason to have "insurance companies" involved in preventative care because everyone needs it. as someone stated above... it isn't insurance it is a payment plan at that point.

I understand. My point is that a limited single payer plan would be extremely inefficient. Basically, the worst of both worlds.

 

[FLaw47]

I understand. My point is that a limited single payer plan would be extremely inefficient. Basically, the worst of both worlds.

Like Medicare is extremely inefficient?

 

[MKOTiger]

Like Medicare is extremely inefficient?

Look, I'm sure you are a young guy and that you are veryidealistic. I'm not going to reiterate my prior posts to you here. Hopefully you have read those. I'm simply trying to show you a different perspective and explain why the situation is much more complicated than you've posted. I do address these issues for my work and I I'm pretty knowledgeable about the subject matter. I don't know the answers, but a lot of people smarter than me don't have answers either. You can take that for what it's worth but I only ask that you be open minded. I believe that I am.

 

[toolucky52384]

I understand. My point is that a limited single payer plan would be extremely inefficient. Basically, the worst of both worlds.

i'm not sure i'd agree that healthcare has been an efficient market in this country anytime in the last 30 years... i believe in some level of universal health care, but i'm against a complete government takeover that slows down approvals, doctor choice, and choice of coverage level.

would i prefer a world where it was all HSA's... yes... but public health is a complicated problem... because it is a public issue. i know that an all hsa system would leave dumb people without money to pay because they wouldn't save and then they get sick and then it affects me, because despite all my attempts, i can't avoid dumb people.

 

[MKOTiger]

Like Medicare is extremely inefficient?

For administrative purposes, compared to a 50 state run systems also subject to ERISA, COBRA and federal Medicare and Medicaid requirements, Medicare is much more efficient. As a complete overhaul of our healthcare system, the answer is unequivocally no.

 

[FLaw47]

The first point is not true when compared to the UK. You might have a physician in Britain servicing 400 families. That same physician may be able to service only 100 in Arizona. The same applies to hospitals, medical equipment, nurses, etc.

Your second point is also incorrect. Approximately 45% of our labor force earn under the min poverty level and don't pay taxes. Everyone else would have to cover this group which would account to a 20-25% increase in taxes. And that's still not going to fix many of the underlying issues which cause US heathcare to be so costly and there is a good chance that the quality of care will decrease. It certainly will decrease if we are forced to manage costs in an amount necessary to make it viable/acceptable.

Firstly, the UK isn't usually at the top of the highest rated healthcare systems so 1) we're probably not going to try to emulate their system and 2) we don't have to copy one countries and that's it. I don't know what you're trying to say here. The UK has a doctor providing care to more patients because it's smaller? I could see what you're saying if your claim is that the population density is higher so you aren't forced to spread services out geographically but this doesn't make any sense.

No, I'm not incorrect on point 2. Payroll taxes hit everyone. Federal Income Tax is something that a non-negligible part of the population doesn't pay. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/04/06/the-truth-about-taxes-just-about-everyone-pays-them/

It would not amount to a 20-25% increase in taxes, I'm going to need to see some math on that. Bernie Sander's proposal was, I believe, a ~2% payroll tax on employees and a ~6% payroll tax on employers. This corresponded with a somewhat more progressive income tax structure as well. His plan was criticized for being too optimistic in its costs but nobody said "he's off by a factor of 5". Closest thing I could find in a pinch: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

Also worth noting is that while taxes certainly will go up with a single payer system, overall expenditures towards healthcare would drop (in theory). Sure the federal government would be paying more but we would no longer have insurance premiums, we'd have lower costs at the point of service, employers would no longer provide healthcare, and wages would rise because this benefit is no longer meaningful.

 

[FLaw47]

For administrative purposes, compared to a 50 state run systems also subject to ERISA, COBRA and federal Medicare and Medicaid requirements, Medicare is much more efficient. As a complete overhaul of our healthcare system, the answer is unequivocally no.

Why? It what way does it become less efficient? You keep stating things as though they're true and don't back them up at all.

 

[MKOTiger]

i'm not sure i'd agree that healthcare has been an efficient market in this country anytime in the last 30 years... i believe in some level of universal health care, but i'm against a complete government takeover that slows down approvals, doctor choice, and choice of coverage level.

would i prefer a world where it was all HSA's... yes... but public health is a complicated problem... because it is a public issue. i know that an all hsa system would leave dumb people without money to pay because they wouldn't save and then they get sick and then it affects me, because despite all my attempts, i can't avoid dumb people.

I'm not saying our system is efficient at all. It's extremely inefficient. However that's not the main reason our health care is so expensive (an issue for a different discussion).

I'm just saying that Insurance providers generally use preventive treatment as a way to curb expenses and reduce costs (healthier people cost less for overall care so preventive treatment actually saves $). By bifurcating that, you lose that efficiency.

 

[toolucky52384]

Why? It what way does it become less efficient? You keep stating things as though they're true and don't back them up at all.

medicare's administrative costs are the only thing ever referenced as an example of its efficiency... measure shouldn't be the % of money that goes through that is administrative cost, the measure should be the care provided and the cost of the care.

as i said earlier in this tread... cost of care is the problem with healthcare... not the cost of coverage.

 

[toolucky52384]

I'm not saying our system is efficient at all. It's extremely inefficient. However that's not the main reason our health care is so expensive (an issue for a different discussion).

I'm just saying that Insurance providers generally use preventive treatment as a way to curb expenses and reduce costs (healthier people cost less for overall care so preventive treatment actually saves $). By bifurcating that, you lose that efficiency.

if it was a universal system where everyone had preventative coverage then you would have healthier people.

i know preventative care saves money, but preventive care is also essentially a pass through. it doesn't save the system money because the insurance companies are involved in it, it saves money because it prevents the bigger costs. it could still prevent those bigger costs regardless of whether the insurance companies were involved.

 

[MKOTiger]

if it was a universal system where everyone had preventative coverage then you would have healthier people.

i know preventative care saves money, but preventive care is also essentially a pass through. it doesn't save the system money because the insurance companies are involved in it, it saves money because it prevents the bigger costs. it could still prevent those bigger costs regardless of whether the insurance companies were involved.

Yes, but that would require mandated preventive care, which is why I asked initially. And if you have mandate preventive care, why not mandate it all and go with a single payer ... but if you do that you end up with the problems I've already posed.

 

[MKOTiger]

Why? It what way does it become less efficient? You keep stating things as though they're true and don't back them up at all.

You are correct, I should have said less effective, not less efficient.

 

[MKOTiger]

Firstly, the UK isn't usually at the top of the highest rated healthcare systems so 1) we're probably not going to try to emulate their system and 2) we don't have to copy one countries and that's it. I don't know what you're trying to say here. The UK has a doctor providing care to more patients because it's smaller? I could see what you're saying if your claim is that the population density is higher so you aren't forced to spread services out geographically but this doesn't make any sense.

No, I'm not incorrect on point 2. Payroll taxes hit everyone. Federal Income Tax is something that a non-negligible part of the population doesn't pay. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/jobs/2012/04/06/the-truth-about-taxes-just-about-everyone-pays-them/

It would not amount to a 20-25% increase in taxes, I'm going to need to see some math on that. Bernie Sander's proposal was, I believe, a ~2% payroll tax on employees and a ~6% payroll tax on employers. This corresponded with a somewhat more progressive income tax structure as well. His plan was criticized for being too optimistic in its costs but nobody said "he's off by a factor of 5". Closest thing I could find in a pinch: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...-bankrupt-america-to-the-tune-of-18-trillion/

Also worth noting is that while taxes certainly will go up with a single payer system, overall expenditures towards healthcare would drop (in theory). Sure the federal government would be paying more but we would no longer have insurance premiums, we'd have lower costs at the point of service, employers would no longer provide healthcare, and wages would rise because this benefit is no longer meaningful.

I suggest you reread my posts and google these issues for a broader perspective.

 

[toolucky52384]

Yes, but that would require mandated preventive care, which is why I asked initially. And if you have mandate preventive care, why not mandate it all and go with a single payer ... but if you do that you end up with the problems I've already posed.

my very first post on the subject said to use a single payer system for all preventive care. i don't see the inefficiency in having a single payer preventative system and a supplemental catastrophic or other coverage system. if your argument is that single payer systems are always bad, i' can't disagree, but i don't necessarily agree it would be worse than our current status quo bad.

 

[FLaw47]

I suggest you reread my posts and google these issues for a broader perspective.

If I can take the time to source my arguments, you can too.

 

[Danny Ford 09]

The one thing I never hear folks talk about with these debates is cost of health insurance companies themselves. Administrative costs from health insurance companies is like 30% of the total cost of health care in the US, up from 19-24% in 1991. The bloated bureaucracy of health insurance jacks up costs throughout the system. They have no incentive to be efficient and no regulation or oversight of their practices (and no--since this is a monopoly, no free market system will reduce these costs, and a switch to a 'free market' system wouldn't change anything unless you had some serious govt intervention to break-up the monopoly).

One in four health care workers is an administrative worker as opposed to a care worker. That sector is up 50%. And does anyone have any better customer service stories from health insurance companies?? Didn't think so...

So, for example, a corporation gets billed 3% by a health insurance company to administer the plans (pay claims). The same work costs less than 1% with big bad govt run Medicare. The govt already does health insurance better than insurance companies. That two percent difference is one of the main reasons your health insurance is so much more expensive than other systems and countries and the care is poor.

Obamacare and Trumpcare don't do anything to curtail the power of health insurance companies. You can't have meaningful reform without upsetting that lobby. Both parties are in their pockets as deep as they will or can go. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199105023241805

The article you linked is from over 25 years ago and the ACA tried to address this with the 80/20 rule meaning only 20% of premiums can go to administrative cost. This sounds great to policy wonks, but the big insurers are not set up to thrive under this model because they do not aggressively negotiate prices and create narrow networks, a la Kaiser and Molina. They were designed to appeal to companies who want to provide access to the majority of the doctors in their region and have comprehensive benefits.

 

[MKOTiger]

If I can take the time to source my arguments, you can too.

Read this. It does not address the more fundamental issues of America lifestyles, healthcare expectations, litigation mentality or medical innovation, but it does address the cost issue. Also, I have a colleague in a Canadian affiliate who believes that the single fundamental cause of its poor health system is its population density or lack thereof. That's just one opinion, and no, I'm not going to research it, but I don't think anyone will deny that's it's system is a failure.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02...have-universal-healthcare-like-europeans.html

 

[MKOTiger]

my very first post on the subject said to use a single payer system for all preventive care. i don't see the inefficiency in having a single payer preventative system and a supplemental catastrophic or other coverage system. if your argument is that single payer systems are always bad, i' can't disagree, but i don't necessarily agree it would be worse than our current status quo bad.

No, it was really a minor issue. Single payer systems are definitely more efficient, but I am concerned that they are not more effective. Read @nextoffensivecoord post about the Greek health system.

My son is a senior at Clemson. He's in the honors program, has good grades and is graduating with honors. He scored relatively high on his MCAT, but has still not been accepted yet to any of the medical schools he applied to. It's really tough, but I like the thought that our most gifted and brightest students want to be doctors. I also would love to see cures for cancer and heart disease in my lifetime. I am concerned that a switch to single payer will stagnate these and our healthcare system will fall to Canada or Greece levels with no medical innovation.

It probably sounds like I'm opposed to a single provider, but I'm not. There are just a lot of more pressing underlying issues that need to be addressed than simply saying let's go to single provider. I was never opposed to the ACA, but I do believe it's given a lot of us insight that bifurcated system does not work, and it seems to me that this is effectively what you are proposing.

 

[tigertommy1]

If you fundamently agree that in our society, people have a right to Healthcare...that we have moved beyond letting people die from preventable disease and fighting to stop others like cancer, then the gov't or other people have to pay for it.

If you don't agree that people deserve healthcare, then I don't know what to tell ya.

Should we let people die? Not in my opinion

But Im also tired of my insurance and health care costs going thru the roof because of poor life choices by others.

I just dont agree that healthy people (and successful people) should bear the burden of others who CHOOSE to live an unhealthy lifestyle.

If your choices in life lead directly to your health problems........then pay the higher cost, and more than likely not as good care.

It is a very, very complicated system I know.

Bad drivers pay more in Auto insurance. If you make poor lifestyle decisions, then why can't you be forced to pay more? If you have unhealthy habits - your life insurance costs more.

In the long run, maybe that would "force" our nation to be healthier.

I realize it will never happen that way. Just my personal opinion. Again - talking about controllable health issues

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

Read this. It does not address the more fundamental issues of America lifestyles, healthcare expectations, litigation mentality or medical innovation, but it does address the cost issue. Also, I have a colleague in a Canadian affiliate who believes that the single fundamental cause of its poor health system is its population density or lack thereof. That's just one opinion, and no, I'm not going to research it, but I don't think anyone will deny that's it's system is a failure.

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02...have-universal-healthcare-like-europeans.html

I agree with a good number of your points.

Your point about Canada is incorrect. Canadians regularly vote their system is better than the US', so calling their system "poor" is not their opinion.

The article does a poor job of comparing expenditures on healthcare vs. tax rate, so you cannot attribute higher taxes in Brittain to healthcare. The article would have been better if it had used health care costs and tax rates across Europe.

 

[scotchtiger]

Scotch, I handle a lot of benefits matters for my firm and I've given a number of speechs on ERISA and the ACA, and I don't believe republicans are against the mandate. I believ what they were against was the creation of a huge burocracy for an experiment destined to fail with staggering potential costs. The mandates were really just a tax from the governments perspective that shifted costs to shift from old to young. I guess the other problem is that many had was the belief that we need less gov interference, not more. The subsidies under the ACA were all provided as tax credits and individuals were not eligible for subsidies unless they were applicable tax payers. I believe that one of the budget proposals is to make healthcare cost uniformity deductible. However, I'm sure they are running into issues over who is going to pay for this.

Gotcha. Love hearing feedback from those actually in the know. In my line of work, I spend a good bit of time with health insurance execs and ACA is obviously a big topic. All of this is very relevant to my interests.

FWIW, many more major insurance companies will drop out of ACA individual plans if things don't change this year. They are losing their ass.

 

[MKOTiger]

I agree with a good number of your points.

Your point about Canada is incorrect. Canadians regularly vote their system is better than the US', so calling their system "poor" is not their opinion.

The article does a poor job of comparing expenditures on healthcare vs. tax rate, so you cannot attribute higher taxes in Brittain to healthcare. The article would have been better if it had used health care costs and tax rates across Europe.

I agree with most of these points. The article was the firs one to pop up on a google search, and it adequately describes the issue. I'm sure there are much better out there. With regard to Canada, I know our affiliates complain constantly about Canadian healthcare. Many even cross over to the us for healthcare. This has been a rcent phenomenon over the past 2 years.

 

[MKOTiger]

Should we let people die? Not in my opinion

But Im also tired of my insurance and health care costs going thru the roof because of poor life choices by others.

I just dont agree that healthy people (and successful people) should bear the burden of others who CHOOSE to live an unhealthy lifestyle.

If your choices in life lead directly to your health problems........then pay the higher cost, and more than likely not as good care.

It is a very, very complicated system I know.

Bad drivers pay more in Auto insurance. If you make poor lifestyle decisions, then why can't you be forced to pay more? If you have unhealthy habits - your life insurance costs more.

In the long run, maybe that would "force" our nation to be healthier.

I realize it will never happen that way. Just my personal opinion. Again - talking about controllable health issues

This is a good analysis of one of the significant factors leading to higher costs for heathcare in the US ... and moving to a single provider or socialized medicine is not going to resolve this. We have a big problem, but there is no quick fix. We need a fundamental change in the way we view health and health care in the US. A cry for universal healthcare is just (at best) a bandaid on the underlying issues and this is one of them.

 

[scotchtiger]

Should we let people die? Not in my opinion

But Im also tired of my insurance and health care costs going thru the roof because of poor life choices by others.

I just dont agree that healthy people (and successful people) should bear the burden of others who CHOOSE to live an unhealthy lifestyle.

If your choices in life lead directly to your health problems........then pay the higher cost, and more than likely not as good care.

It is a very, very complicated system I know.

Bad drivers pay more in Auto insurance. If you make poor lifestyle decisions, then why can't you be forced to pay more? If you have unhealthy habits - your life insurance costs more.

In the long run, maybe that would "force" our nation to be healthier.

I realize it will never happen that way. Just my personal opinion. Again - talking about controllable health issues

I'm not sure why people disagree with this. We can exclude things outside of an individual's control, but other than that, insurance companies should be able to rate. And older folks should have higher premiums. They cost more and should have saved more by that point.

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

No, it was really a minor issue. Single payer systems are definitely more efficient, but I am concerned that they are not more effective. Read @nextoffensivecoord post about the Greek health system.

My son is a senior at Clemson. He's in the honors program, has good grades and is graduating with honors. He scored relatively high on his MCAT, but has still not been accepted yet to any of the medical schools he applied to. It's really tough, but I like the thought that our most gifted and brightest students want to be doctors. I also would love to see cures for cancer and heart disease in my lifetime. I am concerned that a switch to single payer will stagnate these and our healthcare system will fall to Canada or Greece levels with no medical innovation.

It probably sounds like I'm opposed to a single provider, but I'm not. There are just a lot of more pressing underlying issues that need to be addressed than simply saying let's go to single provider. I was never opposed to the ACA, but I do believe it's given a lot of us insight that bifurcated system does not work, and it seems to me that this is effectively what you are proposing.

My point about Greek healthcare was that they take advantage of the US' R&D for lower drug costs (and probably other equiptment also). For what it's worth, Greece's system is ranked higher than the US'.

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

I agree with most of these points. The article was the firs one to pop up on a google search, and it adequately describes the issue. I'm sure there are much better out there. With regard to Canada, I know our affiliates complain constantly about Canadian healthcare. Many even cross over to the us for healthcare. This has been a rcent phenomenon over the past 2 years.

Coinicidentally, many Americans go to Canada for drugs....

 

[TAINT_PAINT]

2 THINGS.

1. FAT TAX: BASED ON A SET OF METRICS, YOU GET A SCORE. NO DIFFERENT THAN YOUR CREDIT SCORE OR YOUR DRIVING RECORD. THIS IS BASED ON PREVENTABLE CONDITIONS ONLY.

2. LET OLD PEOPLE DIE. NO NEED TO KEEP BETTY TICKING FOR A FEW MORE MONTHS. ALSO, A 90 YEAR OLD THAT'S A VEGETABLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PASS AWAY BY LETHAL INJECTION INSTEAD OF RACKING UP NURSING HOME BILLS - AT THE REQUEST OF FAMILY, OF COURSE.

BOTH OF THEM ARE HARD TO SWALLOW, BUT WILL HELP.

 

[MKOTiger]

My point about Greek healthcare was that they take advantage of the US' R&D for lower drug costs (and probably other equiptment also). For what it's worth, Greece's system is ranked higher than the US'.

I agree that was the point I was making. If the US becomes a follower in medical innovation, where does that leave us?

 

[MKOTiger]

Coinicidentally, many Americans go to Canada for drugs....

Probably so, but that's a different phenomenon.

 

[iceheart08]

I'm not sure why people disagree with this. We can exclude things outside of an individual's control, but other than that, insurance companies should be able to rate. And older folks should have higher premiums. They cost more and should have saved more by that point.

How could you possibly enforce this/determine ratings. And how do you choose what constitutes healthy choices?

 

[MKOTiger]

2 THINGS.

1. FAT TAX: BASED ON A SET OF METRICS, YOU GET A SCORE. NO DIFFERENT THAN YOUR CREDIT SCORE OR YOUR DRIVING RECORD. THIS IS BASED ON PREVENTABLE CONDITIONS ONLY.

2. LET OLD PEOPLE DIE. NO NEED TO KEEP BETTY TICKING FOR A FEW MORE MONTHS. ALSO, A 90 YEAR OLD THAT'S A VEGETABLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PASS AWAY BY LETHAL INJECTION INSTEAD OF RACKING UP NURSING HOME BILLS - AT THE REQUEST OF FAMILY, OF COURSE.

BOTH OF THEM ARE HARD TO SWALLOW, BUT WILL HELP.

It's easy to generalize. You say that until it's your mom that's ill and in need of care.

 

[iceheart08]

Also, quick note here:

Donald Trump believes Obamacare is going to fail without changes. He also said, yesterday, that if his plan does t the pass he is going to allow it to fail and then blame Democrats.

How could that possibly be acceptable to anyone?

He doesn't care about you and your family. He said it. He cares about scoring political points. He wants Obamacare to fail.

What the actual **** is wrong with him

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

2 THINGS.

1. FAT TAX: BASED ON A SET OF METRICS, YOU GET A SCORE. NO DIFFERENT THAN YOUR CREDIT SCORE OR YOUR DRIVING RECORD. THIS IS BASED ON PREVENTABLE CONDITIONS ONLY.

2. LET OLD PEOPLE DIE. NO NEED TO KEEP BETTY TICKING FOR A FEW MORE MONTHS. ALSO, A 90 YEAR OLD THAT'S A VEGETABLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PASS AWAY BY LETHAL INJECTION INSTEAD OF RACKING UP NURSING HOME BILLS - AT THE REQUEST OF FAMILY, OF COURSE.

BOTH OF THEM ARE HARD TO SWALLOW, BUT WILL HELP.

Agreed

 

[nextoffensivecoord]

2 THINGS.

1. FAT TAX: BASED ON A SET OF METRICS, YOU GET A SCORE. NO DIFFERENT THAN YOUR CREDIT SCORE OR YOUR DRIVING RECORD. THIS IS BASED ON PREVENTABLE CONDITIONS ONLY.

2. LET OLD PEOPLE DIE. NO NEED TO KEEP BETTY TICKING FOR A FEW MORE MONTHS. ALSO, A 90 YEAR OLD THAT'S A VEGETABLE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PASS AWAY BY LETHAL INJECTION INSTEAD OF RACKING UP NURSING HOME BILLS - AT THE REQUEST OF FAMILY, OF COURSE.

BOTH OF THEM ARE HARD TO SWALLOW, BUT WILL HELP.

On a side note:

Airlines should charge a base fare (for the seat) with a base amount of weight built in oer person, body and luggage. Like 250 lbs. if your combined weight is less, you dont pay for your luggage. Why should my 155 lb frame pay the same as the 300 lb fatty next to me? He is consuming more gas to transport his ass.

 

[iceheart08]

On a side note:

Airlines should charge a base fare (for the seat) with a base amount of weight built in oer person, body and luggage. Like 250 lbs. if your combined weight is less, you dont pay for your luggage. Why should my 155 lb frame pay the same as the 300 lb fatty next to me? He is consuming more gas to transport his ass.

You weigh 155 pounds?

 

[tigertommy1]

Also, quick note here:

Donald Trump believes Obamacare is going to fail without changes. He also said, yesterday, that if his plan does t the pass he is going to allow it to fail and then blame Democrats.

How could that possibly be acceptable to anyone?

He doesn't care about you and your family. He said it. He cares about scoring political points. He wants Obamacare to fail.

What the actual **** is wrong with him

Millions of people want Obamacare to fail. Im not defending his stance, just pointing out that tens of millions (or more) would like to see it fail, if for no other reason to start over

 

[tigertommy1]

How could you possibly enforce this/determine ratings. And how do you choose what constitutes healthy choices?

Good question. It is complicated. But life insurance policies charge more for certain habits or lifestyles.

Also sure there are plenty we all could come up that make a bunch of sense: smoking for one