It is not fair at all that those who choose to live more healthy in their lifestyle must bear the brunt of costs for those who choose to smoke, drink, drug, and self-abuse themselves into chronic illness (and health care costs).
But what is most frustrating of all - not a single plan put forward has done a SINGLE thing to address the REASONS for the skyrocketing healthcare costs (with or without ObamaCare).
Well, one thing they could do is to make those damn drug ads illegal. I only watch Fox News these days, but I swear that 75% of the ads are for some drug or another. Evidently the medical profession / drug companies won’t rest until EVERY American is hooked on one (or preferably more) drugs, and run to their Doctor for every imaginable test (so they can get hooked on MORE drugs).
It’s vile, and it’s GOT to be causing an up-tick in Doctor visits (and consequently insurance costs).
That kind of action cannot be done with the reconciliation approach. It would require 60 votes in the Senate which aren’t there at this time.
Excellent comment ... to which I add my rant:
So when did the single phase campaign promise of “repeal ObamaCare” morph into “repeal and replace ObamaCare”? Why replace it at all? Repeal ObamaCare now in toto, root and branch, all of it. Close and disband any and all bureaus, departments, offices, etc that were created to support any part of ObamaCare. Terminate any and all personnel in those departments hired to implement ObamaCare.
If there must be a ‘replace’ phase to this endeavor, let it be to create a few simple guidelines (not laws) supporting free market driven system ie: allow cross-states sales & marketing, limit malpractice awards, streamline FDA drug testing and approval system, etc.
Unfortunately the truth is that once the Feds seize a power from the states and/or the people, the only way to separate any politician from that power involves a rope and a tree.
The problem with your statement is “those who choose to live more healthy”. First, medical science is often wrong about diets and what is “healthy”. Second, how do you judge “healthy enough”? Should we require daily exercise to cover people? How much exercise is enough? Do we count daily calories or judge nutritious content? Third, there’s no perfect solution so saying “not fair” has little meaning.
I get what you’re saying but unless we suppress liberty we’ll always have this as a consequence.
To your second point about cost reductions, I completely agree...it’s very curious and smells like a swamp. Too many dirty influences.