Quote from BlueDevil,DNP
I don't see what that piece has to do with gov't control of healthcare. It seems to have nothing at all to do with your comment. Did you link the wrong article?
Of course people with higher modifiable risks ought to pay more than those without. That should go without saying. The fact that that surprises or offends anyone is astounding.
A few posts back I acknowledged that this isn't a good example of more government control, and my comment was dumb in that sense.
However, this is a great example of how Obamacare isn't about improving healthcare by making it more affordable and accessible. The provision in the law would make it so that a 60 year-old smoker making $35k a year would be paying $3325 a year (after a gov't subsidy) for insurance and then a $5,000 penalty on top of it for being a smoker.
How is this considered affordable? It probably isn't. Therefore, he won't bother getting the insurance, which means his healthcare won't be more accessible either.
Please explain to me how this provision is an exapmple of how Obamacare is a step in the right direction in improving our healthcare system.