You do not say that, but that is what the result would be.

Why did you choose such a politically biased construct at this point knowing that would raise red flags for some?

This is a real departure from, as you said in your paper, from the model that we have relied on for a long time.

But you are really saying that you don't trust the consumer to make decisions for themselves, in a sense.

The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

I would like to just restate a request I made in my opening statement.

Shouldn't the language require that the real benefits must outweigh real costs to consumers and covered persons instead of that?

In plain English, right?

It is clear that in the Administration's plan, disclosure, no matter how complete, is not enough.

Our idea in the legislation is not to prevent people from making mistakes. It is to make it easier for them to avoid mistakes.

We appreciate you coming here today, but even you admit in your studies, and this is an outgrowth of some of those studies, that this is a radical departure from the way we have regulated things before.

Individuals consistently make choices that they themselves agree diminish their own well-being in significant ways.