I do find it startling to think that people would come in and question others' motives. Questioning people's motives just seems to me so out of place in a debate where we are trying to make the best decisions we can. We look at the insurance market today, the non-Medicare insurance market, and it is not just in anticipation of problems that may happen but most likely will not, we look at the insurance market today and it just makes more sense for an insurance company to try to offer the lowest possible price to those people that are the healthiest, and they do not really want to insure people who are going to be the sickest, because the sickest are going to cost them more money. Rather than spread the cost out across the broad population, we see a segmentation of the market and lowest prices for the healthiest. I fear that we see that reality now in regular insurance practices, that in the MediGap policies, we are going to find the same thing, the lowest price for healthier people, and then they get older and sicker, a higher price.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of insurance market practices during a debate on healthcare policy.
Share
More from Henry Waxman
I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment. The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes. There was no objection.
There is not a lot of millionaires on Medicaid and would not want to be on Medicaid.
Our legislation improves the early warning reporting system by making more reported information public and ensuring that NHTSA receives significantly more information for manufacturers on any fatal incident involving a safety defect.
Subsection 3(b) creates a loophole in the Clean Air Act that allows new facilities to meet old air quality standards. This means more pollution will enter the air, and it will be harder to clean up. When one facility is allowed to pollute…





