Post: #26

(10-09-2013 03:00 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  I'd take a male cheerleader

Whoa!

Let's keep this forum on topic about swooping girls.

Fair enough?

Post: #27

(10-09-2013 04:42 PM)la_mode Wrote:  Back to topic, what's going to happen when either a substantial amount or majority of those who signed up for health insurance via "Obamacare" cannot afford it?

All these people who were in favor of it thought it was going to be free like the NHS or whatever they have in Canada, when it's really just a merging of private insurers/government.

Nothing. Why? Because if your income is low enough you'd be covered via Medicaid, not buying insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Middle class who can't afford it get subsidies.

In certain red states that chose to opt out rather than accept $ to expand medicaid - those poor will be excluded from medicaid AND the affordable care act.

Post: #28

They'll be signed for a plan via Obamacare, but won't be able to pay for it beyond the first month or two. When that happens with millions of people (and it will)...you wouldn't expect some sort of a fiasco?

People seem to forget that a lot of these people are the ones who work per hour and and often are jumping around Burger King to KFC to McDonalds type workers.

The true middle-class will be fine, but a lot of employed like to consider themselves middle-class even when they aren't.

Post: #29

(10-09-2013 04:46 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 04:42 PM)la_mode Wrote:  whatever they have in Canada

We have publicly funded health care in Canada and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

I traded out my Canadian universal health insurance. Its not free, its paid for by back end taxes and extra taxes like Ontario. The service is brutal and doctors are paid per patient on their rolls, not who they see which makes them dicks who rush you in and out of the office as fast as possible. There is no employer other than the gov't that they work for so customer service is not an option, nor is losing business.

Post: #30

(10-09-2013 05:19 PM)wiscanada Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 04:46 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 04:42 PM)la_mode Wrote:  whatever they have in Canada

We have publicly funded health care in Canada and I wouldn't trade it for anything.

I traded out my Canadian universal health insurance. Its not free, its paid for by back end taxes and extra taxes like Ontario. The service is brutal and doctors are paid per patient on their rolls, not who they see which makes them dicks who rush you in and out of the office as fast as possible. There is no employer other than the gov't that they work for so customer service is not an option, nor is losing business.

Nobody said it's "free". Nobody said that the system is flawless and works perfectly but I still rather have this (like most industrialized nations) rather than the mess in the US.

I am well-aware of the deficiencies and an aging population will test the limits of the system but as the joke goes, "If Breaking Bad were a series in Canada, it would only last 1 episode as Walter's cancer treatment would be paid for".

Post: #31

(10-09-2013 05:09 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 04:42 PM)la_mode Wrote:  Back to topic, what's going to happen when either a substantial amount or majority of those who signed up for health insurance via "Obamacare" cannot afford it?

All these people who were in favor of it thought it was going to be free like the NHS or whatever they have in Canada, when it's really just a merging of private insurers/government.

Nothing. Why? Because if your income is low enough you'd be covered via Medicaid, not buying insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Middle class who can't afford it get subsidies.

In certain red states that chose to opt out rather than accept $ to expand medicaid - those poor will be excluded from medicaid AND the affordable care act.

This is more of what I was referring to, how it got messed up with states that didn't sign on. I will be happy if it works out but my most recent experience in the gov't regulating private insurance happened in Ontario with car insurance. They mandated a bunch of over the top coverage for every policy and guess what happened? Young people are often seeing insurance bills that are more than their car payments. You aren't able to assume your own risks or pick coverage.

I do like that there is no kicking people off of coverage after a certain lifetime payout though. I had a family member who got hit with a 3rd round of cancer and her insurance said "sorry, your lifetime limit is now tapped out, we won't pay for this or anything else". So she just resigned to death.

Post: #32

So after getting two letters in the mail from our insurance, my mom's insurance went up 120% for a lesser policy and mine went up 92%, again for a lesser policy. We're on two ends of the actuarial spectrum...one retirement age one a male in his 20s, yet we both saw huge increases in price and decreases in coverage. I spoke with a rep at the insurance company and she said all their plans were reworked to allow for prescription drug benefits and coverage of pre-existing conditions to meet the new ACA requirements, thus the large increase in price. Yes I'm aware that apparently we'd get subsidized should we have trouble paying these increased rates, but assuming you're not near the poverty line, regular people will just have to make more cuts in their monthly budgets to allow for insurance premium payments.

I don't know why any healthy young guy would defend this change. You are happy to pay 100% more for something that you probably will not use for another 30 years simply because someone else gets sick a lot? Sure, defend it in theory, for the sake of decency and humanity, but when the bill comes, are you happy shelling out that much more? Or does your employer foot most of the bill so you don't feel the impact and are happy to root for doing the "right thing"?

Post: #33

(10-09-2013 05:14 PM)la_mode Wrote:  They'll be signed for a plan via Obamacare, but won't be able to pay for it beyond the first month or two. When that happens with millions of people (and it will)...you wouldn't expect some sort of a fiasco?

People seem to forget that a lot of these people are the ones who work per hour and and often are jumping around Burger King to KFC to McDonalds type workers.

The true middle-class will be fine, but a lot of employed like to consider themselves middle-class even when they aren't.

See:

Subsidies based on your income.

Post: #34

(10-09-2013 05:35 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  So after getting two letters in the mail from our insurance, my mom's insurance went up 120% for a lesser policy and mine went up 92%, again for a lesser policy. We're on two ends of the actuarial spectrum...one retirement age one a male in his 20s, yet we both saw huge increases in price and decreases in coverage. I spoke with a rep at the insurance company and she said all their plans were reworked to allow for prescription drug benefits and coverage of pre-existing conditions to meet the new ACA requirements, thus the large increase in price. Yes I'm aware that apparently we'd get subsidized should we have trouble paying these increased rates, but assuming you're not near the poverty line, regular people will just have to make more cuts in their monthly budgets to allow for insurance premium payments.

I don't know why any healthy young guy would defend this change. You are happy to pay 100% more for something that you probably will not use for another 30 years simply because someone else gets sick a lot? Sure, defend it in theory, for the sake of decency and humanity, but when the bill comes, are you happy shelling out that much more? Or does your employer foot most the bill so you don't feel the impact and are happy to root for the "right thing"?

Great post. That is what I hope to help do here. Help to warn the evils of big brother govt. to the young guys. Obama is a feminist, of course if you are a young guy Obamacare will screw you over. It targets the youth, and the men, to subsidize the women and the elderly.

Much like how social security takes money from men and gives it to women. Republicans tried to allow us to keep more of our SS money for our own investing and the feminist Democratic party shunned that big time.

I should find out soon how much mine went up.

Post: #35

(10-09-2013 05:35 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  So after getting two letters in the mail from our insurance, my mom's insurance went up 120% for a lesser policy and mine went up 92%, again for a lesser policy. We're on two ends of the actuarial spectrum...one retirement age one a male in his 20s, yet we both saw huge increases in price and decreases in coverage. I spoke with a rep at the insurance company and she said all their plans were reworked to allow for prescription drug benefits and coverage of pre-existing conditions to meet the new ACA requirements, thus the large increase in price. Yes I'm aware that apparently we'd get subsidized should we have trouble paying these increased rates, but assuming you're not near the poverty line, regular people will just have to make more cuts in their monthly budgets to allow for insurance premium payments.

I don't know why any healthy young guy would defend this change. You are happy to pay 100% more for something that you probably will not use for another 30 years simply because someone else gets sick a lot? Sure, defend it in theory, for the sake of decency and humanity, but when the bill comes, are you happy shelling out that much more? Or does your employer foot most the bill so you don't feel the impact and are happy to root for the "right thing"?

What state do you live in? You might want to comparison shop including on the exchange in your state. If you're below 26 you can stay on your mom's plan.

If you don't use the prescription part, you can drop it and get "catastrophic" coverage that only covers you for emergencies.

Premium rates were jacked up annually in past years way before the Affordable Care Act by the way.

Post: #36

(10-09-2013 06:02 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 05:35 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  So after getting two letters in the mail from our insurance, my mom's insurance went up 120% for a lesser policy and mine went up 92%, again for a lesser policy. We're on two ends of the actuarial spectrum...one retirement age one a male in his 20s, yet we both saw huge increases in price and decreases in coverage. I spoke with a rep at the insurance company and she said all their plans were reworked to allow for prescription drug benefits and coverage of pre-existing conditions to meet the new ACA requirements, thus the large increase in price. Yes I'm aware that apparently we'd get subsidized should we have trouble paying these increased rates, but assuming you're not near the poverty line, regular people will just have to make more cuts in their monthly budgets to allow for insurance premium payments.

I don't know why any healthy young guy would defend this change. You are happy to pay 100% more for something that you probably will not use for another 30 years simply because someone else gets sick a lot? Sure, defend it in theory, for the sake of decency and humanity, but when the bill comes, are you happy shelling out that much more? Or does your employer foot most the bill so you don't feel the impact and are happy to root for the "right thing"?

What state do you live in? You might want to comparison shop including on the exchange in your state. If you're below 26 you can stay on your mom's plan.

If you don't use the prescription part, you can drop it and get "catastrophic" coverage that only covers you for emergencies.

Premium rates were jacked up annually in past years way before the Affordable Care Act by the way.

Actually by the way, I just got my plan in September, so my rates are barely a month old and are increasing the 92% that I mentioned. So my increase is 100% attributable to ACA, not recent years increases.

Catastrophic is what I want now, given that I'm leaving the country, and it is only available (at least in my state) on the "Marketplace".

Surprise surprise...when I went to sign up on the "Marketplace" (I can't even say that with a straight face), the site was down. Hell, I may hit some red tape and not be able to qualify for that I don't know. But I won't be in living in this country and already have travel insurance in place to cover me in any country OUTSIDE of the US (cheap as hell by the way for a $0 deductible/$1 million coverage plan...talking like $50 a month)...so I have to look into whether or not I'm required to maintain insurance in a country I don't even reside in (I'm guessing this will be a yes unfortunately).

I also don't know how pricing on the long term travel insurance I just bought yesterday will be affected, but I bought a year's worth so I'm not worrying about that just yet.

Post: #37

(10-09-2013 06:10 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 06:02 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 05:35 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  So after getting two letters in the mail from our insurance, my mom's insurance went up 120% for a lesser policy and mine went up 92%, again for a lesser policy. We're on two ends of the actuarial spectrum...one retirement age one a male in his 20s, yet we both saw huge increases in price and decreases in coverage. I spoke with a rep at the insurance company and she said all their plans were reworked to allow for prescription drug benefits and coverage of pre-existing conditions to meet the new ACA requirements, thus the large increase in price. Yes I'm aware that apparently we'd get subsidized should we have trouble paying these increased rates, but assuming you're not near the poverty line, regular people will just have to make more cuts in their monthly budgets to allow for insurance premium payments.

I don't know why any healthy young guy would defend this change. You are happy to pay 100% more for something that you probably will not use for another 30 years simply because someone else gets sick a lot? Sure, defend it in theory, for the sake of decency and humanity, but when the bill comes, are you happy shelling out that much more? Or does your employer foot most the bill so you don't feel the impact and are happy to root for the "right thing"?

What state do you live in? You might want to comparison shop including on the exchange in your state. If you're below 26 you can stay on your mom's plan.

If you don't use the prescription part, you can drop it and get "catastrophic" coverage that only covers you for emergencies.

Premium rates were jacked up annually in past years way before the Affordable Care Act by the way.

Actually by the way, I just got my plan in September, so my rates are barely a month old and are increasing the 92% that I mentioned. So my increase is 100% attributable to ACA, not recent years increases.

Catastrophic is what I want now, given that I'm leaving the country, and it is only available (at least in my state) on the "Marketplace".

Surprise surprise...when I went to sign up on the "Marketplace" (I can't even say that with a straight face), the site was down. Hell, I may hit some red tape and not be able to qualify for that I don't know. But I won't be in living in this country and already have travel insurance in place to cover me in any country OUTSIDE of the US (cheap as hell by the way for a $0 deductible/$1 million coverage plan...talking like $50 a month)...so I have to look into whether or not I'm required to maintain insurance in a country I don't even reside in (I'm guessing this will be a yes unfortunately).

I also don't know how pricing on the long term travel insurance I just bought yesterday will be affected, but I bought a year's worth so I'm not worrying about that just yet.

You might be able to wait - I think the deadline to enroll in the exchange is March, 2014 (I think...)

Your travel insurance probably covers you for a medical evacuation and virtually no typical plan stateside would offer that, so that would be a good reason to keep the travel plan.

Post: #38

(10-09-2013 05:35 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  So after getting two letters in the mail from our insurance, my mom's insurance went up 120% for a lesser policy and mine went up 92%, again for a lesser policy. We're on two ends of the actuarial spectrum...one retirement age one a male in his 20s, yet we both saw huge increases in price and decreases in coverage. I spoke with a rep at the insurance company and she said all their plans were reworked to allow for prescription drug benefits and coverage of pre-existing conditions to meet the new ACA requirements, thus the large increase in price. Yes I'm aware that apparently we'd get subsidized should we have trouble paying these increased rates, but assuming you're not near the poverty line, regular people will just have to make more cuts in their monthly budgets to allow for insurance premium payments.

I don't know why any healthy young guy would defend this change. You are happy to pay 100% more for something that you probably will not use for another 30 years simply because someone else gets sick a lot? Sure, defend it in theory, for the sake of decency and humanity, but when the bill comes, are you happy shelling out that much more? Or does your employer foot most the bill so you don't feel the impact and are happy to root for the "right thing"?

Something that I probably will not use for another 30 years? I got my first cavity ever a couple years back. I was unlucky and by the time I realized it was there, the tooth chipped. Cost for a root canal WITH the basic dental insurance through my employer was going to be a stack. If I chose to get an extraction, implant, and crown, which is the better long term option for someone in their early 20s, the price is double that.

I can go to Hungary, India, Thailand, Mexico, Costa Rica, etc. etc. etc. and get a root canal with a crown for $100 dollars. Just getting a tooth pulled costs AT LEAST that in the US WITH insurance.

Broke my right middle finger a year ago and didn't even bother going to the doctor for that shit because they would've charged me a few hundred to thousands just to take an x-ray and put a simple splint on it.

A few years ago I put my hand through a glass window when I was drunk. Had a literally gaping wound that would purse open a good half an inch because it was right inside the bottom joint of my thumb. Definitely should have gotten stitches but instead I doctored it up with a bunch of shit from the drugstore.

When I was in high school I snapped the upper part of my arm in half. It was a pretty freak accident that wasn't even my fault. The doctor noted how strong my bones were and had trouble getting the bone back into place because of the muscle in my arm.

He proceeded to put on the most ghetto excuse for a cast with a rough edge at the inside of my elbow. The cast serrated my flesh all the way down to the bone. When I showed the doctor, he just shrugged it off like "oh well". This is the great medical care and bedside manner we get in the US.

This was all within the last ten years. I'm not an unhealthy person crying about little aches and pains. Any man who plays sports, does martial arts, has a physical job, or drinks is very likely to injure themselves at some point. It'd be great to be able to get a broken bone set and splinted without paying hundreds of dollars on top of what I'm already shelling out for insurance.

Wait until your doctor recommends you get your wisdom teeth extracted and you see the cost of this "routine" procedure. Better hope they're not impacted.

Your insurance company raised your rates to spite you and to protect their outrageous profit margins. They view people in this country as a commodity to exploit. Fuck that noise.

I'm not defending Obamacare. I'll just opt out anyways. I just think it's crazy to use a broken system as evidence against another broken system. That's how they get away with shit. People are stuck here debating getting raped in the ass vs. raped in the mouth and forget that they should not be getting raped period.

Post: #39

(10-09-2013 06:10 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  Catastrophic is what I want now, given that I'm leaving the country, and it is only available (at least in my state) on the "Marketplace".

Surprise surprise...when I went to sign up on the "Marketplace" (I can't even say that with a straight face), the site was down. Hell, I may hit some red tape and not be able to qualify for that I don't know. But I won't be in living in this country and already have travel insurance in place to cover me in any country OUTSIDE of the US (cheap as hell by the way for a $0 deductible/$1 million coverage plan...talking like $50 a month)...so I have to look into whether or not I'm required to maintain insurance in a country I don't even reside in (I'm guessing this will be a yes unfortunately).

I also don't know how pricing on the long term travel insurance I just bought yesterday will be affected, but I bought a year's worth so I'm not worrying about that just yet.

Hopefully I'll be in the same boat you're in. Someone posted in another thread that there is a "foreign exclusion" that you aren't required to pay for insurance if you live outside of the US for 330 days a year.

I believe you're going to Russia? I'm not sure how their healthcare is but even if you don't qualify for the exclusion, you can pay the opt out fee and still save money against US medical costs by getting medical work done in many of the nearby countries.

Post: #40

(10-09-2013 05:36 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 05:14 PM)la_mode Wrote:  They'll be signed for a plan via Obamacare, but won't be able to pay for it beyond the first month or two. When that happens with millions of people (and it will)...you wouldn't expect some sort of a fiasco?

People seem to forget that a lot of these people are the ones who work per hour and and often are jumping around Burger King to KFC to McDonalds type workers.

The true middle-class will be fine, but a lot of employed like to consider themselves middle-class even when they aren't.

See:

Subsidies based on your income.

Even with the subsidies, they still have to make payments (although definitely smaller). We're talking about a segment of the population that sees a quarter on the ground and is happy to pick it up, even a $15 payment is stressful to them, they will forget or ignore it since they think it's "Obamacare". The US has a huge segment of derelicts who are happy to get a free piece of cheese.

Also, what's going to happen when someone moves into a new state, and their current plan cannot be used, since it is state-specific?

The government seems to forget, lower-income people move to different states as well.

Post: #41

(10-09-2013 07:13 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 05:36 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 05:14 PM)la_mode Wrote:  They'll be signed for a plan via Obamacare, but won't be able to pay for it beyond the first month or two. When that happens with millions of people (and it will)...you wouldn't expect some sort of a fiasco?

People seem to forget that a lot of these people are the ones who work per hour and and often are jumping around Burger King to KFC to McDonalds type workers.

The true middle-class will be fine, but a lot of employed like to consider themselves middle-class even when they aren't.

See:

Subsidies based on your income.

Even with the subsidies, they still have to make payments (although definitely smaller). We're talking about a segment of the population that sees a quarter on the ground and is happy to pick it up, even a $15 payment is stressful to them, they will forget or ignore it since they think it's "Obamacare". The US has a huge segment of derelicts who are happy to get a free piece of cheese.

Also, what's going to happen when someone moves into a new state, and their current plan cannot be used, since it is state-specific?

The government seems to forget, lower-income people move to different states as well.

Assuming that you're not covered through work, you'd buy insurance through the exchange in the new state.

Post: #42

Male smoker, mid-twenties. I'm offered coverage through my workplace though their contribution isn't much. I don't have health insurance but it would cost me $340/month. I spend less on rent.

And because I'm offered coverage through my workplace I'm not eligible for insurance through an exchange.

Post: #43

As a young guy you dont really need to go to the doctor.

Lets do a cost benefit analysis

You have to pay a fine for not signing up for insurance but if that fine is less than the cost for getting insurance isnt that preferable since if you need insurance even if your sick or injured you can still just sign up for insurance since they cant deny anyone with preexisting conditions.

So what is the incentive for a young healthy guy to sign up since he doesnt need the doctor and its cheaper to pay the fines?

Post: #44

(10-09-2013 07:11 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 06:10 PM)presidentcarter Wrote:  Catastrophic is what I want now, given that I'm leaving the country, and it is only available (at least in my state) on the "Marketplace".

Surprise surprise...when I went to sign up on the "Marketplace" (I can't even say that with a straight face), the site was down. Hell, I may hit some red tape and not be able to qualify for that I don't know. But I won't be in living in this country and already have travel insurance in place to cover me in any country OUTSIDE of the US (cheap as hell by the way for a $0 deductible/$1 million coverage plan...talking like $50 a month)...so I have to look into whether or not I'm required to maintain insurance in a country I don't even reside in (I'm guessing this will be a yes unfortunately).

I also don't know how pricing on the long term travel insurance I just bought yesterday will be affected, but I bought a year's worth so I'm not worrying about that just yet.

Hopefully I'll be in the same boat you're in. Someone posted in another thread that there is a "foreign exclusion" that you aren't required to pay for insurance if you live outside of the US for 330 days a year.

I believe you're going to Russia? I'm not sure how their healthcare is but even if you don't qualify for the exclusion, you can pay the opt out fee and still save money against US medical costs by getting medical work done in many of the nearby countries.

I recommend all american guys to make a vacation out of dental work just head to mexico, costa rica or DR. even with insurance you will usually come out ahead in those countries paying out of pocket.

Post: #45

(10-09-2013 08:16 PM)bacon Wrote:  As a young guy you dont really need to go to the doctor.

Lets do a cost benefit analysis

You have to pay a fine for not signing up for insurance but if that fine is less than the cost for getting insurance isnt that preferable since if you need insurance even if your sick or injured you can still just sign up for insurance since they cant deny anyone with preexisting conditions.

So what is the incentive for a young healthy guy to sign up since he doesnt need the doctor and its cheaper to pay the fines?

In response to your rhetorical question -- if the young healthy guy who opts for the fine then gets seriously sick or into an accident...he cannot just sign up on the spot.
There would be open enrollment periods each year (let's say in Oct for Jan coverage). So he'd be stuck with bills for the care needed until coverage kicks in.

Post: #46

As the mainstream media and several threads on this forum have revealed, many Obamacare critics are no strangers to hyperbole when airing their grievances. This has to be the granddaddy of them all:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post...e-slavery/

Quote:Dr. Ben Carson, a rising star in conservative circles, on Friday compared President Obama's health-care law to slavery.
"You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery," Carson, who is African American, said Friday in remarks at the Values Voter Summit in Washington. "And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control."
Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon who was recently hired to be a contributor at Fox News, has stoked controversy with his remarks before. Earlier this year, he withdrew as graduation speaker at Johns Hopkins University amid demands from students concerned about his controversial remarks on gay marriage. Carson had mentioned bestiality and pedophilia while arguing against gay marriage in an interview.

Post: #47

Quote:Dr. Ben Carson, a rising star in conservative circles, on Friday compared President Obama's health-care law to slavery.
"You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery," Carson, who is African American, said Friday in remarks at the Values Voter Summit in Washington. "And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care. It was about control."
Carson, a pediatric neurosurgeon who was recently hired to be a contributor at Fox News, has stoked controversy with his remarks before. Earlier this year, he withdrew as graduation speaker at Johns Hopkins University amid demands from students concerned about his controversial remarks on gay marriage. Carson had mentioned bestiality and pedophilia while arguing against gay marriage in an interview.

[/quote]

Ben Carson is the man! It was great watching the speech he made at the National Prayer Breakfast. So much awesome!

Post: #48

Post: #49

Good share bacon. The cost of anti-male liberalism is finally being felt by the average person. Not just a nickle and dime here and there, but up front and in their face.

It is only going to get worse for what is left of the American middle class. With the national debt and unsustainable record low interest rates set to expire.

What would be interesting is to know if any of those people in that video voted for Obama in 2012 and if they did, if it was because they were too busy watching American Idol and thinking "oh, the President is a good guy, he is so cool".

Post: #50

Has any politician ever recommended improving the health services by gradually decreasing RELIANCE on them through education/lifestyle from early age?
Think about it: quite a lot of non-accident and emergency hospital users have to go back time and again as a result of lifestyle. Diabetes, cirrhosis, emphysema, arteriosclerosis, depression, asthma, heart and respiratory disease can all have a genetic influence, but nobody ever died from bad genes. If someone took a stand to inculcate reasonable living habits at an early age, say secondary education, then by the time person X is a taxpayer, they will (at least in more cases than now) eat better, exercise more, drink less and, for day-to-day problems, they would need fewer hospital visits because they weren't prone to getting or remaining ill.
Take exercise in schools: most children 11-16 have two hour-long PE sessions a week. Better than nothing, but add crappy diet, otherwise sedentary existence and growing underage drinking/smoking into the mix, and those two hours are deficient.
In Japan and parts of China, schools and workplaces have daily exercise sessions at the start of the day.
Add programs like this into schools and not only would children be healthier at school-age, but more of them would adopt better habits into adulthood.
It wouldn't show improvement for several years, but I think it would be worthwhile long-term. The government wouldn't really need to shake up the health services continually to try and resolve problems at the other end, either.
Politicians/lobbyists of RVF, make this happen and send me money when it does.