quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Redford1970:

quote:

You don't need bigger pools to underwrite, you need homogeneous pools.

Not quite. You don't need a bigger pool, you need a better pool.

You get that by mixing in young and healthy members. The very ones that would rather pay a penalty than buy insurance. Bigger becomes incidental.

Ask your self, if a pool is averaging $1.20 in claims for every premium dollar, does adding MORE members at $1.20 of claims and still collecting $1.00 of premium solve any problem? That is both bigger and homogeneous.

Add a bunch of members whose claim cost is $0.60 for every premium dollar and you lower the unit cost and eliminate a rate hike. It isn't where your new added members live (that crossing State lines myth), it's what their claim cost is and the mix of low claim cost members to high claim cost members.

You are correct. My last comment while factual does not have anything to do with costs. In order to underwrite you need to be able to predict your claims. With a large enough group with similar claims experience you can correctly determine the premium to charge.

The only bearing this really has on the conversation is adverse selection. The companies are underwriting assuming that people would sign up for and keep the plans. What instead was happening is only a person with a current need for the policies were signing up skewing the claims experience higher than expected, thus causing the premiums to constantly rise.

You are also correct in that it doesn't even need to be homogeneous, it just needs to be predictable. Homogeneous only matters for assigning a risk to the individual insured. Smoker, male/female, diabetes, etc.

Your understanding of Adverse Selection is incomplete. You have described a secondary issue, which is high claim utilizers leave a plan after they are treated. This would only be true if they are 100% curred. The problem with that is the type of claim is usually a serious condition not readily curable. Maybe, but not the norm.

ADVERSE SELECTION is when a person can select entry into a pool of insured when they know their claims will greatly exceed any premium. It is about NON random ENTRY. Non random is the key phrase. What you describe, may or may not happen.People who select against a plan do so with zero randomness. Like putting a quarter in a slot machine only on a spin you know in advance will win.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...x-news-poll-n2306668

Anthem Inc is likely to exit from a large portion of its Obamacare individual insurance markets next year, Jefferies analysts said, nearly a week after Republican leaders pulled legislation to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system

Anthem is one of the few health insurers that still sells plans under Obamacare.

Humana Inc, Aetna Inc, and UnitedHealth Group Inc pulled out after reporting hundreds of millions of dollars of losses.

Anthem is leaning toward exiting a "high percentage" of the 144 rating regions in which it currently participates, Jefferies analysts said in a note on Thursday after talking to the health insurer.

Thanks to Obamacare's slow-motion implosion, just one single provider remains as a "choice" for consumers who live in roughly one-third of all US counties

**************

http://freebeacon.com/issues/1...-half-cbo-projected/

Just over 12.2 million individuals signed up for Obamacare coverage in 2017, roughly half of what the Congressional Budget Office projected four years ago.

The agency reported that 12,216,003 Americans either purchased a new Obamacare plan or were automatically reenrolled in Obamacare plans.

Approximately 9 million Americans used Healthcare.gov to purchase insurance, while 3 million Americans bought coverage through the state-based marketplaces.

These enrollment numbers are dramatically different than the CBO's forecasted enrollment numbers in 2013. The CBO predicted that 24 million people would purchase coverage on the exchanges in 2017, nearly double the most recent enrollment figures.

The enrollment numbers also show fewer Americans selected an Obamacare plan this year than last. In 2016, 12.7 million Americans signed up, while 12.2 million signed up in 2017.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
The agency reported that 12,216,003 Americans either purchased a new Obamacare plan or were automatically re-enrolled in Obamacare plans.

To put that into perspective, BarryCare, in all of its greatness, has enrolled a half million people less than the total population of Pennsylvania. And that was with the government forcing people to insure through threat of financial penalty if they didn't. Yep, turn the entire country and healthcare market upside down for that outcome. Only a retard (or a Dem, same thing) would try and convince anyone this thing isn't the biggest legislative failure in history.

Ann Coulter expressed my own frustration poignantly:

"Obamacare is uniquely awful because the free stuff isn't paid for through income taxes: It's paid for through MY health insurance premiums. This is unfortunate because I wanted to buy health insurance. "

http://www.anncoulter.com/colu...03-29.html#read_more

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RichardC,

quote:

Originally posted by Redford1970:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Originally posted by Redford1970:

quote:

You don't need bigger pools to underwrite, you need homogeneous pools.

Not quite. You don't need a bigger pool, you need a better pool.

You get that by mixing in young and healthy members. The very ones that would rather pay a penalty than buy insurance. Bigger becomes incidental.

Ask your self, if a pool is averaging $1.20 in claims for every premium dollar, does adding MORE members at $1.20 of claims and still collecting $1.00 of premium solve any problem? That is both bigger and homogeneous.

Add a bunch of members whose claim cost is $0.60 for every premium dollar and you lower the unit cost and eliminate a rate hike. It isn't where your new added members live (that crossing State lines myth), it's what their claim cost is and the mix of low claim cost members to high claim cost members.

You are correct. My last comment while factual does not have anything to do with costs. In order to underwrite you need to be able to predict your claims. With a large enough group with similar claims experience you can correctly determine the premium to charge.

The only bearing this really has on the conversation is adverse selection. The companies are underwriting assuming that people would sign up for and keep the plans. What instead was happening is only a person with a current need for the policies were signing up skewing the claims experience higher than expected, thus causing the premiums to constantly rise.

You are also correct in that it doesn't even need to be homogeneous, it just needs to be predictable. Homogeneous only matters for assigning a risk to the individual insured. Smoker, male/female, diabetes, etc.

Your understanding of Adverse Selection is incomplete. You have described a secondary issue, which is high claim utilizers leave a plan after they are treated. This would only be true if they are 100% curred. The problem with that is the type of claim is usually a serious condition not readily curable. Maybe, but not the norm.

ADVERSE SELECTION is when a person can select entry into a pool of insured when they know their claims will greatly exceed any premium. It is about NON random ENTRY. Non random is the key phrase. What you describe, may or may not happen.People who select against a plan do so with zero randomness. Like putting a quarter in a slot machine only on a spin you know in advance will win.

Once again, I agree with you. That is the other part to the adverse selection, not even really adverse selection, maybe selective selection?

If I have a chronic disease you can bet your bottom dollar I am signing up for health insurance (especially if I don't have undergo underwriting), not only that, I am getting whatever policy has the most generous coverage. So I am sucking up 20-30x my premiums and Joe Blow who is using 6% of his premiums in claims is having to pay a higher rate even though he doesn't utilize the services other than a check up and a cold once a year.

If life insurance was like ObamaCare. People would wait until they got terminal cancer and then buy a eleventy billion dollar policy on yearly renewable term rates. Then if a miracle happened and were cancer free, they'd stop paying premiums until the next round of cancer popped up.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump brought Sen. Rand Paul to his Virginia golf course on Sunday to talk health policy with the outspoken critic of the failed plan to repeal and replace so-called Obamacare.

The outing to Trump National Golf Club came hours after Trump tweeted that talks on replacing the law have been going on and “will continue until such time as a deal is hopefully struck.”

He added that anyone who thinks the effort is dead “does not know the love and strength in R Party!”

Trump golfed and discussed policy with Paul and budget director Mick Mulvaney, said White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham.

Paul came out strongly against the House GOP legislation, and its collapse humiliated Trump in the early days of his administration. After their golf excursion, Paul struck a positive tone, calling it a “great day” with the president.

“I continue to be very optimistic that we are getting closer and closer to an agreement on replacing Obamacare,” said the Kentucky senator, who fell to Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primary.

Trump talked about his efforts to move forward on health care in an interview with the Financial Times published online Sunday. Of the recent defeat, Trump said: “I don’t like to lose. But that wasn’t a definitive day. They are negotiating as we speak.”

Trump said the bill was pulled because “I didn’t want to take a vote. It was my idea.” And he said that “one way or the other, I promised the people great health care. We are going to have great health care in this country.”

It is not clear how a new health care bill will come together, with deep divides among Republicans and little interest in cooperation from Democrats. Since the bill went down, Trump has repeatedly lashed out at members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus who contributed to the defeat.

On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, a member of the caucus, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to those attacks. He said “tweets and statements and blame don’t change facts. And the facts remain the same. When you look at the document, when you look at the legislation, it doesn’t repeal Obamacare.”

Trump told the Financial Times that members of the caucus were “friends of mine.” But he added: “if we don’t get what we want, we will make a deal with the Democrats and we will have in my opinion not as good a form of health care, but we are going to have a very good form of health care and it will be a bipartisan form of health care.”

http://wtop.com/virginia/2017/...-with-sen-rand-paul/

I'm glad to hear that meeting happened!

^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen!!! It's time to get Paul Ryan's RINO ass off this project and interject some REAL thinking on this. While I don't agree with ALL his politics and think his dad is bat-shit crazy, Rand Paul is the guy to head up this massive responsibility.

Thank you Freedom Caucus !


In Washington, House Speaker Ryan, under pressure from the Freedom Caucus, withdrew the GOP healthcare bill, often referred to as “ObamaCare Lite.” Many in Congress opposed the plan, including the Gun Owners of America (GAO). The GOA had requested three changes in the bill: that insurance companies be prohibited from discriminating against gun owners; that doctors not create a de facto gun registry by entering patients’ gun information into a federal database; and that agencies not be able to troll Medicaid and federal health databases in order to send names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) “gun ban” list.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017...our-recent-wins.html

GOP’s attempt to resurrect health care bill gets tepid reception

By Associated Press
April 5, 2017

WASHINGTON — A White House offensive to resurrect the moribund House Republican health care bill got an uneven reception Tuesday from GOP moderates and conservatives, leaving prospects shaky for the party to salvage one of its leading priorities.

Vice President Mike Pence and other top administration officials were offering to let states request federal exemptions from insurance coverage requirements imposed by President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. About two dozen top GOP lawmakers met for two hours Tuesday evening with Pence and other White House officials, but participants said differences remained over giving states flexibility to drop those mandates. Meetings will continue Wednesday.

“It was a very good exchange of ideas, with concerns that represent the very broad spectrum of our conference,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who leads the conservative House Freedom Caucus. The group’s roughly three dozen members have largely opposed the GOP legislation for not repealing enough of Obama’s law.

At the White House, Pence said he and President Donald Trump “remain confident that working with the Congress we will repeal and replace Obamacare.”

But there was no evidence that the proposal won over any GOP opponents who’d forced Trump and party leaders to beat an unceremonious retreat on their bill on March 24, when they canceled a House vote that was doomed to failure.

“We want to make sure that when we go, we have the votes to pass this bill,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told reporters. He said talks were in “the conceptual stage” and declined to predict a vote before Congress leaves town shortly for a two-week recess — when lawmakers could face antagonistic grilling from voters at town hall meetings.

Later in the day, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., his party’s chief vote counter, said talks were not at “a place where there is consensus” on health care and indicated a vote this week was unlikely.

Under the White House proposal, states could apply for a federal waiver from a provision in Obama’s statute obliging insurers to cover “essential health benefits,” including mental health, maternity and substance abuse services. The current version of the GOP legislation would erase that coverage requirement but let states reimpose it themselves, language that is opposed by many moderates.

In addition, the White House would let states seek an exemption to the law’s provision banning insurers from charging higher premiums for seriously ill people. Conservatives have argued that such restrictions inflate consumers’ costs.

Reaction from rank-and-file GOP lawmakers was mixed. Moderate Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-N.J., and conservative Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., each said they remained “no” votes, with Brooks saying states should be allowed to opt out of Obama’s insurance requirements without seeking federal permission.

Rep. Jim Renacci, R-Ohio, was among several moderates warning that a quick vote would be counter-productive.

“If leadership hasn’t learned the lessons of the failures of two weeks ago, then they’ll bring something forward where nobody knows about it and try and get it passed,” Renacci said.

Even so, some members of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus were showing signs of accepting less than many originally wanted. Meadows said talks were boiling down to curbing several of Obama’s coverage requirements — a far cry from the full repeal of the statute that many initially preferred.

“It perhaps is as much of a repeal as we can get done,” Meadows told reporters. He added, “That’s the calculation we have to make.”

Similarly, some moderates whose opposition was also instrumental in the legislation’s failure expressed cautious optimism that the White House offer would produce results.

“We have to do things that will win people from both sides of the spectrum. Of course it’s hard,” said Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., a leader of the Tuesday Group of House GOP moderates.

A poll by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation flashed a warning for the White House, showing that 3 in 4 Americans want the Trump administration to make Obama’s law work.

About 2 in 3 were glad the House GOP bill didn’t pass last month. But people split evenly between wanting to keep or repeal Obama’s statute.

The underlying House Republican bill would repeal much of Obama’s 2010 law. It would erase its tax fines for consumers who don’t buy policies, federal aid to help many afford coverage and Medicaid expansion for additional poor people.

Instead, substitute GOP tax subsidies would be less generous than Obama’s for many lower earners and people in their 50s and 60s, the overall Medicaid program would be cut, tax boosts on higher earners would be ended and consumers who let coverage lapse would face 30 percent premium hikes.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/05/g...ets-tepid-reception/

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Why must subsidies be offered?

[QUOTE]
If seriously ill middle class people or those in need of medical care are left out, the costs will fall. As it boils down, is that really it?

What does that even mean?
Why do you keep saying stuff like "Too bad, so sad." and "those in need of medical care are left out"
Who wants to leave people out? No one! I just want people to have more choice... and to take some responsibility for the choices they make.
Whose responsibility is it to feed your family? Provide a roof over their head? Are you "left out" if you don't receive food stamps? or section 8 housing?
What is the proper mix of socialism and freedom in your mind?

It really boils down to who would be left without coverage at a reasonable cost. The Freedom Caucus let off on demanding a repeal-only approach. That helped. But, I heard an interview where the chief problem with even the new compromise is ignoring those with preexisting conditions.

If a person who makes $3k per month has to pay a $4k monthly health premium, it's o.k. to say that there is coverage but if they can't afford it, isn't it "too bad, so sad" for that person? Isn't that what the market would produce? It is even more acute now that people with preexisting conditions went on to Obamacare.

It is not like the middle class can reclaim policies they started before they had a preexisting condition if there was just a straight repeal.

If insurance companies don't have to cover people who got sick, wouldn't that drive premiums down?

Anyway, the willingness to address the issue is at odds with the free market advocacy that wants to turn a blind eye to the issue.

In a nut shell, isn't the "true' conservative solution to just ignore people with pre-existing conditions while relegating them to bankruptcy, charity and "too bad, so sad?" It seems that the latest effort is bogged down on this point.

Although, it was good to see some new pragmatism in the latest round with Vice-President Pence.

quote:

Libertarians and the "true" conservatives have a chance to win people to their philosophies and resulting policies.

Really?
If half the people are already reliant upon government for their basic necessities, how do we convince people that they should be self- reliant?

Have you visited this thread?
Why Socialism Is Here To Stay
https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...0601935/m/5310058124

I believe the overall market is much bigger than who uses insurance now. Many people do not carry health insurance and some health care cost reduction fix seems in order. The cold turkey free market approach would seem to condemn those with preexisting conditions from ever getting insurance coverage so what else might be conceived?

This is where the ultra bright, superior minds of the "true" conservatives should be brought to bear. Explain a solution and win people over. Take on the problem with a workable solution and win over those who are too dull to understand. Use all that superior grey matter to sell an idea or run a play involving a full back. Do something to achieve.

If the "true" conservatives just admit that they have no way to convince others, isn't that an admission of legislative impotence? Isn't legislative success supposed to be about actually convincing others to join in one's solution?

You see, I believe "true" conservatives have superior ideas - ideas that turn into workable legislative realities. To me, it's a practical not just a philosophical test for success. Iconoclastic monks may have the true answer to their internal questions, too but legislators are supposed to, well, legislate.

I don't think "true" conservatives need to abandon their ideas, I believe they need to have some other ideas - ideas about accomplishing something and winning over their legislative fellows - in incremental pieces if need be. The ship of state does not seem amenable to turning on a dime on health care without solving certain problems.

What about grandfathering those who have chosen continuing insurance to have preexisting coverage continue? What about giving some sort of credits to companies who take on preexisting condition consumers? There seems to be a lot of transitional ideas that could be kicked around.

I remember taking three years of tax law because a transition was afoot. There are possibly some very creative things that could be done to nail down a transition that no one fully understands but could garner enough votes to become law.

I had coffee today with a MD. Friend of mine , he told me the Freedom Caucus health plan was a coupon for a rectal thermometer and a GoFundMe page

from Tubetone

quote:

What about grandfathering those who have chosen continuing insurance to have preexisting coverage continue? What about giving some sort of credits to companies who take on preexisting condition consumers? There seems to be a lot of transitional ideas that could be kicked around.

This is what ObamaCare did on paper, then reneged by paying 20 cents on the dollars proscribed by the law

quote:

Originally posted by Redford1970:
from Tubetone

quote:

What about grandfathering those who have chosen continuing insurance to have preexisting coverage continue? What about giving some sort of credits to companies who take on preexisting condition consumers? There seems to be a lot of transitional ideas that could be kicked around.

This is what ObamaCare did on paper, then reneged by paying 20 cents on the dollars proscribed by the law

I appreciate all the expertise/experience you bring to this discussion.

Can you think of any ways to ease the consumer cost/availability questions while protecting those who were forced off their old plans under Obamacare?

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:

quote:

Originally posted by Redford1970:
from Tubetone

quote:

What about grandfathering those who have chosen continuing insurance to have preexisting coverage continue? What about giving some sort of credits to companies who take on preexisting condition consumers? There seems to be a lot of transitional ideas that could be kicked around.

This is what ObamaCare did on paper, then reneged by paying 20 cents on the dollars proscribed by the law

I appreciate all the expertise/experience you bring to this discussion.

Can you think of any ways to ease the consumer cost/availability questions while protecting those who were forced off their old plans under Obamacare?

In a big picture way, this is a math problem that can't be solved politically. At least not in a politically palatable fashion... not if it is to get bi-partisan support. The issues are not easily understood. There are complex interactions. The public confuses healthcare with insurance and they believe insurance is the problem, when, in fact, insurance premiums only reflect the underlying cost of claims. Claims that are rising. Both the unit price of services and the rate they are utilized is ever increasing.

The ACA/ObamaCare added regulations to insurance companies. Barring Pre-Ex Condition provisions, mandated coverage until age 26, inclusion of certain coverage, controlling Medical Loss Ratios, open enrollment periods and criteria, and government reinsurance. NONE of those are healthcare. Healthcare is made up of the services we receive (hospital stays, tests, office calls, physical therapy, surgeons fees etc).

The ACA also did some lesser known things to RAISE cost. Added administrative burdens, reduced Medicare Reimbursements (leads to cost shifting by Providers), and new hidden taxes.

The short term answer re consumer costs?, simply larger and larger government subsidy. Unfortunately, small and moderate size businesses will want their share and will make the problem bigger (more expensive). The pool of insureds has deteriorated. You literally need everyone in to lower UNIT consumer costs. We've already seen that the penalties were not sufficient. You'll need a penalty about equal to the premium. That's a non-starter politically.

Long term, we need to address (1) lifestyle issues which, by industry estimates, cost us all an unnecessary 35%. Our society wants a pill for everything, when the better answer is exercise and weight control. Obesity is a huge driver of healthcare costs. Society suffers from drug abuse claims, both legal prescription drug abuse and the illicit kind. It's another big cost driver. (2) Cost shifting to commercial plans when the Feds squeeze Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. Most hospitals get 45-55% of their revenue from Medicare. When that is cut, they raise prices to non Medicare patient who are covered by private/commercial insurance.(3) Defensive medicine driven by litigation. Excessive tests, unnecessary tests because you MIGHT go to court one day. (4) R & D on prescriptions nearly exclusively carried by the USA. Misuse or overuse. (5) an aging population (6) more high tech stuff entering the market. (7) shortage of Doctors

I don't see existing customers being kicked off plans they have now. If pre-ex is once again allowed, new pools will be created and better risks will migrate there for the lower premium. Eventually, old pools, will price themselves out of existence. This could take 4-5 years but is totally dependent on legislation. The Devil is in the details. Will there be reinsurance? Will there be mandated Loss Ratios? Until we know that, can't say. The basic problem that remains is the people with pre-ex conditions are not a fixed pool. New people get added daily. We all get older.

And your last questions, People being forced off their OLD pre ACA plans is, in part, a case of plan improvements (services added not previously covered). True, some really basic catastrophic plans were eliminated. Some provider networks were reconfigured and people lost access to their favorite doctor. I don't see the clock turning back anytime soon.

My last comments are about competition and the scope of the ACA.

Healthcare, all of it, is delivered locally. My Troy, Mi hospital does not compete with hospitals across the Ohio, Indiana or Illinois State lines. Rarely do our Doctors compete. Don't look for competition to address any cost issues.

98% of all Employers with 200 or more FT employees offer group health. About 55% of smaller Employers do. Of all those having insurance now, the majority do NOT buy their coverage on the Federal Exchange. Their deductibles are much more reasonable. There are some ACA impacts but not at all what individual buyers face. The impact of ACA is all but negligible on those on Medicare. It continues to surprise me how nearly everyone has strong opinions on it, yet most aren't directly touched.

Freedom Caucus Confirms Support For Revised Obamacare Replacement Bill

Apr 26, 2017

Moments ago the House Freedom Caucus announced their support for a revised version of an Obamacare replacement bill that includes the so-called "MacArthur Amendment." Here is the official statement from Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows:

"Over the past couple of months, House conservatives have worked tirelessly to improve the American Health Care Act (AHCA) to make it better for the American people. Due to improvements to the AHCA and the addition of Rep. Tom MacArthur’s proposed amendment, the House Freedom Caucus has taken an official position in support of the current proposal.

The MacArthur amendment will grant states the ability to repeal cost driving aspects of Obamacare left in place under the original AHCA. While the revised version still does not fully repeal Obamacare, we are prepared to support it to keep our promise to the American people to lower healthcare costs. We look forward to working with our Senate colleagues to improve the bill. Our work will continue until we fully repeal Obamacare.”


Mission statement of the House Freedom Caucus:

“The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety, and prosperity of all Americans.”

As we noted previously, the "MacArthur Amendment" (summarized here) effectively allows individual states to 'opt out' of certain Obamacare regulations which require minimum coverage and restrict the ability to insurers to charge varying rates based on an individual's health.

Of course, only time will tell if appealing to the more conservative wing of the Republican party will now result in defections of more centrist votes. As John Boehnor said best, "Republicans have never, ever, not once agreed on what a healthcare bill should look like."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...are-replacement-bill

Listen, I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way, but, fuck the "Freedom Caucus". They need to sit down and STFU and don't try to tell me about what they've "done for us". Don't even try.

The United Nations ?

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ternational-law.html

The United Nations warned the Trump administration earlier this year that repealing ObamaCare without providing an adequate replacement would be a violation of multiple international laws, according to a new report.

Though the Trump administration is likely to ignore the U.N. warning, The Washington Post reported the Office of the U.N. High Commission on Human Rights in Geneva sent an "urgent appeal" on Feb 2.

The Post reported that the confidential, five-page memo cautioned that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act would put the U.S. “at odds with its international obligations.”

The warning was sent to the State Department and reportedly said the U.N. expressed “serious concern” about the prospective loss of health coverage for 30 million people, that in turn could violate “the right to social security of the people in the United States.”

A spokesman for the U.N.’s human rights office in Geneva confirmed the authenticity of the letter, which was sent by Dainius Puras, a Lithuanian doctor who serves the U.N. as “Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”

^^^^ Is that supposed to be a joke?

Fuck the UN.
De-fund them and kick them out of New York.