http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/...56_billio.html

"Forcing individuals to buy coverage regardless of its cost would be
made simpler, he claimed, by another provision of the plan: no
insurance company could offer lower premiums to applicants with good
health.

For example, a healthy woman who exercises regularly and doesn't abuse
drugs could not pay less for the same plan offered to a morbidly
obese, sedentary man with liver disease from chronic alcohol use.
Policies could not be discounted for health, only for age-but not to
an extent that would allow the youngest policyholders a deep
discount."

More from the Washington Post - who doesn't like it either.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...orst_poli.html

"Baucus's bill retains the noxious "free rider" provision on
employers. Rather than a simple employer mandate that forces every
employer over a certain size to provide health-care insurance or pay a
small fee, the free rider approach penalizes employers for hiring low-
income workers who are eligible for subsidies. That will create an
incentive to do one of two things: Don't hire low-income workers (hire
a teenager looking for a job rather than a single mother, or hire a
housewife looking for a second job rather than an unemployed
breadwinner), or hire illegal immigrants.

And it actually gets worse. The employer pays more if the low-income
worker needs subsidies for his family as opposed to just himself. So
it not only discriminates against low-income workers, but it
particularly discriminates against low-income parents. Single mothers
will get the worst deal, as they have lower incomes, and as you might
expect, children who need health care."

You honestly have to wonder what they are really after don't you?