There are two main differences. In the U.S. the costs between those who have very serious illnesses and those who are generally healthy can be very sizable. The incentive is for only those who are the most ill to get the insurance. That's why in the U.S. the losses are astronomical.
No one is suggesting that the losses would be as large as that in Canada, because we're talking about genetic conditions that are relatively rare. My model includes 13 genes—that's all, just 13—out of well over 5,000 that have been identified. Those are the ones for which there is good evidence. We're talking about only around 1% of the population that might have one of these genes and would have a good incentive for anti-selection. The extent to which the premiums could rise would be less in this situation than is the case with Obamacare.
The reason I said—