Quote:
Originally Posted by mav1178
But that's not a valid comparison.
The fundamental concept of health insurance being subsidized is just a general concept of the fact that a healthy population costs less to maintain than an unhealthy one. So if you were to provide more coverage (overall) then you'd pay less over a period of 30-60+ years.
A lot of this gets into very specific types of economic modeling for socio-economical conditions that are too difficult for a few discussion posts here, but at some point it needs to be emphasized that a healthcare subsidy is NOT the same as someone paying more for a good or service.
The premium I pay ($300/month) is me, unmarried 41 year old male in California on the Kaiser Bronze plan. The only difference before/after ACA is that California offers a subsidy up to ~$300 depending on my level of income, and it goes away entirely once my income is above a certain threshold.
That's all. What I pay for my healthcare does not change, what the state subsidizes changes. So it's like a gallon of milk is the same for everyone, except those that are poor can pay with food stamps from the state.
|
Who’s paying for the subsidies?
You understand the whole point of what I said is that I have a problem with the whole “depending on level of income” thing, right? You ripping apart my comparison is futile because you’ve disregarded the reason for the analogy.
I’m okay with people having subsidies to support those who cannot afford to purchase it (just as I am with SNAP) privately but Medicare already does that to an extent. The whole point is that I’m not okay with bending people over the barrel for shitty coverage and premiums triple what they cost in the private sector.