I feel like we need a perpetual PSA here that moving money from person A to person B obviously doesn't make anything cheaper.

(It's getting late, Jeff. I'm heading to bed myself.)

These increases are specifically a lapse in subsidies for high earners -- those with a "decent income." People under 400% of Federal Poverty Level still qualify for the subsidies. And it's a relatively recent policy change to roll back; we didn't have this subsidy from 2010-2020.

Health insurance premiums cost about as much as buying a new car every year. Healthcare is generally on top of those premium payments.

That's right, those pesky things the ACA says should be covered like emergency services, ambulances and prescription drugs is definitely the issue here. You've definitely found the problem.

I can't believe people keep repeating this lie. Did no one live prior to the ACA where you could easily go bankrupt because your insurance decided it didn't cover things like hospital bills? Because I sure as fuck remember, considering that's what bankrupted my parents.

Now whether the on-paper prices for medical care in this country actually have any relationship to objective reality is an entirely separate question of course. In general coming from an outside perspective, combining healthcare and for-profit motives in a single system seems particularly likely to lead to all kinds of perverse incentives, but, it's the system that exists, and it seems unlikely to change any time soon.

That’s a meaningless statement, look for an actual percentage here.

Healthcare costs have been spiraling for decades in the US, the ACA didn’t impact the long term trends to a noticeable degree. Actual healthcare reform could drive down costs massively, but that would mean a fuck load of people in medical billing getting laid off. Instead you’re paying for your doctor to talk with your insurance provider often for longer than they spend working with you, that’s the ultimate issue with US healthcare costs. Inflation adjusted “healthcare” spending is up from 2,100$/person in 1970 to 14,570 in 2023.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe...

If young people elected to get a barebones plan while in good health, who would subsidize them when they grow older?

Obamacare plans are actually the opposite: they are high deductible with limited networks.

Obamacare plans typically have deductibles between $5,000 to $9,000, with a narrow selection of networks, and high premiums if unsubsidized.

This is the opposite of what a a Cadillac plan is (or used to be).

Annual check ups? Cancer screenings? Maternity care? Basic mental health? Forcing the insurance companies to accept patients with preexisting conditions?

These services should be available to everyone.

If a developed country cannot provide these things to its citizens it's a failing state in my book.

https://peterattiamd.com/saumsutaria/

Since premiums never decrease, one can pretty easily plot out that in the next ~decade we will see family premiums larger than the median salary. The economics of all this are going to get very weird in the near future.

Reads a bit like you’re in a bubble. I have friends in the States who work in education, construction, and hospitality. I similarly have friends working in those fields in EU. I’d say the ones in EU are better off _and_ don’t worry about healthcare.

Not to mention you get actual vacation time in Europe and a higher standard of living generally.

If you don’t you pay a lot. Before ACA non-group plans generally didn’t cover any health conditions that predated your coverage.

ACA was just good enough to cool down demands for a true public health plan while also being just shitty enough to turn everyone else off to ever wanting one. Essentially the perfect way to prevent a public option for generations.

On the other hand you provided no details as to where the money actually goes. It's not a simple proble, and part of the problem is that our doctors are paid a lot more than in peer nations