5 ms·

It's always cost ~$2k a month, the only difference is the previous administration thought everyone else should be "temporarily" paying for her plan. I feel lik

by pxmpxm 10mo ago

It's always cost ~$2k a month, the only difference is the previous administration thought everyone else should be "temporarily" paying for her plan. I feel like we need a perpetual PSA here that moving money from person A to person B obviously doesn't make anything cheaper.

fzeroracer 10mo ago
No, it definitely did not always cost $2k a month.
- pxmpxm 10mo ago
  Bronze plans with $5-6k deductibles have always ran more than what people paid for rent. Healthcare is the one thing that's outpaced inflation in higher education.
  - mbrubeck 10mo ago
    So first you say it has always cost this much, but in the next breath you say that its cost has outpaced a high rate of inflation. Mathematically, these can't both be true.
    - pxmpxm 10mo ago
      A) Inflation in healthcare costs is well documented and unrivaled B) Biden papered over A) with "temporary" covid subsidies in 2021 and those are going away, revealing A) again
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
  - Retric 10mo ago
    Very good unsubsidized health insurance wasn’t anywhere close to 2k/month inflation adjusted the last time I used COBRA to continue my employer’s insurance after getting laid off. The underlying issue is inflation adjusted healthcare related spending increased 6x per person since 1970. Some of that is an increase in quality, but middleman are a huge factor.
  - antisthenes 10mo ago
    > Bronze plans with $5-6k deductibles have always ran more than what people paid for rent. Unsubsidized bronze plans were in the $250-350 range in 2016/2017. That's nowhere near rent.
JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> the previous administration thought everyone should be "temporarily" paying for her plan. Moving money from person A to person B obviously doesn't make anything cheaper No, but it means I can't pay for a first-class ticket while someone else survives. I'll take that deal.
- nradov 10mo ago
  I support subsidies to help low-income citizens who legitimately can't afford health insurance, but some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-government-shutdown.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-g... I don't want my tax dollars wasted on subsidizing them. Give the money to someone who actually needs it. (Of course the real problem is healthcare costs accelerating out of control. Insurance subsidies won't fix that problem. In fact they make it worse by encouraging healthcare providers and drug companies to raise prices even faster.)
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line These are legitimate complaints. Trashing the system because it's overly generous in some respects is insane.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 10mo ago
    I’m one of those retirees. It’s OK. I was prepared for this, and can afford it, but a hell of a lot of others on a fixed income, are totally screwed. > Give the money to someone who actually needs it. Like billionaires. They are the ones that really need it, and they get it; every time. Those yachts don’t pay for themselves. If anyone thinks poors will be getting any help, they are fooling themselves. Helping poor people is quite unpopular, in the US (where they conveniently forget that most of them are born in the US white, but politicians make it seem as if they are all dark-skinned immigrants). Many of the hardest-hit states will be ones that enthusiastically voted for this.
almosthere 10mo ago
when the gov foots the bill, there's no reason to have competition.
- ChicagoDave 10mo ago
  Before 1985, there was no for-profit healthcare. Worked pretty good.
  - tirant 10mo ago
    Before 1985 healthcare costs were very low, and population was way younger.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > Before 1985, there was no for-profit healthcare Wait, what changed in 1985?
    - ChicagoDave 10mo ago
      HMO laws allowed for-profit healthcare insurance. Groups of doctors banded together and carved out exclusive contracts to sets of hospitals and providers. Before this I recall seeing $7 taken out of my paycheck and there were no deductibles or copays. Meds were $5.
- marcus_holmes 10mo ago
  The govt also acts as a monopsony and forces lower prices. Same effect [0] different mechanism. [0] actually a better effect - the govt actually does force lower prices, whereas competition is subject to all sorts of other effects where it doesn't actually function to lower prices.
hiddencost 10mo ago
[flagged]
silisili 10mo ago
As a supporter of single payer(or really, anything else), I support this move. When half the nation is on subsidized healthcare they aren't so likely to care about costs. Now, you have a lot more angry people, and hopefully that leads to real reform, because what we have now is unsustainable, even to upper middle class families.

by pxmpxm 10mo ago

fzeroracer 10mo ago

No, it definitely did not always cost $2k a month.

pxmpxm 10mo ago
Bronze plans with $5-6k deductibles have always ran more than what people paid for rent. Healthcare is the one thing that's outpaced inflation in higher education.
- mbrubeck 10mo ago
  So first you say it has always cost this much, but in the next breath you say that its cost has outpaced a high rate of inflation. Mathematically, these can't both be true.
  - pxmpxm 10mo ago
    A) Inflation in healthcare costs is well documented and unrivaled B) Biden papered over A) with "temporary" covid subsidies in 2021 and those are going away, revealing A) again
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
- Retric 10mo ago
  Very good unsubsidized health insurance wasn’t anywhere close to 2k/month inflation adjusted the last time I used COBRA to continue my employer’s insurance after getting laid off. The underlying issue is inflation adjusted healthcare related spending increased 6x per person since 1970. Some of that is an increase in quality, but middleman are a huge factor.
- antisthenes 10mo ago
  > Bronze plans with $5-6k deductibles have always ran more than what people paid for rent. Unsubsidized bronze plans were in the $250-350 range in 2016/2017. That's nowhere near rent.

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago

> the previous administration thought everyone should be "temporarily" paying for her plan. Moving money from person A to person B obviously doesn't make anything cheaper No, but it means I can't pay for a first-class ticket while someone else survives. I'll take that deal.

nradov 10mo ago
I support subsidies to help low-income citizens who legitimately can't afford health insurance, but some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-government-shutdown.html https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-g... I don't want my tax dollars wasted on subsidizing them. Give the money to someone who actually needs it. (Of course the real problem is healthcare costs accelerating out of control. Insurance subsidies won't fix that problem. In fact they make it worse by encouraging healthcare providers and drug companies to raise prices even faster.)
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line These are legitimate complaints. Trashing the system because it's overly generous in some respects is insane.
- ChrisMarshallNY 10mo ago
  I’m one of those retirees. It’s OK. I was prepared for this, and can afford it, but a hell of a lot of others on a fixed income, are totally screwed. > Give the money to someone who actually needs it. Like billionaires. They are the ones that really need it, and they get it; every time. Those yachts don’t pay for themselves. If anyone thinks poors will be getting any help, they are fooling themselves. Helping poor people is quite unpopular, in the US (where they conveniently forget that most of them are born in the US white, but politicians make it seem as if they are all dark-skinned immigrants). Many of the hardest-hit states will be ones that enthusiastically voted for this.

almosthere 10mo ago

when the gov foots the bill, there's no reason to have competition.

ChicagoDave 10mo ago
Before 1985, there was no for-profit healthcare. Worked pretty good.
- tirant 10mo ago
  Before 1985 healthcare costs were very low, and population was way younger.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > Before 1985, there was no for-profit healthcare Wait, what changed in 1985?
  - ChicagoDave 10mo ago
    HMO laws allowed for-profit healthcare insurance. Groups of doctors banded together and carved out exclusive contracts to sets of hospitals and providers. Before this I recall seeing $7 taken out of my paycheck and there were no deductibles or copays. Meds were $5.
marcus_holmes 10mo ago
The govt also acts as a monopsony and forces lower prices. Same effect [0] different mechanism. [0] actually a better effect - the govt actually does force lower prices, whereas competition is subject to all sorts of other effects where it doesn't actually function to lower prices.

hiddencost 10mo ago

[flagged]

silisili 10mo ago

As a supporter of single payer(or really, anything else), I support this move. When half the nation is on subsidized healthcare they aren't so likely to care about costs. Now, you have a lot more angry people, and hopefully that leads to real reform, because what we have now is unsustainable, even to upper middle class families.