4 ms·
>Allen is herself a casualty. While she used to pay $487.50 a month, her new healthcare plan, with reduced coverage, has monthly premiums of $1,967.50. Brutal.
by duxup 11mo ago
>Allen is herself a casualty. While she used to pay $487.50 a month, her new healthcare plan, with reduced coverage, has monthly premiums of $1,967.50.
Brutal.
Meanwhile the White House calls it all "fake news".
- pxmpxm 11mo agoIt'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 11mo agoNo, it definitely did not always cost $2k a month.
- pxmpxm 11mo agoBronze 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 11mo agoSo 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 11mo agoA) 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 11mo ago[deleted]
- Retric 11mo agoVery 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.
- harmmonica 11mo agoIt doesn't add to the discussion, but an anonymous upvote wouldn't convey my appreciation for how apropos this comment is.
- nradov 11mo agoI 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 11mo 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 11mo agoI’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 11mo agowhen the gov foots the bill, there's no reason to have competition.
- ChicagoDave 11mo agoBefore 1985, there was no for-profit healthcare. Worked pretty good.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago> Before 1985, there was no for-profit healthcare Wait, what changed in 1985?
- ChicagoDave 11mo agoHMO 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.
- tirant 11mo agoBefore 1985 healthcare costs were very low, and population was way younger.
- marcus_holmes 11mo agoThe 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 11mo ago[flagged]
- silisili 11mo agoAs 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.
- p0w3n3d 11mo agoGuy from Poland here. What happened to ObamaCare? I thought you got finally a primary healthcare for all?
- ponooqjoqo 11mo agoObamaCare (actually the Affordable Care Act: ACA) is a band-aid solution. It's a way to at least ensure that everyone has a pathway to insurance if they have enough money. Basically, the government negotiates some plans with private insurers and makes them available to the general population. It's subsidized, but the new budget has drastically decreased these subsidies and so the cost to enroll in the ACA is about to go up for people who want to get insurance through their marketplace.
- runako 11mo agoQuick summary: the US does not have anything approaching a modern healthcare system. (And likely will not for quite some time due to a set of structural factors.) Obamacare (the Affordable Care Act or ACA) was an attempt to expand coverage and slow the rate of increase of costs. It did the former but less well with the latter. One other thing the ACA did is stop the scourge of scam insurers. This is a thing where people would pay for "insurance" and then find out later that their "insurance" did not actually afford them any meaningful coverage. The ACA tried to close a set of loopholes and overall regulate the insurance market more closely. Anybody reading this from outside the US probably lives in a place where low-cost healthcare is more accessible than it is in the US.
- dboreham 11mo agoQuick note that for people aged 65 and over the US does have a healthcare system somewhat like other developed nations.
- runako 11mo agoGiven that older people tend to be some of the main cost drivers in healthcare, it's sort of silly that we cover them and then refuse to allow younger (cheaper) people to opt in to the same system & perhaps defray costs that way.
- tempodox 11mo ago> Meanwhile the White House calls it all "fake news". The truth is a lie and only government lies are the truth. Orwell would be so proud.