From $479 to $2,800 a month for ACA health insurance next year

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/08/22/nx-s1-5511182/aca-tax-credits-health-insurance-open-enrollment

by laurex • 11 months ago

119 158 11 months ago

npr.org

toomuchtodo2• 11 months ago

Cheaper to leave the country if you can.

betaby3• 11 months ago

and go where?

toomuchtodo2• 11 months ago

Mexico or Europe, depending on your skills or pension income. /r/AmerExit on Reddit for more info.

VonGuard• 11 months ago

The United States of Ferenginar

cudder• 11 months ago

Even the Ferengi are wiser I'm afraid.

Rule of Acquisition #10: A dead customer can't buy as much as a live one.

nielsbot4• 11 months ago

We wouldn't have this problem if we have universal healthcare in America, no?

The US system is so dumb not to mention inefficient.

epistasis4• 11 months ago

Universal healthcare doesn't change the overall cost. To a large degree, the ACA/Obamacare was a good stab at getting universal healthcare! The change in this article is about undoing universality, by changing the subsidies for those with lower income.

To structurally reduce the fraction of GDP devoted to healthcare, we need to make far bigger changes. A lot of the setup right now is to subsidize those on Medicare by those on private insurance programs. The cross-subsidization goes very deep, and anything that might reduce costs also has the risk of undoing cross-subsidization. With half the country refusing to reform health care for the past 30 years, and the other half having their hands tied behind their back on trying to improve health care, we have built a gigantic overly complex system that's very hard to unwind.

lazide2• 11 months ago

Yup. Eventually it’ll likely be burned to the ground (uh, I mean ‘reformed’) but folks are trying to squeeze what they can out now.

narrator• 11 months ago

Whatever the problem with health care in America is, the solution is not more money. We already spend double what all other countries spend as a percent of GDP and we have worse outcomes.

There are a lot of similar mysteries in America. For example, why does it cost a billion dollars a mile to do subways which is 20x almost everywhere else.

AnimalMuppet• 11 months ago

Universal healthcare doesn't change the overall cost.

It can, at least to some degree. Every doctor's office has people who run through the insurance maze, trying to get services paid for. And every insurance company has people on the other side, trying to find ways to not pay for stuff. Having only one organization to deal with would simplify that; having one organization with clear, transparent rules would simplify it more.

the_gastropod2• 11 months ago

Universal healthcare doesn't change the overall cost

I get the sense I'm probably preaching to the choir here. But, the U.S. spends almost 2x what comparable countries (with universal healthcare) spend on healthcare. And we get worse than average results on virtually every measure.

This, of course, makes sense. When you're running healthcare as a for-profit business, part of our expenses are... profit to pay out shareholders. And advertisement budgets. And middlemen (insurance). And employees to do things like decline coverage. Medical employees to deal with insurance companies declining coverage. Etc. etc. There's a whole industry that only exists to support our private healthcare system that would cease to exist in a universal healthcare system.

forgotusername6• 11 months ago

Surely the complete removal of insurance and advertising from the US healthcare system would have an impact on the overall cost. Not to mention the amount of early preventative care that could be carried out instead of people waiting until it was really serious due to fear of medical bills.

runako2• 11 months ago

Universal healthcare doesn't change the overall cost.

Something like 15% of US healthcare spending goes towards administrative fees just around insurance. That's order of $800 billion annually, roughly $1,500 per American, that does not contribute in any way to improving health. This is roughly the size of the US defense budget that we spend on gating healthcare.

There are knock-on effects of our system that increase some costs, such as people skipping preventative care or medications due to high costs or lack of insurance and then ending up in higher-cost emergency care. Or see the recent trend of physicians documenting how much of their time spent arguing with insurance companies on behalf of patients, time not spent providing medical care (and thereby increasing costs).

lazide2• 11 months ago

It depends on what problem you’re referring too. Many socialized healthcare systems have huge backlogs right now.

Ration on price. Or availability. Or quality.

Eventually, every system ends up with one of the three. Sometimes 2.

9cb14c1ec0• 11 months ago

My Canadian father-in-law had to wait over a year before being able to see a neurologist about his suspected Parkinsons symptoms. Fortunately, he's well off enough that he was able to afford medical treatment in another country, but many people trapped in such systems are not.

XorNot3• 11 months ago

"Backlog" - there is never a moment that this isn't just wrong.

I'm from Australia. If I want to "skip the line" I can just pay to do so. Private practice exists. People don't, because it's expensive and they can't afford it.

This is exactly like the US, except in the US you just don't get healthcare at all and die instead.

The "backlog" in any public healthcare system is a triage line. If you actually need care, you get it immediately. If you can live with it but keep it monitored, you might not for longer then is optimally comfortable if you can't afford private consults.

In the US, again, you just don't get anything.

johnnyanmac3• 11 months ago

Somehow, America is doing all 3 at once, without ever truly offering universal healthcare to begin with.

AngryData• 11 months ago

So exactly like the US except it doesn't cost a fortune.

danielmarkbruce7• 11 months ago

Try living in a few different countries. The US healthcare system is amazing if you have good insurance - really freaking amazing.

Freedom2• 11 months ago

I've lived in over 7 countries and the US healthcare system is by far the worst one I've personally experienced.

fzeroracer2• 11 months ago

I live in the US and have good insurance. Our healthcare system is garbage.

xenospn• 11 months ago

This is verifiably false.

nielsbot4• 11 months ago

We should have a public system that covers everyone. If you're a fat cat feel free to go to a private clinic or doctor. Those will still exist. :)

The profit motive just seeps in to everything and screws everything up even if you have great insurance.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 11 months ago

I like the idea of a public insurance option. Would bolt right onto our current system and help bring costs down.

cj2• 11 months ago

What would a public insurance option involve? Do you mean insurance that's provided at-cost without a company profiting?

Insurance companies are already required to spend at least 80% (or 85%) of the premiums they collect on paying out claims. If they spend less, they are required to give rebates / premium refunds to policy holders.

It wouldn't be crazy to increase that percentage even more, since it's effectively a cap on the profit margin insurers are allowed to earn on premiums.

betaby3• 11 months ago

We wouldn't have this problem if we have universal healthcare in America, no?

No. Try living in Quebec.

wakawaka283• 11 months ago

The expense problem (which is overstated in the article) would just shift from premiums to taxes if there was "universal healthcare" in America. Besides that, a large part of the expenses comes from subsidizing drugs that get sold abroad for low prices. It's easy to whine about "dumb Americans" when your own country is subsidized by them

chasd00• 11 months ago

What it amounts to is a Covid era subsidy expiring. The article title makes it seem like ACA health insurance is going up 5x but in reality the expectation is 75%, this particular case must be an outlier. The person in the article even laughs it off since she turns 65 soon and will then switch to Medicare.

Gregaros• 11 months ago

The person in the article even laughs it off since she turns 65 soon and will then switch to Medicare.

You might be surprised how few Americans can ‘laugh off’ even a one-time payment increase of $2,300–let alone a monthly recurring one.

the_gastropod2• 11 months ago

I'm also an "outlier", I guess. But I'm on a marketplace plan. Currently I pay $25 for my monthly premium. Next year it'll be $132. And I'm under 40.

atonse2• 11 months ago

I still feel that something like Medicare for All should just be an issue for those that are all about free markets and entrepreneurship.

Maybe there are millions in America that only keep their jobs for the health benefits rather than starting a 1-2 person business.

It just seems so silly.

cyanydeez3• 11 months ago

Well, there's two forces at work:

1. Capitalism never sleeps.

2. Current healthcare employs thousands of people who would be out of work in a medicare for all system.

While #1 is a horrid excuse, #2 is what controls the real world.

kingkawn• 11 months ago

they’ll adjust

slipperydippery2• 11 months ago

Our GDP would take a really bad hit if we stopped wasting 10+% of it overpaying for healthcare (a white-collar make-work jobs program—like, god, couldn't we just start up the CCC again? At least they built nice stuff that we're still enjoying... imagine what they could do with 10% or more of GDP!)

I suspect this, plus other ways the US reports sheer waste as GDP to a much higher degree than most peer states, is the main reason folks report the US feeling a lot poorer than second-tier EU countries that on-paper have far lower GDP/capita, even with PPP adjustments. But the fake-healthcare-GDP is probably the single biggest culprit, being absolutely enormous.

ProjectArcturis• 11 months ago

The powers that be don't care at all about thousands of insurance adjusters losing their jobs. But they care very deeply about vaporizing hundreds of billions in shareholder equity.

philip1209• 11 months ago

It's also an equality issue. People stay in abusive relationships because of healthcare.

Related: "My gift to USA" by Harald Eia (Norwegian comedian) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PguJ-lm4uLg

Takeaway of that video: "Can you really be free if you have to depend on somebody else?"

andy992• 11 months ago

What is special about healthcare in this regard and where should be draw the line? This argument could be used to justify socializing all kinds of costs, almost anything up to UBI.

chatmasta• 11 months ago

Universal healthcare is supported by something like 60 or 70% of Americans. Don’t be fooled by those trying to make it into a party issue.

Agreed, it’s crazy. Making healthcare contingent on employment is barbaric but aligned with other practices (like W2 tax withholding) where the government effectively deputizes your employer to enforce the civic contract.

onesociety20222• 11 months ago

I would support universal healthcare if I think the government is actually capable of reigning in the avg healthcare costs of an American.

I’d bet the $800/mo eyedrops this poor lady is relying on don’t cost that much in any other country (and I don’t mean poor countries - I mean in other rich countries like Japan, Singapore or Australia). So when she switches to Medicare as soon as she turns 65, how much are the US taxpayers paying for these eyedrops? It’s just wealth transfer from US taxpayers to the US medical industry complex.

So I fear “Medicare for All” would simply mean we pay even more taxes than we already do now and the US government will keep spending insane amounts of money on healthcare as compared to every other developed nation in the world with no better outcomes.

cornholio5• 11 months ago

"Medicare for all willing to pay 10% of taxable income" seems like a way to sneak universal healthcare through the political backdoor. It will initially have a funding shortfall due to adverse selection (it will attract primarily people with low incomes, high risks or both) but you would gradually move all public subsidies towards that program and remove all incentives, tax credits and rate protections from those who choose the free market option, and when just a minority still hangs on to the private providers, you make the 10% health tax mandatory to all.

The way I see it, you will never wrestle away the trillion dollar bone from the mouth of the US healthcare industry, but you can make it wither away indirectly by creating a better universal system and dismantling the status quo. It's not like Europeans are forbidden the option of private insurance, it's just that it can't take hold and grow to control a significant part of the spending because everyone can see it's not the solution that will save you when you will get really really sick.

valianteffort3• 11 months ago

60 or 70% of Americans polled*

I certainly don't want it and nobody I know that actually understands the real cost does either. Every single nation that provides socialized healthcare is hopelessly strained by its cost, and the service has suffered as a result. The system relies on eithe dramatic reductions in the cost of healthcare or a positive birthrate to sustain it.

Nobody I know in socialized healthcare systems has good things to say about it when they actually need it.

readthenotes13• 11 months ago

Between medicare, medicaid, Tricare, chips, etc around half the people in the United States are already on some sort of government supplied medical insurance.

Getting to 60% for for such a deal shouldn't be too hard!

PrivateButts• 11 months ago

I made this argument in a paper I wrote for a college economics class. I had first hand experience with it because I had recently done the math and figured that I would have to stop my flexible contracting job and seek more traditional employment as I was going to lose my parents insurance and the 'open market' option was unaffordable. Ended up being the reason that I dropped out of college.

Kapura• 11 months ago

If people need a job to have healthcare, it gives employers a lot of power. and because superpacs have allowed people with the most money the most say in american elections, the capitalists can just keep wringing people out.

jzackpete2• 11 months ago

It's silly that believing more government intervention will solve the problem, given that a big reason healthcare became tied to employment in the first place was wage freezes by the government, from which employer sponsored health insurance was exempt.

We're not going to solve it by constraining the supply of healthcare by regulating every aspect of it, and then subsidizing the demand.

atonse2• 11 months ago

It’s not constraining care. It’s a single payer system. Think of there being one insurance company.

This isn’t theoretical. Medicare already has been supporting the most frequent users of the system for decades. It’s a proven system with low overheads.

Yes there’s probably abuse but overall it has high satisfaction from its stakeholders.

AstroBen4• 11 months ago

Maybe there are millions in America that only keep their jobs for the health benefits rather than starting a 1-2 person business.

I'm not 100% sure about upcoming changes, seems similar from what I can see, but ACA gives an option for this. No job = very low income = you'll qualify for hugely reduced premiums

nobody99992• 11 months ago

I'm not 100% sure about upcoming changes, seems similar from what I can see, but ACA gives an option for this. No job = very low income = you'll qualify for hugely reduced premiums

The premiums are not reduced, at least where I live. What happens is I can deduct those premiums from the taxes paid. But wait, if I have no/little income, I don't pay taxes. And so I get no subsidy.

Is that what you're talking about? Woo hoo!

readthenotes13• 11 months ago

"something like Medicare for All"

If that's the case, then you've never looked into the complexity of Medicare.

Medicaid for all, and concierge services for those who want to pay exalted prices for exalted services -- that may make sense.

Arrowmaster2• 11 months ago

Medicare is only complicated because private insurance was allowed in. All those extras are killing it too from increased costs.

Medicaid is state run. Some states let private insurance companies run it, some run it themselves. The argument for medicaid for all should also be to bring it all together like medicare.

binarymax• 11 months ago

Democrats should lean on this hard for 2026 midterm elections.

naijaboiler• 11 months ago

meh it doesnt matter. Biden tries "government that delivers", it didnt' work. instead his VP lost to one that promised cruelty. I used to be a what's good for type person. Now im just slowly giving up, and adopting a "eff you, I got mine" attitude.

GuinansEyebrows• 11 months ago

Now im just slowly giving up, and adopting a "eff you, I got mine" attitude.

well, that stinks. that's exactly why we have this problem to begin with.

epistasis4• 11 months ago

The winds may change. The media was campaigning super hard for Trump, and still refuses to cover him fairly and hold him to task for the things he does, but the results are already so awful that people see through the fawning media coverage of Trump.

Don't give up hope, don't give up caring for your fellow person. A lot of fools made really bad choices, but it doesn't take many people to smarten up to drastically improve the system. You wouldn't see the Texas redistricting that's going on right now if Trump didn't know that he's completely screwed in next year's election. It's a desperate attempt to hold onto power, even if they media won't say that outright, or even dare to criticize Trump.

2OEH8eoCRo02• 11 months ago

I wonder what would happen if every last social program were repealed. People would be screwed and angry. Would they push for real change then? Are all these programs keeping America just below boiling point?

ecommerceguy2• 11 months ago

They created it. Remember Democrats voted down Nixon's Medicare for All THREE TIMES.

Democrats voted against universal health insurance. Note I said Insurance, not health care. Big difference.

Lots of Doctors are moving to Direct Pay, I never hear people complain about that. They don't take insurance PERIOD.

Lots of that type of practice Europe folks.

j_timberlake2• 11 months ago

If Dems put any strategy into winning elections, they would never have picked Hillary, Biden, or Harris.

awongh3• 11 months ago

Is there any republican justification for this, other than, by the time people notice it will be too late / we will try to blame it on the other party? Are they expecting the states to step up and pay instead?

cyanydeez3• 11 months ago

They're expecting bondage and excuse to "crack down" where they wish.

Think of republicans now as a party creating excuses to itch their desire to look at female genitals.

nblgbg• 11 months ago

Just blame Obama/Biden for it and move on ! I am not kidding that's what you will hear.

softwaredoug2• 11 months ago

The justification is the expiration of what they say is an emergency subsidy from the pandemic.

I’m not saying that makes it good (IMO society would benefit from this subsidy being permanent). But that’s their justification.

awongh3• 11 months ago

Were premiums that high pre-pandemic?

slipperydippery2• 11 months ago

They're setting the ACA up to "naturally" fail anyway, so this doesn't matter to them, or is even a step in the right direction.

They kicked out one of its three "legs" (the "individual mandate") so this right-wing heritage foundation promoted healthcare scheme is now guaranteed to face a price death-spiral anyway, unless that changes.

They gave up on repealing it, because it was so popular, and have settled for breaking it in ways that most folks will have trouble figuring out they should blame Republicans for (those chickens won't come home to roost for years, and I guarantee it's only a tiny minority of voters who understood the necessity of the mandate for the whole thing to work, anyway), so eventually it'll be popular to get rid of it.

Sohcahtoa822• 11 months ago

by the time people notice it will be too late / we will try to blame it on the other party?

This is it.

A lot of the things that the Republicans are doing that will completely fuck the lower/middle class don't actually take effect until after the mid-terms. This is an insurance policy so that if they get absolutely wrecked in the mid-terms, they can point to Democrats having the majority push blame onto them. On the flip side, if Republicans maintain control after mid-terms, by the time the next election takes place, people will have forgotten who it was that screwed them over.

Alternatively, they can just keep saying it's all Obama/Biden's fault. That still works.

awongh3• 11 months ago

if Republicans maintain control after mid-terms

Is that still possible? I guess I'd assumed that they were set to lose, but I haven't been keeping up with the overall picture.

pixelpoet• 11 months ago

"Every country has the government it deserves." - Joseph de Maistre

softwaredoug2• 11 months ago

FWIW this is about a pandemic era subsidy expiring. It sucks that a seemingly “temporary” subsidy was holding things together for folks

The credit was a pandemic-era relief measure that has contributed to record enrollment in the insurance sold through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

johnwheeler• 11 months ago

We need to stop paying doctors millions of dollars. That’s the only way it’s going to come down. Half a million, whatever they get paid is making it so people have to do without decent insurance. That’s the biggest variable I see in the US vs other countries (not to mention bogus drug pricing, but there are controls hopefully being implemented for that.

Ekaros• 11 months ago

Cut wages, subsidise schooling properly. Send them straight to med school. Why would a blue collar job need more education than is actually needed.

johnnyanmac3• 11 months ago

s/doctors/private equity. The CEOS who keep acquiring hospitals and running them to the ground are the real ones at fault. We can definitely pay doctors a good salary after 10+ years of post-secondary schooling.

not to mention bogus drug pricing, but there are controls hopefully being implemented for that

not really much "hope" for this administration. Especially when it comes to doing things that benefit the working class.

runako2• 11 months ago

TL;DR it's not doctor salaries. Fortunately, there has been much expert research on this, for example:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...

That "administrative costs" line item is closing in on $1 trillion annually, and its main purpose is to prevent people from getting healthcare.

jonas21• 11 months ago

The article is surprisingly unclear about this, but the enhanced subsidies that are expiring apply to households making over 4x the Federal poverty level ($62,600 for a single person or $128,600 for a family of 4). Subsidies for those making less remain intact.

johnnyanmac3• 11 months ago

paying $400 for health care out of pocket was already a lot. Paying 2800/month for healthcare is absurd. You may as well just foot the entire hospital bill yourself.

and I thought this would be in a high CoL area. But the woman quoted lives in West Virginia. How is she paying 2-3x her rent for healthcare? For eyedrops of all things too.

Honestly the story gets sadder the farther I read:

Like an asthma medication [that] can run $700 a month. There's an eye drop medication that can be $800 a month... "Luckily I can do that, but that's money I won't be able to save for investing in my 401(k) for retirement,"

yalogin• 11 months ago

They are going to kill ACA, all of it is timed to kick in after the elections next year. They cannot really kill it because its a law, so they make it unaffordable and essentially be useless and unused

ecommerceguy2• 11 months ago

I own an Agency and write a ton of individual ACA along with Group and Medicare.

Final pricing hasn't even been released yet. I'll betcha that her premium won't be anywhere near 2800, theres no information about how shes quoted what she did such as age, zip code, carrier and income. This article is rage bait.

Here's a better source of information regarding how and why premiums are going up.

https://acasignups.net/

ncr100• 11 months ago

I am hopeful, of course, that the lady doesn't suffer, and that you're correct about "rage bait."

Thanks for sharing the linky link.

franktankbank4• 11 months ago

True, its safe to say health insurance didn't get scammier.

dilap2• 11 months ago

US healthcare is such a pain -- very high premiums, high deductibles, tons of paperwork, no price transparency.

My wife is from mexico, so while her visiting familly there I've had some opportunity to interact with and observe their system.

It seems better!

There are public hospitals which are open to all. The quality and wait times are reasonble, not fantastic. There is very little paperwork. (You don't have to jump through hoops like signing up for Medicaid or something.)

Alongside that, you can buy private insurance and go to private hospitals, which, in my (admittedly limited) experience, are very good -- efficient and reasonably priced. I would _guess_ because of less regulation and because they have to provide value above and beyond the free healthcare that's available?

In the US we seem to have created sort of the opposite incentive structure -- public healthcare is only available to a limited set of people, and everyone else is more or less forced into the private healthcare system (or "private", since it seems heavily intertwined w/ govt -- e.g., standard govt websites to pick a povider, tax penalty (tho since lifted) if you aren't signed up).

Somehow there's always a mountain of paperwork and bills that dribble in over months, and you never know how much the final cost is going to be.

Another seemingly-insane feature of the US system is if I pay for a service w/o insurance, I'll be billed some crazy rate. With insurance, I'll copay some reasonable-ish rate, and the insurance company will also pay some reasonable rate, often at like a 90% discount to the "quoted" rate. It feels like I'm coerced into insurance because I can't out-of-pocket pay the actual real reasonable rates.

Another annoyance is it also doesn't seem possible to buy insurance that just covers accidents, which I would personally do if I could...

lurking_swe4• 11 months ago

In the US we seem to have created sort of the opposite incentive structure -- public healthcare is only available to a limited set of people, and everyone else is more or less forced into the private healthcare system (or "private", since it seems heavily intertwined w/ govt -- e.g., standard govt websites to pick a povider, tax penalty (tho since lifted) if you aren't signed up).

There is no “we”. The rich and influential people that run the US _designed_ the system this way on purpose. To extract as much money from citizens. We didn’t reach this point by accident. Is there a presidential party or candidate that’s running on “tear the whole stupid system down and rebuild it to be simple and affordable”? Little baby steps like obama care don’t count in my opinion. No reasonable person would design a healthcare system where a hospital charges $500 for dispensing ibuprofen for example. Or a system where it’s impossible to predict how much you’ll pay as a patient. And they call it a “marketplace” lol. That’s lunacy.

If you know someone running on that as their campaign, please let me know. I’d be happy to vote for them. I’ll even donate to their campaign!

Another annoyance is it also doesn't seem possible to buy insurance that just covers accidents, which I would personally do if I could...

That sounds like an interesting concept. Travel insurance is sort of like that, but not the same thing obviously.

franktankbank4• 11 months ago

Don't know why you get downvoted but I hear you!

This whole "extraction of money" is so stupid though, it is just reducing labor output nothing else, so goddamn stupidly greedy. Insurance should be for left field diagnoses and stay the fuck out of everything else. Right now payers are being leaned on as guardians of the purse strings which is incomprehensibly dumb.

ponector3• 11 months ago

> There are public hospitals which are open to all.

No way they are open for all. Maybe emergency room is, but not whole hospital. If you have an unknown disease which is not an emergency (like some STD) - I highly doubt you can go strait to the hospital and get proper treatment.

dilap2• 11 months ago

All citizens, I meant, in case it was unclear from the context.

Are there any hospitals anywhere that deny emergency treatment? I would be surprised.

hintymad• 11 months ago

There used to be a popular meme claiming that anything private tends to get cheaper over time, while anything regulated or run by the government keeps getting more expensive. But is that really true for all goods? If it is, then why do so many countries choose to adopt universal healthcare systems with tightly regulated insurance?

Maybe the more relevant question is: why is healthcare so expensive in the United States? It can’t just be because the U.S. is more advanced or developed. After all, one of the hallmarks of an advanced country should be making essential services affordable, if not cheaper.

CommenterPerson• 11 months ago

All the people saying "Government is inefficient". Come on, do you think the CEOs who only work for quarterly returns are going to provide great healthcare? No, they are going to use every opportunity and propaganda to keep ripping you off.

klipklop2• 11 months ago

There is a calculator mentioned in the article: https://www.kff.org/interactive/how-much-more-would-people-p...

I am trying to do the before/after for a single Adult earning $25,000 per year. It looks to be a 4% difference. I am not sure how you go from ~$500 to $2800 using this calculator. Short of starting to cover more people like children, etc.

thunky2• 11 months ago

I put 75k income and it says:

Your cost for a silver plan would increase by $1,577 per month ($18,924 per year) without enhanced subsidies

That's for a 63 year old in a random zip code in WV.

throw_away• 11 months ago

I had no idea that ACA prices were so different based on where you lived. I couldn't understand the numbers as I put in my family's stats & saw $600-$800/mo in my current and a couple of my former locations. Then I flipped to a random zip code in WV & it was $2200.

klipklop2• 11 months ago

Ah, I didn’t specify location. I do wonder if this calculator is working properly. I have no way to confirm.

Like the person below said it’s wild how much the price swings. Seems to defy logic. Then again we are talking about US healthcare….

bentt• 11 months ago

I have an ACA plan and am going to take a giant hit when the tax subsidies end.

At the same time, I wonder if it might be not such a bad thing.

Yes, I and millions will suffer higher premium costs.

Yes, many people will drop insurance or take bad plans.

Yes many more people will die because of this.

But ultimately, prices for health care must come down. If we continue to route infinite tax dollars towards the price setters (hospitals and doctors) then why would they change?

The only way they would reduce prices is if less people will pay. The only way that happens is if there is some pain, somewhere.

I don’t want people to suffer, but we have been headed in the wrong direction for so long… something needs to shake things up.

And ultimately, if this means some MAGA voters question their vote because they cannot get health care due to this change, then extra good.

But then again, it’ll still be Obama’s fault somehow.

franktankbank4• 11 months ago

Not to rain on your parade but all this does is continue to prop up a succubus class pretending to be middle class. Please continue to advocate for yourself. There are millions of worthless fuckers getting paid to fuck you over.

j_timberlake2• 11 months ago

Just in time for the midterm elections? Seems like the Dems have this handed to them on a silver platter, but they're so bad at winning elections, it probably still won't matter.

Projectiboga• 11 months ago

Single payer would allow all outcomes to be evaluated in total per year, so we could see better which things work and not, and what are the best return on spending. Big medicine doesn't want that, nor an FDA that has to consider budget implications of approvals. The ways single payer would help is by reducing friction in getting care, much less time with any approvals. And everyone would need less liability coverage if health costs are covered. That can lower automobile, business and other liability insurances. Everywhere else does it for less of a share of their own GDPs.

From $479 to $2,800 a month for ACA health insurance next year

Related Stories