Young people don't need health insurance because they are healthier or if they are in college they most times were still on their parents plan or went to the campus clinic depending on their age.
The entire Obamacare scheme hinged on forcing those younger, healthier people to pay for insurance they didn't want or need in order to fund the government managed care for older people who aren't as healthy and really do need coverage.
The plan was jacked form the start...hell the thing had to be amended to include TriCare...the military health insurance as a Govt approved health insurance provider. That right there should tell you how effed up the ACA was from the start.
No disagreement there, txradioguy. The ACA mandates that insurers not differentiate in premium rates between young and old by more than 3 to 1. There's no actuarial basis for that (that actual difference in costs between younger and older individuals is more like 5 or 6 to 1, if I recall correctly). That points out clearly the winners and losers under the ACA:
- the winners were males in their fifties and early sixties who were laid off from their jobs (and their health insurance) during the past recession, who could now get affordable coverage under the ACA due to the 3 to 1 ratio rule.
- the losers were younger Americans faced with the choice of paying for health insurance that's far more expensive than what they could get prior to the ACA, or paying the ACA penalty/tax
Since so few younger Americans are agreeing to be price-gouged for something they don't want or need, the ACA marketplace is facing a premium death spiral, without enough healthy lives to support the sick.
The final irony is that the problems facing the ACA are actually pretty easy to fix. What's lacking is the will to do so.
