just how much of a drain on actual health care resources does the up to 26 year old cost ?
Other than self inflicted damage, the 18 - 26 year old age group should be pretty robust, health-wise, should it not ?
When I was that age, most of my peers in NYC had absolutely no health insurance - they were actors waiting tables generally. I don’t remember one of them ever being sick outside of a cold.
But their contributions pay for broken down old folks, like me.
They need to participate, so the parents do the paying.
“just how much of a drain on actual health care resources does the up to 26 year old cost ?
Other than self inflicted damage, the 18 - 26 year old age group should be pretty robust, health-wise, should it not ? “
Not that much; this is true. More importantly, IMO, there are the principles involved. One is, that this age group was to be targeted and viciously snaked; by forcing them to pay into a warped system with the idea that since they would NOT draw on the system so heavily, that their contributions would be “free money” for rest of the system. Then we get into the notion that since they do not draw on the system much, let’s further force them to buy the same coverage a 60 y/o person would want or require. Then we could discuss that because we force them to buy deluxe coverage, employers will in effect reduce their wages or never hire them in the first place, as they become more expensive employees. Then, because they are earning less, their contributions become more onerous as a fraction of their earnings. This is targeting and “disproportionate outcomes” writ large. As a society, then, we are diminishing both the prospects for our younger members to achieve productivity and their own economic freedom. And then claiming we are doing something really, really cool. It’s a monstrous lie.
The ACA IMO has to be viewed not as a single dimension “oh this is good for that” bumper sticker, but as a rat’s nest of laws and directives written and imposed in the name of a liberal single-dimension mandate. It is a serious dent in so-called societal “progressivism” written in the main for the purpose of government taking over 1/6th of the overall economy. It is a piece of 85% negative, 15% positive vicious statism when viewed in terms of its overall effects. All of which were predicted in great specificity by some of the adults and lauded as a utopian outcome, looking only at the 15%, by the gimmes. This is a very standard and hackneyed characteristic of any number of these Marxist overlord deals.