but that it pays over your lifetime by being less when healthcare when is more expensive. Makes perfect sense when looking over your own lifetime. But in reality it was impractical because those that think they're still immortal are more likely to pass on insurance the more it costs. The GOP House plan was 5X (with allowing states to adjust from there iirc) but of course that was immediately attacked with cherry picked disingenuous stats about how the 64 yr. old was going to be screwed by outrageous increases (ignoring the screwing of the young before that, and subsequent unscrewing in that plan).

The til 26 proviso IMO was to hide how badly the young and healthy were getting screwed and Gruber folks into believing they were getting some deal for their hefty increases. It's foolish, but was needed because we didn't allow the young and healthy truly affordable options (e.g. true catastrophic plans) to going uninsured. Because folks in DC wanted to tell us what they deemed we needed. Yes, you can call them "shitty" plans, and in a way you would be right. But sometimes even a "shitty" plan is better than no plan, which was the alternative ACA made all too realistic. It should be allowed as long as you can be a dependent of your parents, after that, buy your own health insurance. Sadly, I doubt pols on either side of the aisle will have the balls to ever take it away.

Ultimately, you make something "affordable" and therefore get people in the pool by giving them something that's actually affordable, not by putting more of that cost on someone else. (although I have no problem with using the individual mandate too) Even if it's "shitty". Then you address how do you make it affordable by addressing the cost of healthcare, and how to lower it (competition, taking choice power away from insur. co., etc.), not hoo pays for the insurance.