Originally Posted by AemJeff
Because the benefit level will plummet as the costs and the value of the subsidy decohere. If nobody's getting adequate health care, I don't care if you call rationing or not, it's a non-optimal solution. I'll repeat: Insurance is the the wrong model, even if there's a subsidy. Markets can't fix this problem, unless you believe that depriving people of access to healthcare as they age is a valid solution.
That is an assertion rather than an argument-- and one that is demonstrably false. At any given government expenditure level, participants are better of with a voucher system than the ACA because competitive markets can respond to participant preferences in myriad ways that any one-size fits all program can't.