Because your 1993 health insurance covered far less.

There was no out of pocket maximum, you were denied for pre existing health conditions, and a surprise bill could show up anytime.

Now, you can buy health insurance even if you know your anemic kid will need $1.5M of treatment in the year, and it will only cost you ~$10k to ~$15k per year.

To be clear, today’s health insurance premiums are not premiums either, they are taxes, due to the legal ban on underwriting health risks and caps on premium price ratios between various ages. For example, my kid is going to use up more healthcare than he will probably ever earn in his life, before he even turns 7. Your premiums are what is paying for that, aka wealth redistribution via “premiums”.

▲

bushbaba 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We use an insurance model. Get upset how insurance works. Then complain it’s broken. Either it’s insurance or it’s wealth redistribution.

	▲	lotsofpulp an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In the US, it is explicitly wealth redistribution, from the young and healthy to the old and sick. It is still called an insurance premium because it is more politically palatable.

▲

TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Unless your (kid's) care is denied because it's a pre-existing condition. Or for some other pretext.

	▲	lotsofpulp an hour ago \| parent [-]
		In 1993, it would have been. In 2026, he cannot be denied coverage due to Affordable Care Act passed in 2010. However, because more people are getting more healthcare, like my son, premiums are higher. Which, as I explained, are not premiums, but rather taxes. So OldSchool is comparing a $300 per month premium with benefit maximums to $3,000 per month taxes, which are not comparable. And it’s not the insurance companies that cause the $3,000 premiums, it’s the medicine manufacturers and hospitals and doctors. My son is on medication that costs $80k per dose, and each infusion visit is $10k at least. And, of course, the legal liability each step of the way.