If the slice of the pie that “young people” contribute is too small, your argument becomes irrelevant because then it means they’re not paying for “old people”. Some other age group is. Your original argument has to do with proportions and until we actually see what they are, we can’t say where burdens are being shifted.
Now you bring ANOTHER argument, which is that “young people” are unfairly affected. I’m surprised to hear that rent is that cheap for you. It wasn’t in all other places I’ve known. 2-3k / year for rent is not a mountain. Its a joke.
I pay $2300 a month for a small studio. It’s the most expensive neighborhood in the country.
I’m worried about the median-income twenty-something, not myself. Paying $3k more for health care yearly amounts to a mountain for most young people.
We’re talking about a very vaguely defined population still. Who are these people? What is their median income? What are the real costs of insurance they will face on average? What is the frequency of these people within their age groups/the population? I was under the impression the medical plan had safety nets for people who couldn’t afford care. If you want to argue they’re burdened, you have to acknowledge that a burden is relative. Just like your (insane) rent.
So if sex is healthy and I don’t have something to jump and hump, will this new health care cover the prostitute AND the treatment of the stds?