[setgree]

This is why I think it was a mistake for the ACA to limit catastrophic care to people under 30 (unless you get a hardship waiver [0]). That policy makes the cheapest non-job insurance that a lot of people can get cost >$500/month, whereas a catastrophic plan costs a lot less (about $120/month when I had such a plan in 2016).

For a lot of people who drive Lyft, catastrophic care could be a good fit, e.g. people in between jobs who expect to have a company plan at their next full-time position. This wouldn't entirely close the gap towards providing gig workers with benefits, but it would have helped.

There's also people for whom Lyft is a second job -- I'm thinking of a ride with a Chicago public school teacher who drove on weekends and breaks -- and I don't think it makes sense to force Lyft to provide them with insurance.

[0] https://www.healthcare.gov/health-coverage-exemptions/2019-e....

[kxyvr]

Where do you see those numbers? ACA offers catastrophic plans to those under 30 and they're not nearly that expensive. I just did a quick check for someone with no subsidy in San Fransisco using the age of 25 and a catastrophic plan from Oscar showed up at $223.46/month. This includes zero subsidy. Using a $30k income and rerunning the numbers, a bronze plan form Kaiser with subsidy comes out at $47.83/month.

Look, I'm not happy about health care costs either, but ACA plans for young are really not that expensive. Further, plans prior to ACA offered terrible coverage. Yes, people got to say they had coverage, but the lifetime caps bankrupted people repeatedly. Eliminating the caps and mandating minimum essential coverage was absolutely essential to eliminating what really were scams of coverage. Further, even if you really want to get terrible coverage for less money, you can always use the loop hole and purchase coverage through a health care sharing ministry, which are even cheaper. Though, I strongly recommend against that because there's no guarantee that a bill will be covered.

[setgree]

Sorry if this wasn't clear -- I'm saying that I wish that catastrophic plans were available to people over 30 as well.

My numbers are based on my own experiences shopping for healthcare in an ACA exchange in NY.

[kxyvr]

OK, cool. Every state is different, so I'm always a bit curious as to how high premiums are set in different places. I just took a look at plans for those in NYC. For someone aged 35, it still looks like they're offering catastrophic plans. Fidelis has one at $178.75/month with no subsidy. For someone making $30k/year, the subsidy drops a bronze Fidelis plan to $16.59/month.

And, to be sure, coverage is still pretty bad. Just because someone has coverage doesn't mean they have the money to use coverage. Unless there's another subsidy, and there may be, that bronze Fidelis plan has a $8150 out of pocket max and it's unlikely someone making $30k/year is going to have that much money laying around. That said, at least the plan has a couple of free PCP visits.

Anyway, my intention here isn't to beat a dead horse. It's really important to me that people get health care coverage and costs are a barrier. I believe ACA plans to be far more affordable than people think them to be. I don't doubt that you saw a price in the realm you mentioned because they're out there, but often better pricing can be found and I end up doing these searches a lot.