yes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. if everyone pays into a pool without any risk adjustment, that is effectively a subsidy to the risk-takers. I think that is a more fair way to understand rayiner's objection to "subsidies". I don't think he is seriously arguing that risk-takers should be denied care/testing/whatever altogether.

of course this is all hypothetical with the current state of US healthcare. step one has to be a reasonable cost baseline for people who don't elect a bunch of extra risk.