Young adults will pay higher premiums under Obamacare because of its age rating system. The law stipulates that the maximum variation allowed in adult premiums is a cost ratio of 3 to 1. But as Heritage research shows, “The natural variation by age in medical costs is about 5 to 1—meaning that the oldest group of (non-Medicare) adults normally consumes about five times as much medical care as the youngest group.” Obamacare’s “rate compression” causes insurers to charge artificially low premiums for older adults and higher premiums for younger adults. Moreover, “Actuaries estimate that the effect will be to increase premiums for those ages 18–24 by 45 percent and those ages 25–29 by 35 percent while decreasing premiums for those ages 55–59 by 12 percent and those ages 60–64 by 13 percent.”
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/21/obamacares-2nd-anniversa...
Don't oppose the Act because it doesn't bring about the best possible world. Oppose it only if it's worse than the currently existing situation.
And besides, it doesn't invalidate the ethical point that it is right to privide medical insurance, even if true.
> And besides, it doesn't invalidate the ethical point that it is right to privide medical insurance, even if true.
Your original point was "There are no good reasons to be against the Act", so my response was pointing to a reason why someone would be against the act: I'm pretty sure that being laid off due to a regulation is a pretty good reason to be unhappy
AKA a sales tax. Which don't generally lead to broad-scale layoffs when they're imposed. Did California have massive layoffs when they raised their tax on everything in the entire economy in January? How about when Canada introduced a brand new 7% across the board sales tax in 1991?
As a business, the standard way of responding to that kind of tax is to raise your prices correspondingly (to an appropriate level set by your supply/demand curves of course).