This sounds very disturbing. If subsidized plans have a low reimbursement plans to provider then why cost should be low which in turn should mean the subsidies should not be that high. What we are seeing the worst of all worlds, a subsidized plan that is expensive to all sides (doctors, government, taxpayers, and patient.)
I hate to sound like the GOP spin machine, but it seems to me the right way to do this is to
a) Tort reform
b) Let insurance companies sell across state borders (like into CA and NY markets) which should lower costs via competition
c) No community rating so the cost of insurance should be a function of the medical condition of the insured so the healthy can get the cheap insurance that they deserve anyway
d) Means test premiums (whatever it is) on an individual basis and then hand out subsidies on an individual basis as needed
We should just let the market work as much as possible and then subsidies comes in at the end. Micromanaging the process with all sort of rules (like 3 vs 1 ratio between the ages, community rating) just messes this already messed up system even worse. Here NY state we already lived what the future under Obamacare might be like, and it is not pretty (I have friends who do have high earnings ($250K+) in their early 40s who are self employed and pay $25K+ for insurance plus another $20K every time they have a kid.)
