You keep talking about these stupid hypotheticals rather than referring to actual data. None of your arguments appear to be based in understanding of the ACA's provisions or data on its impacts. If your logic does not match the real world, the problem is with your logic.
From what I can see, the uninsured population of 19-25s appears to be currently just under 15%. Before the ACA it was about 33%. That gives some idea how many young people are happy to have insurance. And I don't want to hear any more of your bullshit about them being forced to buy insurance: there is no individual mandate anymore, whether through an employer or the marketplace.
This is what I mean by ignorance or dishonesty. Although frankly, if you're arguing against something from a position of gratutious ignorance, that is just a form of dishonesty.
What you're refusing to understand is that you're just wrong about things. You think I'm dishonest because I'm saying different things than what you think is going on, but it's not me being dishonest, it's you being misinformed.
There is an employer mandate. I do not know why you think there isn't. It requires businesses to cover their full-time employees and their dependents up to age 26. It is comical to me that you think the drop in the uninsured rates is indicative of how much people want to buy insurance when the demographic you use is specifically those mandated by the law we are discussing to be covered through their parents' employers.
I don't know, maybe read up on the ACA and come back when you understand even the most basic provisions.
Risking bankruptcy or loss of life/limb is not the 'optimal choice' for anyone who has realistic access to the alternative.
It is, and you're silly to not see it. It's all money, the whole thing is just money. People aren't out there losing arms because the doctor refused to treat an infection. And it's funny to me that bankruptcy has got such a bad reputation among people like you, it's a government managed program to lift the burden off of people who become financially insolvent. And like, if you're in serious financial problems, there are a myriad of other programs to help you get out of the hole. It's crazy that I'm the one who has some faith in the government programs for the poor, and you're all defending the law that makes people pay money to private corporations to avoid the government doing things for people.
Anyway, back on track, it is optimal. It's the same calculation as gambling. Most people pay in and get less than their spending back as winnings, few people hit it big and win a bunch of money, but overall the winnings are less than the amount people spent. With insurance, most people pay in and get less than their spending back as winnings, few people have major health issues that get paid large amounts in their name, and overall the amount paid by insurances is less than what is paid to them. It is no more financially beneficial to buy insurance than it is to play the lottery. The average person, by the most basic of calculations, is losing value by buying insurance, and the thing they get in return is peace of mind, which is a fine thing to have, but overall you're paying more than if you were uninsured. Now imagine a lottery where the chance of winning is scaled to your age, where being 20 meant that you were almost guaranteed to lose every cent you spent with nothing in return. Why would they choose to play? Why would they spend like 5% of their income just in case they hit the 1-in-a-million?