Reply #201: I think you are somewhat missing the point.

[BzaDem]

The government is subsidizing 71% of his insurance. Would it have been great if we could have gotten through higher subsidies so people like your brother wouldn't have to pay $100/month? Absolutely.

But that didn't happen.

So should we therefore say because some people still can't afford 100/month, we should raise the price for similarly situated people back to almost 300/month? Of course not!

The truth is, prior to the Bush tax cuts, your brother would be paying around 70/month more in taxes (whether or not he could have afforded it). In single payer countries, his taxes would be much higher than simply 100 per month to cover the healthcare (even if it isn't specifically listed that way). So whether or not it is easy to part with 100/month, getting single payer or any other healthcare system wouldn't really make it free. Physicians for a National Health Program would result in an additional 7% payroll tax, which would cost your brother $121 per month (whether or not it was easy to afford).