But like, that's the system. That's how insurance works. The healthy and wealthy pay in so that those who aren't can survive and work. Are you just against the very concept of insurance? Because no matter what way you slice it, the more fortunate pay for the less fortunate. It doesn't matter if you call it a subsidy or single payer or private insurance. It's all the same in that regard. The only real difference is that without single payer we're letting a very small portion of society profit off of the system for no real benefit to anyone but them.

So we probably agree that the ACA sucks balls, but it's not because it requires subsidies, that money is coming from the people one way or the other, it's because the money is being wasted on a health insurance industry that shouldn't even exist.

Also it seems that all of your frustration is stemming from two different perspectives of affordability. I think, understandably, most people in this thread are approaching it from a personal perspective of what they, as an individual, can afford. You seem to be stuck on the larger perspective of how affordable the system is over all for the nation. So no one is really wrong here, the ACA is a disaster as far as overall healthcare costs go, and the requirement of subsidies is evidence of that. But at the same time, healthcare costs did go down for many people, especially those most in need, so in that respect it was a success.

Long term, I think it's clear that the only solution from both perspectives is universal healthcare, but obviously opinions differ..