MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Trump's New Executive Order Makes It Easier to Buy Insurance Outside of Obamacare

Trump's order reveals how Obamacare functions as a trap for policymakers.

There is something clever, almost cunning, about Obamacare's policy scheme: It requires unequivocal political support from an administration in order to avoid accusations that the law is being undermined. It is a kind of joint political-policy trap, in which the only solution to the law's failings is to bail it out.

This is evident in the reaction to the executive order on health care President Trump signed today. Trump's order is light on specifics, but it is intended to facilitate the expansion of association health plans, which would let trade groups and small businesses band together to purchase health insurance like large employers. These plans would be exempt from some of Obamacare's rules.

This idea has been floating around Congress for decades. The House passed legislation aimed at expanding association health plans in March of this year, though it was never taken up in the Senate. Over the last several years, it has been championed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who spent months working with Trump on the plan. In addition, the order eases restrictions on short-term health plans, which are exempt from many of Obamacare's mandates.

Trump's order is intended to create less regulated, less expensive alternatives to Obamacare. It is not an attempt to unwind the law so much as to work around it, providing options that do not exist under the current scheme, which has resulted in steady and significant increases in health insurance premiums and limited health insurance choices in many parts of the country. The order is less a direct attack on Obamacare and more of an attempt to escape its failings.

Yet the reaction from defenders of Obamacare has been to accuse the president of undermining the health law. By creating a parallel insurance scheme, with less expensive plans that offer less robust coverage, they warn, it will lure healthy people away from Obamacare's insurance markets, and in the process will cause the insurance pool to become smaller and sicker, which inevitably means more expensive. It will exacerbate Obamacare's problems.

On the policy merits, this criticism is not wrong. Obamacare's government-created marketplaces were expensive and unstable before Trump took office, thanks in large part to the effect of its rules governing how insurers must cover preexisting conditions. But Trump's order won't ease that instability, and may well exacerbate it.

This would be true, however, of practically any effort to create more insurance options outside of its regulatory scheme. The law effectively requires total buy in, from market participants and from political overseers, in order to function. The result is situation in which the only way to avoid undermining the law is to prop it up. Obamacare is built to allow no alternative and no escape.

For various reasons, Trump's order may not work as well as intended. The order is short on details and will take time to work through the system and is unlikely to have a substantial immediate effect. It instructs the Department of Labor and Health and Human Services to consider finding ways to expand association health plans, and offers some broad suggests about how this might be accomplished but little in the way of specifics. As a result, the effort to spur the expansion of association health plans may produce limited results, with few new options coming online.

In addition, the executive order may create short-term confusion, since few if any new plans are likely to be available this year. The decision to expand these options by executive order leaves any newly created plans susceptible to undoing by a future administration that is more hostile to the idea. The idea is also virtually certain to spark legal challenge; exempting select plans from Obamacare's rules while leaving the overall regulatory infrastructure in place may not hold up in court.

There is also the possibility that Trump's plan will work too well, luring enough relatively healthy people out of Obamacare's insurance markets and producing a political backlash as premiums continue to rise and choices continue to decline. This is a plan that leaves many questions unanswered, and comes with substantial risks.

But in the meantime, it is also a plan that reveals the bind in which policymakers who wish to address frustrations with Obamacare now find themselves: It is an inherently flawed system that is made even more dysfunctional by attempts to work outside of it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    " it will lure healthy people away from Obamacare's insurance markets,"

    How do you lure people from something which they are not participating?

  • ||

    And weren't the exchanges supposed to be a backstop for a functioning insurance market? What ever happened to that?

  • BYODB||

    Well, they screwed the mostly functioning insurance industry and regulated it into a national single payer system managed by half a dozen corporate entities. It's not like any of the other claims made regarding the ACA turned out to be true, so why should this one?

  • ||

    It's like putting people on welfare during a recession and then complaining that startup businesses are taking people off of the welfare rolls, and so banning them.

  • BYODB||

    Basically, it's pretty ludicrous but then again the ACA was always a terrible idea.

  • sezuc||

    I've been working for this company online for 2 years, now i get paid 95$/per hour and the best thing is cause i am not that tech-say ,It's been an amazing experience working with them and i wanted to share this with you, .

    Visit following page for more information>> www.onlinereviewtech.com

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yet the reaction from defenders of Obamacare has been to accuse the president of undermining the health law.

    Secretly: "Single payer, here we come!"

  • John||

    Single payer will never happen. There is no money for it. The Democrats had their chance at single payer in 93. They couldn't get single payer in 09 when they had 60 votes in the Senate. They can't get single payer in California for God's sake.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Single-payer = price fixing and single-denier.

    Basically turning health care into a Maduro-like economy.

  • John||

    As long as you are able to pay for your healthcare and health insurance out of pocket, it is not single payer and it won't be a Maduro economy. The whole point of single payer is to make it illegal to pay for anything out of pocket. If it can't do that, it can't prevent new markets from arising outside of the government created ones.

  • Curmudgeon44||

    My understanding is, Italy has a government health system and citizens have the option of paying privately for private treatment. This comes from anecdotes about relatives living there. Do I have this wrong?

  • HillTown Trader||

    In Germany, as "single payer" nation, people with provable means can opt out of the mandatory health insurance scheme, certifying that they will not access the government subisided healthcare facilities. And entire network of private health clinic exists that value these customers.

    Britain also has a two tier health system. NHS for long waits, limited options and mediocre care, becuase anyone with cash goes to a private clinic. Britian even has insurance companies that sell plans for folk to access private clinics. They chose to pay for insurance PLUS pay the taxes that support socialized care.

  • BYODB||

    Not having the money for something hasn't stopped the FedGov before, why would it stop them now?

  • CatoTheChipper||

    They couldn't get it in socialist Vermont or crazy California.

  • BYODB||

    States can't print money, which is why they want it to be Federal.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    "On the policy merits, this criticism is not wrong."

    In other words, the "defenders of Obamacare" are right. The only meaningful conservative alternative to Obamacare is to replace it entirely, an approach that received exactly one vote in the Senate.

  • Fuck You - Cut Spending||

    Undermining it and letting it collapse on it's own stupidity is also a meaningful alternative.

  • BSL1||

    Replacing one giant, unconstitutional federal program with another giant, unconstitutional federal program is not a conservative alternative.

  • Microaggressor||

    There is also the possibility that Trump's plan will work too well, luring enough relatively healthy people out of Obamacare's insurance markets and producing a political backlash as premiums continue to rise and choices continue to decline.


    The premiums will only rise in the regulated sector. Meanwhile, the rest of us proles will have the option not to get wallet raped for the rest of our lives. This is clearly a problem - everyone must suffer equally.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It instructs the Department of Labor and Health and Human Services to consider finding ways to expand association health plans, and offers some broad suggests about how this might be accomplished but little in the way of specifics.

    So it's more of an executive suggestion?

  • Longtobefree||

    " . . . more of a guideline, actually . . "

  • John||

    There is also the possibility that Trump's plan will work too well, luring enough relatively healthy people out of Obamacare's insurance markets and producing a political backlash as premiums continue to rise and choices continue to decline.

    That doesn't make any sense. Let's say Trump's plan allows some number of people to get better health insurance. This leaves some people behind making their insurance worse. Okay, any backlash from those people is necessarily going to be mitigated or more likely overcome by the positive reaction of the people who are getting better and more affordable health insurance.

    The bottom line is that the EO will allow millions of people to escape the hell that is Obamacare. I really can't see how doing that is in any way politically risky.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    It won't be offset by any positive press if the current ,artist news media has anything to say about it.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Is Suderman this naive or is he just pretending for tgthe story?

    Of course that is how the drafters of the ACA intended it. They wanted to shut the door on any alternative that did not include more political control over health care. Their caterwauling is utterly predictable.

  • John||

    The whole thing only works if you have a mandate. If you don't have or enforce the mandate, the people in those exchanges just stop buying insurance and they die. Trump is no longer enforcing the mandate. What is going to happen is the exchanges are going to die. That would be a problem except that it looks like with this order all but the small number of people who are uninsurable will just buy insurance elsewhere or not buy it at all because they never wanted to buy it in the first place.

    Sudderman is pretending that the exchanges dying is some kind grave downside. No, them dying is just Obamacare dying and being replaced by people buying insurance based on need and ability.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    I'd prefer a quick death of ObamaCare by Congress to a lingering death, but it's a good thing that Trump is taking it off life support.

  • John||

    Me too. But the Republicans in Congress seem incapable of doing anything.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Indeed. If Ryan and McConnel have ever had a mandate to take a wrecking ball to the ACA, it's now. And they still can't get the shit repealed. Assuming they really even want to. Those two assholes, and most of the leadership, need to go.

  • swampwiz||

    Actually, with the premium tax credit (for those at a low enough income), the Exchange plans become a means-priced Medicare Advantage.

  • Jerryskids||

    Trump to sign order to eliminate ACA insurance rules, undermine marketplaces

    Actual WaPo headline. Burdening people with the responsibility of deciding for themselves undermines the government's attempts to grant them the freedom to do as they're told.

  • John||

    It undermines government created and utterly artificial "markets". These things would not exist if not for the government forcing people to join them and taking away other alternatives. The writers at the Post believe in the magic power of words. They honestly believe that because the magic word "market" is attached to these things, that makes them actual markets.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I always knew that the Dems would blame the failure of Obamacare on "sabotage". It's the old "kulaks, hoarders, and wreckers" trope Socialists have been using since the early days of the USSR.

  • John||

    It is sabotage and the evil Republican's unwillingness to fix it. Obamacare was the greatest thing ever. Yet somehow the Republicans are evil for not "fixing it".

  • Tony||

    It's been sabotaged since the very beginning. No Democrat has ever said the law is perfect. And no Republican seems to give a shit about healthcare policy except using it as bait for their moron cousinfucking voters.

  • ||

    I can' believe you're not fixing the mess I made!

    I know I'm not perfect and went into debt paying for stuff I didn't need and you warned me about but this is not the time to point fingers. I have kids and they will end up in the streets if you don't help me.

    How dare you even consider not helping me?

  • Longtobefree||

    Because I am an angry old white man, and you are on my lawn.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Are you serious? Are you serious?
    Jon Gruber was talking about you, not me.

  • ||

    Jon Gruber was talking about you, not me.

    I forget - is he an ObamaCare architect this week, or just some guy who wasn't really involved? It can be hard to keep up.

  • ||

    The little creep was involved if memory serves me right.

    And then the cocky twit let the mask slip.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Considering that they didn't need Republican votes to pass this, why didn't the Democrats just do the job correctly back then? The fact that they didn't is their own fucking problem. It's not "sabotage" if they couldn't stop you from shooting yourselves in the foot.

  • some guy||

    It's true. Moderate Democrats sabotaged the health law (from Tony's perspective). Republicans had absolutely nothing to do with it.

  • Tony||

    It ended up being less efficient than planned because Joe Lieberman is a dickhole. There are fixes to it, but first you have to care about Americans having access to healthcare more than jerking off Rush Limbaugh.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Right... It's all Joe's fault. It couldn't be the fact that the whole mess was a pack of lies from the get-go, as Gruber admitted.

    -jcr

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, there are no fixes for it. The whole thing was going to implode from day one. It was obvious to just about everyone but you and other idiot communists. That's even with prices skyrocketing far faster than they ever did before. In 2013 I was paying $3k per year for my own private policy for mediocre coverage I could live with. Now a 'platinum' policy, inferior to the one i used to have, is $10k per year.

    All so trannys can get their cocks cut off for free, illegals can get free healthcare, and cunts like that Sandra Fluke can get $3k per year in high priced contraception for no particular reason than her cuntish sense of entitlement.

    So fuck you Tony, and your goddamned ACA bullshit.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Lest we forget, several versions of the bill were cobbled together into a whole less than 72 hours before the vote. Hence Pelosi's famous dictum "you have to pass the bill to find out what's in it". That insult to the intelligence of every Senator and Congressman on the Hill passed without comment, so why would anyone have expected the Dems to do the job correctly?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, this is all your fault. Period.

  • Myshkin78||

    It's a start, but I'm not going to get too excited until something is enacted that can't be rescinded by the next president's EO.

  • Tony||

    A start toward what?

  • Myshkin78||

    The end of the ACA

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    The free market.

  • Microaggressor||

    But then! Prices will drop like a rock and quality will improve, a la Lasik eye surgery. Then health care will become available to the masses, and that would be the worst outcome possible. Right Tony?

  • ||

    No, no. In Tonyland free markets don't lead to lower prices. Only government monopolies do.

  • BYODB||

    I'll admit, just reading this made me laugh.

  • BSL1||

    I also noticed the word "efficient" in his last post, referring to a government program. Lots to laugh about with that one.

  • Tony||

    Take another econ class.

  • ||

    Allow me to suggest, on behalf of the group, that you take a first one, and then come back and criticize people.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Follow your own advice, pinhead.

    -jcr

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, as one who holds degrees in finance and accounting, has significant background in economics, and decades of experience in various areas of finance, I can say with confidence that you are an ignorant shitbag when it comes to business and economics. You are also generally stupid and boorish.

  • Sevo||

    And a general asshole, besides.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Thank you. I missed that one.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The order is short on details and will take time to work through the system and is unlikely to have a substantial immediate effect.

    Just the way I like it.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I support Trunp because he's a fighter!

  • John||

    No, Trump is Hitler with no respect for the law. Or is that on Monday Wednesdays and Fridays?

  • Longtobefree||

    Only after sundown

  • Paint Thinner||

    Yes, and because he built the wall and made Mexico pay for it

  • BYODB||

    God damn it, I don't like dictates from the crown even if they're ostensibly good measures. That isn't how this is supposed to work.

  • Qsl||

    As currently described, it is less a dictate from the crown than undoing with regulation what was started with regulation. No law has changed, and short of eliminating some federal agencies, no changes would have occurred from a regulatory standpoint without direction- if congress abrogates its responsibility to directly create law, it falls to agency heads or the executive.

    My history of it is a little hazy, but my understanding is that you had care organizations back in the day that had options to purchase things like insurance, which were ultimately regulated out of existence.

    This is seemingly a return to what was, so you can now purchase health insurance through AARP or whatever (and have them negotiate the price).

    Hopefully this helps end employer sponsored health insurance as well.

  • Adam330||

    Obamacare made marks of the few million people who are 1) healthy, 2) have incomes above the subsidy threshold, and 3) don't have employer sponsored insurance. Those people are getting hammered with gigantic premiums for lousy insurance to pay for the healthcare costs of several million really sick people. The rest of the population got off relatively scott-free with Obamacare (although there are some special taxes like the Medicare payroll surcharge). They obviously don't like being marks, and there's no logical reason that they should be targeted as the main funding source for sick people's healthcare costs. Anything that lets them get avoid being the marks is going to "undermine" Obamacare.

  • Curt||

    As someone with employer sponsored insurance, I disagree with the suggestion that I was somehow immune to this. The premiums that I pay increased significantly. The amount that my company pays on my behalf also increased significantly. That's money that would have gone to my account instead of my insurer's.

  • Adam330||

    Correlation doesn't equal causation. My employer insurance has increased very little. Your increases could have been caused by changes in your employer's risk pool, its choice of plans, local medical costs, etc. Obamacare made very few changes to employer provided insurance, so I don't see how it could have caused your premium increases. If you've got a theory, I'm all ears.

  • BYODB||

    The fact you're arguing about the scale of the increase should be indicative.

  • Adam330||

    My premiums went up every year before obamacare too. National statistics show employer provided insurance premiums have been growing more slowly since aca than before it.

  • Sevo||

    "National statistics show employer provided insurance premiums have been growing more slowly since aca than before it."

    Bullshit.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I too call bullshit on that statement.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I too call bullshit on that statement.

  • Paint Thinner||

    Keep eating it, you moron

  • CatoTheChipper||

    There are certainly some direct effects of ObamaCare (e.g., child coverage to age 26, substance abuse coverage, contraceptive coverage, etc.) and likely are some secondary effects that increase the cost of employer plans.

    However, it adds up to chump change compared to what ObamaCare victims (i.e., the people who meet the three criteria you list above) pay.

    BTW: There is another small segment of ObamaCare beneficiaries: Geezers under 65 in New York State. ObamaCare premiums in New York State are constant regardless of age.

  • ||

    Obamacare made very few changes to employer provided insurance, so I don't see how it could have caused your premium increases. If you've got a theory, I'm all ears.

    Because it's not just about direct impact. It's about the impact of the law as a whole on the insurance industry as a whole. Just because your law says "squeeze the balloon over here" and doesn't explicitly say "let it expand over there," that doesn't mean the squeezing isn't causing the expansion.

    If your premium only went up a little, you are the exception in my experience.

    Does it seem like an awful coincidence that so many changes to so many company risk pools happened right along side ObamaCare implementation?

  • BSL1||

    Same with my employer sponsored insurance. Each year, my company had to renegotiate an switch insurance plans or companies, due to significant premium increases. In addition, over the course of 3 years, my deductible went from $1K, to 1.5, to 3, to $5K. My out of pocket each year increased dramatically, along with my employer's contributions.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Garbage coverage as the result of a garbage law.

  • ||

    People with employer-sponsored insurance are taking it in the shorts, as well, although it's more concealed.

    I've had Kaiser for years, so I haven't felt the pain as badly - my employer is paying more, and my monthly premium is higher, but the people on the Preferred Provider plan have been royally fucked over the last two years, and what they have seems to only be pretending to be insurance. I don't see how it's sustainable.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    Adam330: You got that straight. I'm paying about $14K for a $13K deductible policy. It's basically worthless unless my wife or I get into a serious car crash.

    To get the $8K subsidy, I've decided to take the rest of the year off. (25% income tax + 15% self-employment tax + $8K: no thanks.) That, coupled with some deductions for capital expenditures and a maxing out the 401k and wife's IRA, should do it.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    In the age of a car crash, your or possibly another party's auto coverage would take care of the tab. The most likely use of catastrophic coverage would be cancer treatment or something in that direction.

  • swampwiz||

    I've decided to retire "very early" and live on a lifestyle that I term "college poverty plus", which has an income that is low enough to get bennies like ObamaRomneyHeritageCare and low-cost internet. (SNAP is a harder nut to crack, but sometimes I can even get that.) YouTube philosopher Aaron Clarey calls it "enjoying the decline".

  • Elias Fakaname||

    This is why I suggested harvesting the organs of progressives to pay for things like this. Progtards love compulsory govt. programs, and the redistributive nature should make it win-win for them. Tony should be endorsing my idea.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    The result of this EO will be that Trump will now somehow be blamed for the inevitable failure of Obamacare. Trump is now filling the role of wrecker.

    If only he hadn't allowed people the freedom to buy something other than what's being forced upon them, this whole scam would have worked!

  • Microaggressor||

    Trump will now somehow be blamed for the inevitable failure of Obamacare.

    That would have happened regardless. He doesn't have anything to lose here.

  • BYODB||

    This. It was always in the play book if a Republican won.

  • Paint Thinner||

    So, this was done from the goodness of his heart. Taking the blame for the black guy's monstrosity.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    That too was a given.

  • DajjaI||

    THIS is why I will vote Bannon/Paul 20/20.

  • Paint Thinner||

    THIS is why you'll remain an idiot

  • محمد الدالي||

    National Transport Furniture Company

    http://www.el-watnya.com/

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Trump's New Executive Order Makes It Easier to Buy Insurance Outside of Obamacare
    Trump's order reveals how Obamacare functions as a trap for policymakers.

    What's the difference between an "executive order" and a dictator's order again?

  • BSL1||

    Less and less each year...

  • Paint Thinner||

    The former is when a white supremacist decrees it to undo what the black guy did when he was a dictator.

  • Bubba Jones||

    On the other hand, if you build and offer attractive alternatives, people will flock to them and you can make Obamacare disappear without actually voting against it.

  • Paint Thinner||

    For various reasons, Drumpf's order may not work as well as intended. The order is short on details and will take time to work through the system and is unlikely to have a substantial immediate effect.

    Way to CYA, reason.com. You know, in case this has no effect, or worse, is a disaster.

    There is a simple way to repeal and replace Obamacare. Offer something better.

  • ||

    How about a confession that govt. has no business in business? How about a repeal of all laws? Oh, wait, that would expose the federal sham and start a questioning of the state sham. Can't have that. Politicians would have to make an honest living.

  • Sevo||

    "Offer something better."

    Been done, lefty idiot.

  • Paint Thinner||

    Hey Drumpf cocksucker, offer something better. As in pass the law, you moron.

  • ||

    The content of this edict corrects the harm of another edict. It's "official", i.e., the new "due process". We can send Congress home, which is fine with me, and let the executive branch take over fully. This will be more honest politics. It won't be any better or worse, just make it harder to sell the lie that everybody's rights are protected. It will be more direct mob rule, democracy.

    Let the power struggles continue, more openly, without that myth that a constitution "limits" anyone in power.

  • Miner49er||

    The process is moving in the right direction. Give citizens what they need now. Set up a proper parallel health care system while leaving the ACA untouched. Let it fall of its own weight.

    It should include HSA's, PATmOS, national insurance sold across state lines, limited liability for pain & suffering, nationally mandated & subsidized major medical umbrella policies, total transparency of prices and service levels, cafeteria benefits plans, etc. etc. No commissars, gatekeepers, or bureaucrats.

    Equalize tax treatment of health expenses for employers and individuals. Get employers and insurers out of the mix. (No more exploitation!) As the great economist Milton Friedman said, "We don't get our food from our employees or our fuel from the government. Why should we get health care from either?"

    Any persons with pre-existing conditions should be pooled and managed. But those subjected to "forced re-entry" because of terminated employer plans, job changes, or other discontinuities that were not their faults.

    Veterinarians provide similar services without government involvement, at high levels and modest cost. Auto insurere provide effective and affordable insurance without government meddling.

  • ||

    "Trump's order may not work as well as intended."? You meant as well as sold by his PR?

    The intention of all of Trump's work is to sell Trump, i.e., make him politically stronger. He is running for a 2nd term.

    All politicians rep themselves.

  • ThomasD||

    Wife won't let you say "death spiral" eh Suderweigel?

  • Longtobefree||

    Short on details?
    The temporary plans that were allowed in Obamacare for 364 days have been restored from Obama's administrative reduction to 90 days. (Too many people were buying the "poor" plans that were affordable and met the individual's needs instead of the bloated plans in Obama's dream exchanges.)
    Regular people can now form groups and avoid lots of Obamacare grief, just like the federal legislators.
    What details are missing?

  • CptNerd||

    Take off and nuke the plan from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

  • Galane||

    Simply apply the same rules to health insurance as are used for automobile insurance.

  • Earthfarmer||

    For Christ sake, just get out of the way and let people buy insurance from any association that wants to offer it. AARP, Farmers, Musicians....Get the F**k out the the way you government assholes!

  • Paint Thinner||

    providing options that do not exist under the current scheme, which has resulted in steady and significant increases in health insurance premiums

    "Florida regulators said most of the average rate hike — 31 percentage points — came from standard plans sold on the ACA exchange at healthcare.gov. Insurers raised rates for those plans due to the political uncertainty that has plagued the healthcare debate, specifically whether the Drumpf administration will stop paying subsidies that lower out-of-pocket costs for low-income Americans."

  • Lester224||

    Many catastrophic high-deductable individual insurance plans offered pre-Ocare were pretty much a scam. Paying for 10 or 20% of a heart attack or serious accident is going to be un-affordable for poor or working class people, especially when they have to pay $5000 or so first before any coverage kicks in. You'll be in medical bankruptcy anyway. Those kinds of plans are best used along with an HSA, which poor people can't afford. If you're middle class, young and healthy you can get these kinds of plans from your employer. Just put plenty of money in your HSA (if you can afford to) or don't have a car accident.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Auto accident injuries are usually covered through someone's liability insurance.

  • Robert Arvanitis||

    The harpoon of entitlements go in easy, comes out hard. And sometimes to do the least damage you have to push it straight through.
    LET obamacare spiral out of control. Then in an "emergency" act, kill it, even if it takes a year of blanket subsidies for transition, and the replacement of RINOs, especially McCain.
    (The alternative is to FEED a parasite because it may be painful to expel it.)
    As a partisan toady once said, never let a crisis go to waste.

  • Eman||

    Yknow what else goes in easy but comes out hard?

  • Eman||

    The only way to measure the success of something like obamacare is by averages, which kind of by definition screws minorities. I imagine that's a legacy Obama will be proud of.

  • rageon||

    Trump's plan makes it easier for healthy people to buy cheap insurance that doesn't actually cover anything. If you're already sick, or get sick, you're screwed.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    That's what they said about the individual health plan the democrats made illegal for my own good. Now I get to lay over 300% of what that plan cost for coverage that is inferior in every way. And that's for their 'platinum' plan. Which is funny they call it that. As my Assurant plan was very mediocre.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online