Idaho Plans to Allow Lax Plans; Reactions are Split By Party Lines (as one Would Expect): Facts and Opinions on Idaho’s HealthCare Fix
Idaho plans to allow health plans that don’t comply with Obamacare’s minimum standards. Thus, in Idaho, non-marketplace plans won’t have to meet the standards set forth by the Affordable Care Act. See Idaho’s new health insurance rules here.
That means women can be charged more, plans can no cover certain services, people can be charged based on age, coverage isn’t guaranteed issue anymore (unless you had coverage within 63 days; they are doing a continuous coverage provision), etc.
Its pretty much a plan to undo every aspect of the ACA’s benefits, rights, and protections at the state level. Feel free to click the above link and see for yourself.
If this goes into effect, and remains in effect (it might not be fully legal; so there is doubts there), then this will make Idaho the first state in the Union to embrace the new Trumpian version of ObamaCare (not a collaboration between parties, but more like a tug of war over Solomon’s baby).
What Does This Mean for Idaho? There is No One Truthful Answer, Thus this Next Section Contains Opinions
Assuming this does go through the results for citizens aren’t clear cut, and the projections are essentially vastly different depending on if you ask a conservative or liberal.
It is with that above point in mind that I can illustrate the basics:
- On one hand it means cheaper plans for some,
- On the other it means other people can be charged more.
- Some doomsday predictions point out that on paper some older, sicker, people could be charged up to 15x what a younger healthier person is charged.
- Meanwhile, health insurance costs have been rising that the cheaper off-market plans are likely to be a welcome relief to others.
It all really boils down to two conflicting views on what is best and where the truth lies:
- On view says: some people are going to be priced out, but generally things will be better and cheaper for most over time, because equalizing healthcare means everyone pays more, especially over time (the Republican Party view).
- Another view says: healthcare needs to be equalized, even if we all pay a little bit more, careful rules and regulations can help bring costs down over the long term (the Democratic Party view).
And so it goes. Every aspect of healthcare and its implementation calls for somewhat ideologically points and counterpoints to be considered.
The tale of modern healthcare is a tale of two polarized views that do not agree.
One view is the positive take, one the negative, but which is which always depends on which party implemented it.
No truths are black or white these days, instead all truths are black or white depending on if you voted for Trump or Hillary.
Of course, since the Affordable Care Act is still the law of the land, but because the conservative party has done so much to augment it, we now have this program which is neither Republican or Democrat, but is instead a sort of odd mix.
The mix wasn’t the result of compromise, it was the result of bloody battles and the result is an odd patchwork of policy ideas.
This is the House Republican plan stuck in place of the ACA, but the ACA is still a thing, so it creates a strange Frankenstein’s monster (which likely the hero of the story is not clearly good nor is it clearly bad).
Something surely needs to be done to improve healthcare, but is taking away rules that were in place and replacing it with the House Republican plan by questionable methods at the state level the answer?
All we know is that some will be helped, others will be hurt, and there will be a lawsuit (as since this state law attempts to ignore federal law on so many levels, it is likely to get hit with countless lawsuits ASAP).