That's absolutely incorrect. The individual mandate requires people purchase health insurance or face a penalty. This will do absolutely nothing to introduce additional insurers. The only thing it will achieve is increased premiums.

> The thing I've always hated about Obamacare was how healthy self employed folks are subsiding the unhealthy people

That's the core principle of insurance, taxes, and functional governments. Everyone contributes to the same pool even if they don't directly benefit from nor utilize every aspect.

Is that not how this all is supposed to work? the young and healthy help the old and sick, or the rich living in coastal cities help the poor living in rural areas.

So do you just hate health insurance in general then? Because all health insurance works like this.

Now, there's a very valid moral question as to whether or not I'm entitled to have my healthcare subsidized by others in a pool and I'm fine having that conversation. From an economic point of view, I'm just shy of my mid-thirties with an advanced degree, been in the black with a self-funded business for the last 4-5 years, and have the potential to release products in the near future that could return millions in tax dollars. However, I may be robbed of that opportunity if I'm unable to purchase health insurance that covers cancer. Certainly, that's a frustrating proposition given that the only major misstep that I had was being unfortunate enough to become afflicted with a disease not under my control.

And, just in case someone is curious about high-risk pools, I actually currently carry insurance from one because the ACA marketplace in my state does not offer PPOs and I have one regular appointment out of state. Anyway, the coverage and cost of high-risk pools varied wildly from state to state. As an example, since I'm familiar with TX, prior to disbanding the pool, the law allowed high-risk individuals to purchase insurance at twice the prevailing rate from the pool. If I recall correctly, its pool used a PPO, which is no longer found on the exchange, so we'll use a gold plan EPO to approximate. In Harris county, the current premium for that rate is $429/month with an out of pocket max of $6350. If we went back to the old model of twice the prevailing rate, I'd have to budget $16,646/year, which isn't all that far off from what it used to be. Now, that's just TX and different states had different rules. In the state I'm currently in, the 2018 premium will be $514/month with a $5000 out of pocket max. And, to be clear, there is cheaper health insurance available, but my perspective of coverage and costs changed dramatically after my illness. Health insurance doesn't mean much if it doesn't cover the doctors you trust for a price you can afford.

Anyway, my point is that just because someone is in their 30's and healthy doesn't mean that their coverage will become cheaper or even attainable. Further, this has broad economic implications because it will quite simply force many of us out of the self-employed market because it's not responsible to carry an insurance plan that does not provide comprehensive coverage. This tax plan has been touted as helping small businesses, but it may end mine depending on what happens to the market in 2019.

Also people don't think about two other high risk pools... women of childbearing age and very young children. If the heath care market is broken up many groups of people will be affected.

If you're right, then the IRS owes me a refund.

[1] https://www.healthcare.gov/health-coverage-exemptions/hardsh...