The recent announcement that President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order regarding health care in the United States of America was met with praise and criticism, condemnation and acclaim.
In his order he called for a plan that would allow employers to work together to offer coverage across state lines. An action that might work where the United States Congress failed regarding the skyrocketing costs of healthcare in America.
Despite the decision to circumvent Congress the President noted that he still holds expectations that the Congress can take action to repeal the healthcare law.
In the executive order there are requests to provide alternative to expensive ObamaCare plans to encourage competition, which should bring down costs.
Supporters of the executive order include Kentucky Senator Rand Paul who described the action as the biggest reform of healthcare in a generation. But his praise came with a caveat: If it works, it will allow millions to purchase health insurance across state lines at a lower cost.
The use of the word “If” provides cause for pause, and based on the failure of elected officials to resolve this matter the use of the word does not implied nor encourage support.
An examination of the specifics provided also gives reason for concern: Association Health Plans, which would allow employers to form groups across state lines to purchase plans and offer coverage, do not discuss the cost of the individual healthcare plan.
Additionally, it is unlikely this executive order will reverse the trend of health insurance companies leaving state markets because they claim that they cannot make a profit in many markets. In 2018 roughly half of all the counties in the United States of America will have only one (Un)Affordable Healthcare insurer.
Critics of the executive order, which include medical associations, consumer groups, and some health insurance companies, have charged that the executive order could result in higher costs for the sick and could result in coverage gaps for healthy people who would purchase lower-premium coverage plans.
Additional criticism regards what is interpreted as regulation: Who would provide oversight for consumer protection. The proposal as written through the executive order, charge critics, could result in consumers having little or no recourse.
The response from The White House to the criticism is that the executive order was necessary to confront the unacceptable increases in the cost of healthcare under the (Un)Affordable Health Care Act, and noted that the executive order is not an end-all solution, implying that additional action on health care will be required in coming months.
Regardless, the cost of health care in the United States of America remains a concern that is affecting many other sectors of the overall economy. Until such time that elected officials and private sector executive realize this truth and fact executive orders and proposed legislation by politics mean nothing.