They always have. Because either the insurance will pay or the individual will, so I see no reason to deny someone who is being prevented by their state from getting one. And we’re also not talking about red states, we’re discussing New Hampshire. And “red” people from red states are not going to
Get it anyway. Those who cross state lines will be the “blue” people from the red states. Why would you punish them?
I'm not suggesting punishing anyone, I'm stating what I read about this. It's not going to be how it is right now. Nothing is going to be covered by any insurance the same way or cost the same amount out of pocket. The state leaders are expressing these concerns. I'm not making it up.
Insurance companies will pay for those the APIC recommends. Insurance MAY pay for others. If not, they will have to pay out of pocket. That includes me. The issue is not who pays, it’s ACCESS.
Perhaps you should take this up with the leaders that have made the statements I'm relaying to you. They seem to think money and access, as well as insurance not paying, are all issues.
Which has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, which is regional leaders trying to guarantee access and availability. They don’t really have much control over insurance companies or costs.
They said it will end up in court because of federal vs state coverage mandates. States absolutely can and do have different insurance coverage mandates/control than the federal govt.