the 30 percent price hike for people who didn't keep continuous insurance coverage is supposed to compensate for dropping the individual mandate. 30 percent for just the first year, that is - doesn't exactly seem like a sufficient disincentive, does it? Then again, from what I've been reading, the fine under Obamacare was also not high enough to achieve its purpose in many cases, considering how much more expensive a year's insurance is compared to the fine (assuming you turn out not to need the insurance during that year, or at least don't significantly exceed the deductibles).

I'm seeing contradictory information on whether or not this plan significantly cuts back the minimum requirements on what has to be included in any insurance policy, in order to allow lower-priced minimal coverage plans for those not expecting to need health insurance much. You would expect so, and some sources write that, but the NYT overview explicitly says it does not... confusing.