It sounds like it would be easy to game the system as proposed. Plan details here and here. One key aspect is 63 continuous days of coverage to avoid the 30% fine/fee (that what it is, really). It does not seem that hard to not have insurance for 60 days, be on, then off again. Sure there may be only 1 open enrollment period, but someone always finds a way around, like not pay for the last 2 months of insurance (but in emergency jump back on?) Then the 30% for 1 year, that is basically the price of 4 months of coverage. That is not that great a fine, and younger people would very likely not have insurance, even if it will cost them 1/5 a retired person ("Would let insurers charge older customers five times as much. That’s intended to draw more younger — and healthier — people into the individual insurance market."). No preexisting conditions will easily allow people to go in and out of coverage, and there is little the insurance could do to keep people in. There is no requirement for any business to offer insurance for employees, and if insurance can charge 5x more for older people then there is every incentive to kick older employees people out. PLUS financial support seem with the employee, not company, so companies would do better giving the employee a little extra money and no health care. This bill looks like it has too many loopholes. Obamacare was modeled after RomneyCare that had 2 years of operation and was producing results. TRyanCare is un-tested ideas.