To address the issue of short-term, limited-duration insurance being sold as a type of primary coverage, the Departments proposed regulations to revise the definition of short-term, limited-duration insurance so that the coverage must be less than three months in duration, including any period for which the policy may be renewed. The proposed regulations also included a requirement that a notice must be prominently displayed in the contract and in any application materials provided in connection with enrollment in such coverage with the following language: THIS IS NOT QUALIFYING HEALTH COVERAGE (MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE) THAT SATISFIES THE HEALTH COVERAGE REQUIREMENT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE, YOU MAY OWE AN ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WITH YOUR TAXES. [...] Some commenters requested that the Departments go further and prohibit issuers from offering short-term, limited-duration insurance to consumers who have previously purchased this type of coverage to prevent consumers from stringing together coverage under policies offered by the same or different issuers. However, in the Departments' view, such a restriction is not warranted.The individual shared responsibility provision of the Code,[17] which generally requires individuals to obtain minimum essential coverage in order to avoid an additional payment with their taxes, provides sufficient incentive to discourage consumers from purchasing multiple successive short-term, limited-duration insurance policies. The added notice requirement ensures that individuals purchasing such policies are aware of the individual shared responsibility requirement and its potential implications. Furthermore, such a prohibition would be difficult for State regulators to enforce, since prior coverage of a consumer would have to be tracked.
Notice the date. 2016. Meaning that for the entirety since ACA has been implemented, STI were still a thing, still being sold, and still being discussed on what action to take on them by stakeholders. Pre-existing conditions were addressed in insurance plans that qualified under the ACA as "Essential Coverages", but short term insurance remained outside the scope of having to accept pre-existing conditions
This is arguing that the individual mandate and it's penalty are sufficient incentives to prevent people from chaining together short term policies for long durations.
Not only did the TCJA get rid of the penalty, but the adminstration created rules expanding 'short term' coverage from 3 months to 364 days.
So this is evidence of how the administration has undermined the aca, you just need to understand the policies to follow it
---
But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.