What's sad (not comical) is that folks like you think requiring more things to be covered leads to lower premiums.
I was struck last night by a comment that I heard made by Speaker Ryan, where he called this repeal bill 'an act of mercy.' With all due respect to our speaker, he and I must have read different Scripture…The one I read calls on us to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to shelter the homeless, and to comfort the sick. It reminds us that we are judged not by how we treat the powerful, but by how we care for the least among us. There is no mercy in a system that makes health care a luxury. There is no mercy in a country that turns their back on those most in need of protection: the elderly, the poor, the sick, and the suffering. There is no mercy in a cold shoulder to the mentally ill. This is not an act of mercy. It is an act of malice.
I can't tell if you're kidding or just really bad at reading. Your first link is just an analyst who said HHS might be able to remove essentials benefits. Might (in reality, ain't ever going to happen because it would immediately be challenged in court). So not sure why you believe this supports your case. There's literally a history here of the Senate parliamentarian rejecting the Republican's minimum benefits regulatory repeal language in their 2015 Obamacare reconciliation repeal bill, so they had to rewrite it before passing it (and getting it vetoed by Obama of course). See below: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/obamacare-conservatives-senate-rules-235896These essential items required in a health plan that makes the plans more expensive can be dropped by the HHS:
HHS might also be able to alter the language on "essential benefits" that the law requires insurance plans to cover, which include trips to the emergency room, maternity and newborn care, and mental health services, Monk said.
"The law requires they have to cover 10 essential health benefit categories, but how that gets defined, a lot of that is interpretative," Monk said. "And of course, everything the Obama administration interpreted was more, more, more, more expensive coverage, and all these things lead to premium increases."
http://www.newsweek.com/gop-attack-obamacare-regulations-520445
It's got nothing to do with reconciliation. Over 1400 regulations can be dropped by executive order of the dept of HHS. That's the kooky way this legislation was written by Pelosi, Harry Reid and Co. Still don't believe me? Well, it's articles like this that I'm going by:
“It’s got two or three pieces,” Collins said. “Repeal and some part of replace can be in reconciliation. There’s 1,400 different items within Obamacare that can be done by [Health and Human Services Secretary-designee Tom Price] once he’s in, in that group, and then there will be other potential replacement pieces that aren’t appropriate in the reconciliation that can roll out one by each.” -
http://www.rollcall.com/news/politi...day-congressional-agenda#sthash.PcwfSGz6.dpuf
I can find more sources if you'd like.
Republicans tried to gut the law’s so-called essential health benefits in the 2015 reconciliation bill, but the parliamentarian said it would not comply with the rules, according to Republican sources.
The benefits requirement is the top item Republicans would like to get into the reconciliation bill. Several Republicans say they hope Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price can tweak the list of mandatory items through the regulatory process.
I'm puzzled with the whole "sell health insurance across state lines" solution. How then would you prevent every health insurance company from moving its headquarters to the states with the least amount of regulations? Isn't this just inviting a race to the bottom, where every insurance plan in the country would be negatively effected and real choice would be eliminated since people will have to get insurance from whatever state is most profitable to the insurance companies? How do you prevent that from happening? Or is that actually the point? A race for the lowest regulations. What "minimum standards" do you see the current legislative and executive branch implementing nation wide? wouldn't this neuter the states from being able to set up their own regulations on health care?
Sorry, I just don't want my Health insurance being controlled by the politicians in Alabama, or whatever state would first rush to eliminate as much regulation as possible.
Impossible to tell until we see prices and deductibles.
I can't tell if you're kidding or just really bad at reading. Your first link is just an analyst who said HHS might be able to remove essentials benefits. Might (in reality, ain't ever going to happen because it would immediately be challenged in court). So not sure why you believe this supports your case. There's literally a history here of the Senate parliamentarian rejecting the Republican's minimum benefits regulatory repeal language in their 2015 Obamacare reconciliation repeal bill, so they had to rewrite it before passing it (and getting it vetoed by Obama of course). See below: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/obamacare-conservatives-senate-rules-235896
So you're literally banking on "hopes" and "maybes". The reason is because they'll never happen. Sorry it don't work that way.
And come on, your 2nd link is a quote from some Republican giving his opinion, literally nothing more than that.
Honestly, if that's the best you can do I can only assume you're just conceding you don't really follow this stuff closely.
^^please stop using the blue font
What color would you prefer?
Anything that is easier to read just a heads up
I'm puzzled with the whole "sell health insurance across state lines" solution. How then would you prevent every health insurance company from moving its headquarters to the states with the least amount of regulations? Isn't this just inviting a race to the bottom, where every insurance plan in the country would be negatively effected and real choice would be eliminated since people will have to get insurance from whatever state is most profitable to the insurance companies? How do you prevent that from happening? Or is that actually the point? A race for the lowest regulations. What "minimum standards" do you see the current legislative and executive branch implementing nation wide? wouldn't this neuter the states from being able to set up their own regulations on health care?
Sorry, I just don't want my Health insurance being controlled by the politicians in Alabama, or whatever state would first rush to eliminate as much regulation as possible.
Ideally you would then not sign up for the insurance from Alabama. You would choose another company with better business practices. If no such company exists then you would note the market for one, create and advertise accordingly solve the problem that way.
I'm fully aware the above is a "perfect capitalism" example and rarely works in the real world. I also have no idea how I would ever start my own insurance company. But I did want to point out that business is not always a race to the bottom line. Often times companies are built on providing better service for higher prices.
There are too many factors for a prediction. I do honestly think that if companies begin to take egregious advantage of consumers then there is a market to create a new company to provide that service. Whether that company is successful often depends on how much other companies are allowed to pressure and/or slander the start up. There has to be some sort of regulation somewhere...Are you willing to literally bet your life on that prediction?
snip
As Democrats in Congress rushed to pass a health care overhaul of stunning scope
they didn’t bother working out key details about how the new law would be implemented.
There are too many factors for a prediction. I do honestly think that if companies begin to take egregious advantage of consumers then there is a market to create a new company to provide that service. Whether that company is successful often depends on how much other companies are allowed to pressure and/or slander the start up. There has to be some sort of regulation somewhere...
I'm not addressing the whole "EHB by regulation" thing with this post because I did that several posts back. I'm just taking this opportunity to point out that "spectator.org" may not be the best source of information. For example the article quoted says:
Yet it can be proven that the House had 79 hearings, 181 witnesses and considered 239 amendments over the course of a year. That's not rushed.
The article then says:
That shows that the author either doesn't understand or intentionally ignores the role of administrative regulations. I won't cross-post but I have a write-up about it in the "Trump's a-gonna eliminate regulations on a 2:1 ratio" thread.
It then goes on to derp about silly things like "It says the Secretary shall do things three times in one sentence!" again not understanding or ignoring that putting reporting requirements that change annually due to many factors, such as technology, into statute instead of regulation is just idiotic.