“Essential benefits and all the other mandates may be
affordable in a wealthy state, but unaffordable in a poorer state like
Mississippi or Alabama that causes people to go from some insurance to no
health insurance,” Brooks said.
The only reason I can think of for his opposition to the original is because it was not draconian enough.
The carrot for conservatives is the opportunity for states
to apply for waivers from some of the ACA’s mandates, including its requirement
for insurers to cover essential health benefits and its ban on swelling
premiums for people with preexisting health conditions. Many conservatives
don’t like leaving the law’s insurance regulations in place, but the waiver
provision allows them to argue that they’re giving states more control over the
situation.
But the revisions would also restore the law’s federal
essential health benefits requirements for states that don’t obtain a waiver from
them. The original bill would have turned over those regulations completely to
the states.
Gee, I wonder how hard it'll be to get that waiver. Like buying a gun in a red state, I'm thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment