Insurers have accepted the proposal of government-dictated comparative effectiveness because it will allow them to escape responsibility of deciding what treatments to pay for and all the hassle of appeals and other mechanisms of consumer protection. Much easier to simply process claims according to a government template and avoid any liability. So, I think you are right.

Whether this will protect them a few years down the road when the single-payer extremists point out that they are adding no value in exchange for skimming their percentage off the top of ObamaCare, I highly doubt. Look at the evolution of the government’s student-loan take-over.

Bart Ingles:

The video didn’t tell us a lot about Mr. Effington, but it was clear that he was a dependent on his parents’ employer-based group coverage. Therefore he had HIPAA protection.

Paul:

The Secretary will have the power to fix premiums. If she decides to drive all insurers out of business she can do it with the stroke of a pen, using her entirely arbitrary and unaccountable power under this law.

says ‘The legislation leaves it to the U.S. Health and Human Services Department to define what “dependent” means, as well as whether and how employers can charge extra for the benefit, Abbott said.’

Have they defined this yet?

A couple of alternatives to reality-by-fiat might have been to extend the existing child mandate limit one year at a time until it equals 26. Or, failing that, to at least set an enrollment window, say from September 23 to November 23, after which creditable coverage requirements begin to apply.

There was no need to destroy a good system to which 80% of the people were satisfied. Medicaid was working fine as the safety net for those who could not afford health insurance. The government must stop using the “emotional element” to replace rational clear solutions to peoples problems when dealing with the health insurance companies and responsibility issues. Government, get out of the way and let private industry attract customers by the services they offer for a price. Competition will determine which are good for the people and which are not.

If so, they may try to stop the death spiral that way.

The government current funds about half of health expenditure (60% if you include the tax expenditure from employee health plans). New public subsidies will put government health care spending care on par with countries that are recognized as having socialized medicine.

Assertions that the reform legislation amounts to a government takeover of health care is not rhetoric. ObamaCare is another step towards a system like they have in Britain where the wealthy have private coverage and everyone else makes due with a substandard public plan.