[The_Reader_David]

A year from now we’ll be in the campaign for the next Congress, and God willing a year and four months from now, the GOP congressional caucus will (1) have shifted right and (2) be in control of both houses of Congress.

Meaning, if it’s not working, it has to be market-based reforms.

Personally, I like the idea, in the context of a market-based overhaul of health insurance and health care regulation of “keeping” exactly two aspects of Obamacare: the popular “slacker” provision letting under 26’s stay on parents’ coverage, and insurance exchanges. But the latter have to be redefined so they offer as “bronze” coverage not the whatever the SecHSS says they should, but a policy that’s basically a high-deductible catastrophic health insurance policy plus coverage for an annual physical, with no coverage for abortions unless there is a life-of-the-mother indication.

[MN.Gruber06]

"Personally, I like the idea, in the context of a market-based overhaul of health insurance and health care regulation of “keeping” exactly two aspects of Obamacare: the popular “slacker” provision letting under 26’s stay on parents’ coverage, and insurance exchanges. But the latter have to be redefined so they offer as “bronze” coverage not the whatever the SecHSS says they should, but a policy that’s basically a high-deductible catastrophic health insurance policy plus coverage for an annual physical, with no coverage for abortions unless there is a life-of-the-mother indication."

Under-26s should only be allowed to stay on their parents' coverage if they are claimed as dependents on their parents' 1040/W-2/W-4. Makes sense to me.

Further, another aspect I'd be willing to keep is the article in the Act concerning pre-existing conditions. Nonetheless, the whole thing is trash. Cherry picking legislation and saying "well this stuff is good even though the rest of it really isn't" is why we're even in this mess in the first place.