> I see a lot of footnotes and links within the main table. And the
> sources look credible, eg CBO, CMS, etc.
Sorry, I missed the footnotes.
Examining the footnotes, it looks like their point about a lack of enforcement mechanism for banning rescissions references a CMS report. But following the link to the report, I can't find anything in it on rescissions. The section of the report that would logically contain it (on the "immediate insurance reforms") seems to say CMS didn't address those provisions of the bill since they don't materially affect national health spending (the subject of the report). Maybe I'm missing it but I don't think so.
I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that the regulatory agency supposedly empowered to sanction companies that do rescissions is the administrator of the health insurance exchange. He or she has the power to exclude a company from the exchange if it breaks the rules.
Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about:
> 5. [Claim:] This bill will stop insurance companies from hiking rates
> 30%-40% per year.
>
>
> [Reality:] This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes.
> Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws, and are
> free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the
> country.
What a non-sequitor. My recollection was that Obama claimed the bill
will prevent sudden, unreasonable rate hikes by giving the exchange
administrator the power to review rate hikes and potentially exclude
exploitative companies. It's anyone's guess how rigorously that will be
enforced (I wouldn't be optimistic), and it only applies to the
individual market, but what the fuck does that have to do with
anti-trust? Which, by the way, is a typical FDL obsession, along the
lines of corporate personhood.
SA