ndabney

ndabney

1p

1 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

14 years ago @ KeithHennessey.com - How reconciliation mig... · 0 replies · +1 points

@kbh

Consider the following provision: In the event an individual is legally denied coverage by at least one private insurance carrier, then the government must either provide coverage through a public insurance option or reimburse the individual for any and all medical expenses incurred after the date coverage was initially denied.

In the case where a public option is unavailable: removal of any coverage guarantee would greatly increase the cost of the provision.

In the case where a public option is available: removal of any subset of the coverage guarantees would shift a significant number of high-cost individuals onto the public option, which would greatly increase the cost per person on the public plan.

In both cases, removing coverage guarantees would likely raise the cost of the bill to where it no longer met the reconciliation instructions. If so, does that mean the coverage guarantees are necessary conditions for the provision I gave, and would therefore meet the exception from the second point of Byrd's rule from your post?