When I first read this, I expected to flip over to DKos and see explosions of outrage. But there aren't any, unless they were written while I was typing this.
And then I read it more carefully and on the one hand it seems to hold the states to the same standards as before, but with the option of providing more liberal benefits at the state's expense.
But then there's this:
By giving states the discretion to specify essential benefits, the Obama administration sought to deflect one of the most powerful arguments made by Republican critics of President Obama’s health care overhaul — that it was imposing a rigid, bureaucrat-controlled health system on Americans and threatening the quality of care. Opponents say that the federal government is forcing a one-size-fits-all standard for health insurance and usurping state authority to regulate the industry.
I wonder if, as the article suggests, this is more of a political foil to Romney as it is a substantial change. However, the phrase "essential benefits" bothers me. If he is allowing states to work their way around the essence of the law, then that is a problem. I can tell you, if there is wiggle room, Texas will try to outdo Houdini.
But I don't understand how the states could be permitted by administrative fiat to undermine benefits guaranteed by the law. It's difficult to see how this could be a legally substantive change.
If it's a political ploy dressed up as substantial change, I hope the Republicans are as confused as I am.