"if they're going to die, then let them be done with it, and reduce the surplus population."

The federal Health and Human Services department would monitor patterns of premium increases, and could take action if the price hikes are out of line. The bill would also provide $1 billion to state insurance commissioners, allowing them to ramp up their own monitoring and enforcement.

This sounds like another trigger. I have zero faith in HHS to do anything about premium hikes. Without a full and robust PO open to everyone, we're scr*wed from what I can see.

The Washington Post likes to throw a lot of numbers around, but the ones I found particularly interesting were these, contained in a letter (pdf) from the CBO to the House Ways and Means Committee:

This letter responds to questions about the subsidies that enrollees would receive for premiums and cost sharing and the amounts that they would have to pay, on average, if they purchased a relatively low cost plan in the new insurance exchanges to be established under H.R. 3962,

And

The enclosed table focuses on enrollees who purchase a "reference" plan (the premiums for which equal the average of the three lowest-cost "basic" plans, as defined in the bill), because federal subsidies would be tied to that average. Such a plan would have an actuarial value of 70 percent, which represents the average share of costs for covered benefits that would be paid by the plan. Although premiums under H.R. 3962 would vary by geographic area to reflect differences in average spending for health care and would also vary by age, the table shows the approximate national average for that lower-cost reference plan--about $5,300 for single policies and about $15,000 for family policies in 2016.

Please look at the table, and see if you can interpret it in a way where you think people will be saving money buying insurance through these exchanges - and remember - these are the projected numbers for the average of the three lowest cost, basic plans.  Ask yourself how underinsured one might be with an even lower cost plan, and how much more expensive the better plans will be.  And then ponder how this represents "major health care reform."  And when you look at the projected percentage of income that cost-sharing is expected to be for enrollees who are eligible to purchase insurance through the exchange, are you thinking it looks like a bargain?

I'm not seeing it, but maybe someone else sees something I don't.

And the so-called public option - if you are a woman who would qualify, are you still interested if the plan does not cover reproductive health, other than mammograms and pap smears?  And what about abortion?  Where are they going with that one?