My 14 year old daughter has a rare and little understood autoimmune condition. Coverage for the treatment she needs (and NOT the most cost efficient) under this new plan would become prohibitive for several reasons. Sure premiums might come down due to insurance providers being able to sell across state lines, but the substantive coverage would be based on the loose regulations that insurer's primary state would set. Given the complex nature of treatment in my daughters case, such a policy would in effect cost more over the long term (lower premiums = less coverage). The alternative would be to go with an insurance company that would be based in a primary state that has better state regulation, and you cannot tell me that such insurance companies (if any of them would base themselves in such a state) wouldn't pass the cost of doing business on to the consumer (i.e. much higher premiums for better coverage). Also, what's with the two year window for signing up for a plan with preexisting conditions? Does that mean that I'd be locked into that plan for a prolonged period of time where if I chose to switch after the two year period, coverage for said condition would disappear? And don't get me started on how this bill would lay the groundwork for "high risk" pools. When all is said and done, you can't put a silk hat on a pig, and this porker looks an awful lot like health insurance regulation did back before the ACA. In essence (and this is also true about the ACA but to a slightly lesser degree), the real problem isn't being addressed at all, namely that under such regulation, private health insurance companies become the arbiter of what kind of medical help you can afford rather than what you NEED. In short, it puts fiscal efficiency before one's health needs and it keeps insurance companies from being held accountable for their fiscally efficient choices and how said choices affect one's health. I and my daughter's doctors already have enough problems arguing with my insurance provider about what's appropriate treatment or not. This scheme will do nothing but make it harder for my daughter to get the treatment she NEEDS vs what someone in a corporate office thinks is thrifty but functional. Vote NO and apply as much pressure as possible on law makers to vote likewise.