Like you, I have watched with great interest the year long battle about HCR. In my view the core question was always what reform coulb be enacted to provide sufficient incentive to peruade the Health "Insurers" to adopt a business model that included actual delivery of a valuable product.
Now, if I understand right - many are talking about changes to "preexisting condition" exclusions and limits on amount of premiums received devoted to claim payment (as opposed to claim denial.) However, if I get this right - the government will enforce a mandate to buy "insurance." However, if an insurer refuses to abide by the reforms - what mechanisms exist to provide enforcement against the insurer on the just barely possible contingency that said insurer might (I know, human beings wouldn't actually allow others to die just for a few bucks - would they? nah - what am I thinking) engage in wrongful conduct?
All I know about economic and legal history teaches that "saying a thing does not make it so" and commanding a reform does not work without real teeth. Insurance decision speaker talk only in the language of money.
So, if anyone knows, on the assumption the bill becomes law in more or less its current form - what remedies are built in against the ravages of insurers?