Blooper alert

While Reihan Salam ponders Should Congress create a national health-care exchange? he makes a glaring factual boo-boo in building the case against state-based exchanges:

While the federal government will cover the entire cost of the subsidies designed to make the insurance plans offered on the exchange affordable, state governments will be free to impose regulations and mandates on insurance plans that could raise their cost. State lawmakers might want to reward medical providers by deeming that various expensive and non-essential medical treatments must be covered by insurance, but state governments will be under no obligation to bear the cost of having done so.

Doesn't anybody fact check anything anymore? States can indeed tack on additional benefit mandates beyond the baseline "essential health benefits" but they most assuredly do have to pay for them. Quoth the law:

(B) States may require additional benefits

(i) In general Subject to the requirements of clause (ii), a State may require that a qualified health plan offered in such State offer benefits in addition to the essential health benefits specified under section 18022 (b) of this title.

(ii) State must assume cost 

A State shall make payments—

(I) to an individual enrolled in a qualified health plan offered in such State; or
(II) on behalf of an individual described in subclause (I)
directly to the qualified health plan in which such individual is enrolled; 

to defray the cost of any additional benefits described in clause (i).

Yes, there's actually a line in the law that says "state[s] must assume cost" in reference to any additional benefits they want to mandate. Salam is disqualified from opining on this for a while.