but doesn't the law require all policies sold to adhere to certain minimum coverage standards?

If that is so, what difference does it make whether the insurance is obtained through the government website or direct from a company?

For all the complaints about the website, at least it facilitated the process of identifying and comparing all of the options. We don't have a state exchange here, thanks to the RWers, and this is just one more way to sabotage access to affordable health care. They would do away with it altogether if they could. I can't imagine why you would defend this.

I asked a question.

As I read the article, it doesn't mention that the bill prohibits any individual from buying insurance through the federal exchange, unless you're on TennCare. If the state refused the federal money, fewer people would have coverage through that version of Medicaid, but those eligible would still get signed up one way or the other.

The hospitals are going to push back if they have to treat people without compensation, who would otherwise have had their bills covered.

I'm not sure the bill will stand up as constitutional anyway. The lawmakers can probably get away with making state and local governments go directly to insurance companies to obtain employee coverage. My question had to do with if the coverages had to meet the same minimum standard.