According to an article in the New York Times, the Obama administration recently stated that in the new health care law, that they would not define a single uniform set of “essential health benefits” that must be provided by insurers for millions of Americans. Each state will instead be able to specify benefits within broad categories.

This means that there can be significant variations in benefits from state to state, which is the case currently with a lot of Medicaid programs and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The Obama administration is attempting to deflect one of the most powerful arguments that are being made by Republican critics – that him overhauling health care is imposing a rigid, bureaucrat-controlled health system on Americans, which threatens the quality of care. Others however are saying that the administration is making a one-size-fits all standard for all health insurance and usurping state authority to regulate the industry.

The Supreme Court is deciding next year whether or not the government can require Americans to buy health insurance. In the 2012 presidential race, this is a central issue, where Republican presidential candidates are being evaluated on their strength in opposition to it.

The new law has 10 categories of “essential health benefits” that have to be provided by insurance plans offered in the individual and small-group markets, starting in January 2014. In this approach, the state can pick a health insurance policy as a benchmark. For each state, the definition of essential health benefits must not “discriminate against individuals because of their age, disability or expected length of life.”