Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines A Home Run

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by JimofPennsylvan, Oct 2, 2009.

  1. JimofPennsylvan
    Offline

    JimofPennsylvan VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    385
    Thanks Received:
    56
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +83
    Congress in its HealthCare Reform Bill is missing a great opportunity to create a market force to suppress health insurance premium costs if it doesn’t allow American consumers to purchase health insurance in neighboring states. The present requirement where consumers can only purchase health insurance from insurers licensed in those consumers’ home state is outdated. Opening it up to just neighboring states will increase competition amongst insurance companies thus creating a market force pushing to lower insurance prices plus it will increase the size of the pools of insurance customers thus allowing for larger beneficiary pools for an insurance company which will allow them to spread insurance claim risks over a larger number of people and thus offer lower insurance prices. This step by Congress would also ameliorate the problem often heard in the media made by members of the general public which is they have a paltry number of health insurance plans to choose from.

    If one looks at the reasons why the nation would want to have an in-state requirement for purchasing health insurance in light of the benefits offered by the healthcare reform legislation being proposed in Congress, one should conclude the in-state requirement isn’t really needed. One reason for having the in-state requirement is that current federal law doesn’t offer good consumer protections when it comes to health insurance so American consumers need the protections that the state mandates provides.
    This reason doesn’t have merit when one considers all the consumer protection mandates in the health care reform legislation, the protections in the reform legislation are comprehensive and stellar – that is not to say that Congress shouldn’t worry a hell of a lot more about how all the reform mandates are going to raise insurance premium prices and decide to phase in over eight years the mandates on out of pocket expenses (make two out of pocket expense limits one for drugs and one for non-drug medical expenses and the latter one phase in) and the mandate for free preventive care. Having an in-state rule insures insurance companies will be available and cooperative with litigation, specifically from consumers who need to have their rights vindicated. Allowing consumers to buy insurance in neighboring states will not materially hurt consumers rights in being able to sue insurance companies, these neighboring states health insurance licensing authorities will still provide the force to get health insurance companies to cooperate in litigation it is too much in these neighboring state’s interests not to look out for their neighboring states consumers. Another reason to have the in-state requirement is that health insurance companies are often big employers in a state so the logic goes that if the government allows consumers to buy health insurance out of state the in state insurance companies could lose all their customers and then be force to lay off employees and states don’t want to lose jobs. Today, though most states have an abundance of their citizens work in a neighboring state, so nullifying the in-state rule and allowing consumers to buy insurance in a neighboring state in a worse case scenario will only be moving jobs to a neighboring state not a crushing economic phenomenon. Moreover, the nation is in such a crisis over health care insurance in America at this time that government, political, civic and business leaders have to conclude that the top priority at this time with the whole Health Care Problem in America is to provide Americans with affordable health insurance not job creation or job preservation; therefore, Congress should replace the in-state requirement with a neighboring state permission requirement.

    Creating the groundswell of political support to implement a neighboring state requirement will require Republicans to be big people and endorse this modest proposal. It is well known that the main tenet of the Republicans healthcare reform is to allow the American consumers to buy health insurance from any insurance company selling insurance in America. Although there would be benefits in implementing such a change, the negative consequences could be enormous and catastrophic. Not only could the negative consequences include enormous job losses in a region, problems with health care providers dealing with insurance issuers where there is a long distance between them and effectiveness of local court systems to vindicate consumers rights, etc. but what happens when the nation has these mega insurance companies that would likely result and they make an underwriting mistake or go bankrupt who pays the consumers medical claim who had health insurance with this “in trouble” mega insurance company?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. obama2ndterm
    Offline

    obama2ndterm BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    363
    Thanks Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +33
    Plan is a godl mine for insurers and will never pass, it's lousy. Single payer is the way to have competitive prices!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,156
    Thanks Received:
    6,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,006
    Absolutley. Most people aren't going to go shopping state to state.

    Instead, insurance companies will spend millions more on advertistment. Millions that could have gone for treatment or to purchase medicine.

    For every million that an insurance company CEO gets in salary is how many policies cancelled? How many operations turned down? How many policies have to be skimmed for one million dollars? 5 million? 25 million? How about two hundred million?

    Republicans have lost their minds on their "Die Quickly" insurance plan strategy.
     
  4. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    Allowing purchase across state lines will not increase competition. What it will result in is every firm relocating the state with the lowest requirements, leaving consumers with a basket of equally crummy options.
     
  5. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,940
    Thanks Received:
    5,212
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,684
    Jim I think you miss the point. Yes, buying insurance accross state lines would be a good thing that's why it will never be!

    The power and control will revert back to the consumer and gubamint will loose it's precious control over your life.

    The gubamint cares not a whit about our health, only control.

    If the Gubamint cared at all about us:
    1. The Federal Reserve would be eliminated under racketeering laws.
    2. Taxes would be sharply curtailed or eliminated.
    3. The borders would be sealed.

    But they won't precisely because it sharply limits it's own power and control.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  6. code1211
    Offline

    code1211 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    5,999
    Thanks Received:
    845
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +845

    I don't understand that way of thinking. Having a single anything in any market creates monopolies and theefore higher prices.

    Competition creates different methods and models. If not for competition, we would still be driving cars that weigh 6000 pounds, get 12 miles to the gallon and have AM radios only. Enter Toyota and Honda and Ford and GM wake up; Slowly, but it is happening.

    Would Windows have ever improved if not for Apple and vice versa?

    Would the P-51 ever have flown if the ME-109 had never flown?

    World records fall on occasion. They fall with greater regularity immediately before the Olympics and the World games. That is when competition is most pitched.

    All of this is due to competition. Competition eventually makes everything better, less expensive and more responsive than the lack of competition. That is why cars are cheaper today than at any point in our history and why the American Auto Makers can't compete.

    The problem with the cost of health care is not insurance, by the way, it is the cost of healthcare.
     
  7. mskafka
    Offline

    mskafka Silver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,035
    Thanks Received:
    235
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    In a land where partisanship doesn't exist.
    Ratings:
    +235
    A rebuttal. It's a good idea in theory, but like it has been said before: if this were passed, insurance companies would all flock to the state or commonwealth that has the least regulation. So, to me, it seems that we would be no better off than before.

    And yes...one of the biggest issues is the cost of healthcare itself. Reasons we all know:
    Physicians having to pay ridiculous costs for malpractice insurance, when some lawsuits are warranted, and others... not so much. Physicians are overworked, so this doesn't help potential liability.

    Unecessary ambulance rides, and ER visits. EMS getting called to transport someone who has barfed one time, and has no other symptoms, and is say...20 years old (it happens). Someone who has had knee pain for 3 weeks, and instead of going to see their PCP, they call an ambulance ($$$).

    HFCS....my opinion.

    Many people aren't proactive about their health. You can't eat fast food 7 days a week for 7 years and expect to be a portrait of health. The reasons are too numerous to mention.
     
  8. Fatality
    Offline

    Fatality SunCrackedSoul

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,475
    Thanks Received:
    280
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +280
    bullshit fantasy land pablum
     
  9. Fatality
    Offline

    Fatality SunCrackedSoul

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,475
    Thanks Received:
    280
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +280
    bullshit sissy excuses
     
  10. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    It's just like we have credit card companies in every state... O wait, no, they did the same thing.
     

Share This Page