Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines A Home Run

Ame®icano;1576832 said:
In late 1990s, the price of term life insurance fell dramatically. This posed something of a mystery, for the decline had no obvious cause. Other type of insurance, including health and automobile and homeowners' coverage, were certainly not falling in price. Nor had there been any radical changes among insurance companies, insurance brokers, or the people who buy term life insurance. So what happened?

The internet happened. In the spring of 1996, quotesmith.com became the first of several websites that enabled a customer to compare, within seconds, the price of term life insurance sold by dozens of different companies. For such websites, term life insurance was a perfect product. Unlike other forms of insurance - including whole life insurance, which is far more complicated financial instrument - term life policies are fairly homogeneous: one thirty-year guaranteed policy for $1 million is essentially identical to the next. So what really matter is the price. Shopping around for the cheapest policy, a process that had been convoluted and time consuming, was suddenly made simple. With customers able to instantaneously find the cheapest policy, the more expensive companies had no choice but to lower their prices. Suddenly, customers were paying $1 billion less a year for life term insurance.

More here - Why are Dems against interstate competition?

Apples and sledgehammers. Term life insurance is term life insurance is term life insurance. The only thing that fluctuates is the amount the policy is for. Health insurance doesn't work that way. For starters, there are fee-for-service plans, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations, managed care organizations, and high-deductible plans. And all that's before getting into policy details relating to co-payments, co-insurance, and other things.
 
Ame®icano;1576832 said:
In late 1990s, the price of term life insurance fell dramatically. This posed something of a mystery, for the decline had no obvious cause. Other type of insurance, including health and automobile and homeowners' coverage, were certainly not falling in price. Nor had there been any radical changes among insurance companies, insurance brokers, or the people who buy term life insurance. So what happened?

The internet happened. In the spring of 1996, quotesmith.com became the first of several websites that enabled a customer to compare, within seconds, the price of term life insurance sold by dozens of different companies. For such websites, term life insurance was a perfect product. Unlike other forms of insurance - including whole life insurance, which is far more complicated financial instrument - term life policies are fairly homogeneous: one thirty-year guaranteed policy for $1 million is essentially identical to the next. So what really matter is the price. Shopping around for the cheapest policy, a process that had been convoluted and time consuming, was suddenly made simple. With customers able to instantaneously find the cheapest policy, the more expensive companies had no choice but to lower their prices. Suddenly, customers were paying $1 billion less a year for life term insurance.

More here - Why are Dems against interstate competition?

Apples and sledgehammers. Term life insurance is term life insurance is term life insurance. The only thing that fluctuates is the amount the policy is for. Health insurance doesn't work that way. For starters, there are fee-for-service plans, health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations, managed care organizations, and high-deductible plans. And all that's before getting into policy details relating to co-payments, co-insurance, and other things.

You missed the point. Internet happened. Information become available to everyone. People were able to check instantly the rates with other companies.

If we would allow health insurances to compete across the state lines, they would lose monopol within the states and that will force prices down.
 
It's just like we have credit card companies in every state... O wait, no, they did the same thing.

Apples and freight trains.

Not at all. If regulations are different from state to state, but people are allowed to buy policies from any state, the companies issuing policies will simply flock to the state with the lowest regulation. The exact same thing happened with credit cards after the Supreme Court ruled in Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. that it didn't matter what the state laws were in the borrower's state, it only mattered what the laws said in the state of card issuer was based it. Within three years, several large banks had moved their operations to South Dakota because of the much higher interest rates allowed under state law and others moved to Delaware for the same reason.
There isn't enough elastic in the world to reach that stretch of logic.
 
Here's an insurance question for ya... Let's say the government passes the public option and everybody is mandated to buy health insurance - either from the government or a private insurance company. There will be a fine imposed if you do not purchase insurance. Basically what the government is doing is pushing a "product". The name of the product just happens to be health insurance. What happens further down the line when the government decides to push another product - say, just for conversation, life insurance? Then what? What would be the next product the government decided it was necessary for us to have? We're completely paying no attention to the Constitution but I still have to ask, "How can it be legal for the government to require you to purchase ANY product be it health insurance or anything else? Where do we draw this line and how far do we let this nonsense continue?
 
65% of Americans want a public option.

75% of doctors also.

It's all about money from the Insurance Giants paying off and buying the souls of our elected officials. Fuck Baucus, fuck Grassley and the rest of those sycophants who are owned body and soul.

If there isn't reform, even the mind dead on the right will want it in 5 years when they are paying half or more of their salary to the greedy insurance giants.

Capitalism gone crazy is what is currently happening in our healthcare. Moore may be a big fat slob, but he is right that capitalism is not a religion and without regulations the rich get richer and their acolytes praise them while getting pissed on.

Reagan started the war on the middle class and there are still middle class republicans who don't get it.

Voting republican and being middle class is like being a chicken and voting for Col Sanders.:cuckoo:
 
It's just like we have credit card companies in every state... O wait, no, they did the same thing.

Apples and freight trains.

Not at all. If regulations are different from state to state, but people are allowed to buy policies from any state, the companies issuing policies will simply flock to the state with the lowest regulation. The exact same thing happened with credit cards after the Supreme Court ruled in Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. that it didn't matter what the state laws were in the borrower's state, it only mattered what the laws said in the state of card issuer was based it. Within three years, several large banks had moved their operations to South Dakota because of the much higher interest rates allowed under state law and others moved to Delaware for the same reason.
Companies will not “flock” to the states with the lowest regulations because that is not the option the idea provides for: The idea is to allow people to shop across state lines for insurance. In that way the customer could avoid their state’s mandates and select a policy which would fit their needs in a “custom fit” situation, reducing their cost of insurance. It would also expand the customer base of the best companies, since they would be the most competitive in the new market place.
 
Apples and freight trains.

Not at all. If regulations are different from state to state, but people are allowed to buy policies from any state, the companies issuing policies will simply flock to the state with the lowest regulation. The exact same thing happened with credit cards after the Supreme Court ruled in Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. that it didn't matter what the state laws were in the borrower's state, it only mattered what the laws said in the state of card issuer was based it. Within three years, several large banks had moved their operations to South Dakota because of the much higher interest rates allowed under state law and others moved to Delaware for the same reason.
Companies will not “flock” to the states with the lowest regulations because that is not the option the idea provides for: The idea is to allow people to shop across state lines for insurance. In that way the customer could avoid their state’s mandates and select a policy which would fit their needs in a “custom fit” situation, reducing their cost of insurance. It would also expand the customer base of the best companies, since they would be the most competitive in the new market place.
____


You are 100% right on here.

The statists belief that the federal government run plan will solve our problems is both ignorant and very dangerous.

Eliminate the state-run monopolies of our current system and competition will finally flourish in this business - to the direct benefit of the consumer.
 
65% of Americans want a public option.

75% of doctors also.

It's all about money from the Insurance Giants paying off and buying the souls of our elected officials. Fuck Baucus, fuck Grassley and the rest of those sycophants who are owned body and soul.

If there isn't reform, even the mind dead on the right will want it in 5 years when they are paying half or more of their salary to the greedy insurance giants.

Capitalism gone crazy is what is currently happening in our healthcare. Moore may be a big fat slob, but he is right that capitalism is not a religion and without regulations the rich get richer and their acolytes praise them while getting pissed on.

Reagan started the war on the middle class and there are still middle class republicans who don't get it.

Voting republican and being middle class is like being a chicken and voting for Col Sanders.:cuckoo:
Sheesh!....That's the best victimhood stream-of-consciousness platitude, truism, and bromide rant in at least a month!! :rofl:
 
Apples and freight trains.

Not at all. If regulations are different from state to state, but people are allowed to buy policies from any state, the companies issuing policies will simply flock to the state with the lowest regulation. The exact same thing happened with credit cards after the Supreme Court ruled in Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. that it didn't matter what the state laws were in the borrower's state, it only mattered what the laws said in the state of card issuer was based it. Within three years, several large banks had moved their operations to South Dakota because of the much higher interest rates allowed under state law and others moved to Delaware for the same reason.

Companies will not “flock” to the states with the lowest regulations because that is not the option the idea provides for: The idea is to allow people to shop across state lines for insurance. In that way the customer could avoid their state’s mandates and select a policy which would fit their needs in a “custom fit” situation, reducing their cost of insurance. It would also expand the customer base of the best companies, since they would be the most competitive in the new market place.

Of course the option provides for that idea. If you're an insurance company and one state requires you to cover Services A-Z and another state only requires you to cover Services A and B, why would not set up shop in the state with the lower requirements? If one state allows you to deny people because of preexisting conditions, but another state requires community rating, why would you not set up in the state that allows you to block access to people who are likely to cost you more money? These businesses aren't charities. They're looking out for their bottom line.
 
Not at all. If regulations are different from state to state, but people are allowed to buy policies from any state, the companies issuing policies will simply flock to the state with the lowest regulation. The exact same thing happened with credit cards after the Supreme Court ruled in Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp. that it didn't matter what the state laws were in the borrower's state, it only mattered what the laws said in the state of card issuer was based it. Within three years, several large banks had moved their operations to South Dakota because of the much higher interest rates allowed under state law and others moved to Delaware for the same reason.
Companies will not “flock” to the states with the lowest regulations because that is not the option the idea provides for: The idea is to allow people to shop across state lines for insurance. In that way the customer could avoid their state’s mandates and select a policy which would fit their needs in a “custom fit” situation, reducing their cost of insurance. It would also expand the customer base of the best companies, since they would be the most competitive in the new market place.
____


You are 100% right on here.

The statists belief that the federal government run plan will solve our problems is both ignorant and very dangerous.

Eliminate the state-run monopolies of our current system and competition will finally flourish in this business - to the direct benefit of the consumer.

The proposal currently being debated would do a great deal to break down these monopolies, since the exchange would provide consumers with more information. It would also doing so without creating this race-to-the-bottom problem since there would be a national set of standards for coverage.
 
Then there would be a great motivation for states to get rid of their onerous regulations on insurance companies, if they wanted to have them headquartered in their state.

No problem there.

Let's get this straight. Just a few posts ago, you argued there would be no race to the bottom. Now you're arguing that there would be and that would be a good thing.

As for the other people reading, what Dude considers "onerous regulations" are things as simple as laws that prevent battered women from being denied insurance on the basis of having been abused.
 
First off, your comparison with credit card companies doesn't fly, as they have but one product.

Secondly, if North Dakota mandates that all policies sold within its borders be full coverage and South Dakota allows pick-and-choose cafeteria style coverage or full coverage, the result would be companies from ND moving to where they could offer a broader range of products.

I what way is that a bad thing for consumers?
 
Companies will not “flock” to the states with the lowest regulations because that is not the option the idea provides for: The idea is to allow people to shop across state lines for insurance. In that way the customer could avoid their state’s mandates and select a policy which would fit their needs in a “custom fit” situation, reducing their cost of insurance. It would also expand the customer base of the best companies, since they would be the most competitive in the new market place.

Of course the option provides for that idea. If you're an insurance company and one state requires you to cover Services A-Z and another state only requires you to cover Services A and B, why would not set up shop in the state with the lower requirements? If one state allows you to deny people because of preexisting conditions, but another state requires community rating, why would you not set up in the state that allows you to block access to people who are likely to cost you more money? These businesses aren't charities. They're looking out for their bottom line.

Polk I can tell by your arguments that you are a very intelligent person, but perhaps you are letting the trees get in the way of the forest here.

In this proposed change the companies can offer any type of policy terms and conditions they choose in a U.S. State-Wide-Market, and the customers will not be limited in any way as to their choice of a product which meets their needs.

The companies would not be setting up shop in states looking for lower requirements because state requirements would have been nullified by the new marketing situation, which is all the states.
 
Without the creation of series of universal requirements, the state requirements would still exist. That's where the problem comes in. If we're talking about interstate purchase in a scenario with standardized coverage options across the nation, that would be a complete different animal.
 
Declaring insurance a free field of interstate commerce would render all current state monopolies impotent.

Insurance companies would then stay or relocate in states that allowed them the greatest range of products and services they could offer their customers...Y'know, that old "obscene profits" thing.
 
Have you ever stopped to consider for just a second that what's best for companies may not be what's best for consumers?

Furthermore, you're still missing the point about coverage requirements. You really think it's legitimate to deny coverage to victims of spousal abuse because they were attacked?
 
Without the creation of series of universal requirements, the state requirements would still exist. That's where the problem comes in. If we're talking about interstate purchase in a scenario with standardized coverage options across the nation, that would be a complete different animal.

And the standardized coverage options are: NO SPECIFIED COVERAGE OPTIONS; They would in fact be only those which fill the needs of potential customers. Companies are not clueless about what those are, and neither are customers. They would find each other in the free market system.
 
I keep hearing the mantra of "choice and competition", from monopolists.

Declaring medical insurance a free field of interstate commerce would cause that choice and competition on a level that hasn't been seen in the industry since the 1940s.

How does that, in any way, harm the consumer?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top