Why buying health care across state lines is a terrible, terrible idea.

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by rdean, Mar 28, 2012.

  1. rdean
    Online

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,066
    Thanks Received:
    6,882
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,909
    I'm watching Morning Joe and their guest was going on about how being able to purchase health care across state lines is the "answer" to America's health care problems. And Meeka, bless her little dark roots, was cheering him on with "I don't know why that isn't an option". A normal response from her until things are explained and sometimes even after.

    Republicans and HC Companies would LOVE being able to sell across state lines.

    Imagine, you live in California, but you buy your health care in New York. You need an operation so they cut your policy. Who do you go to for help? It's not likely that you would hire a lawyer, after all, you went to New York to save money. You would have to find a lawyer in New York. See?

    Imagine you were one of a thousand people in California living next to a company and all of you got sick from some kind of contamination. Your HC company in New York told the state of California, "You let them get sick, you take care of them". Once again, you would end up with no health care.

    Look at what HC companies do now and it's not even across state lines. Until Obama, they could drop you for having a mammogram. Or use an allergy as a "pre existing condition" to cut off your policy if you got sick. Or cut off your entire family if your son had an appendectomy.

    If you are going to start selling health care across state lines, you might as well just get rid of ALL laws and make this a country of "every man for himself". No speed laws. No regulations for food or car safety. Just give everyone a gun. That'll fix things. Republicans say that's what they want. But when faced with reality, they usually start crying a different tune.
     
  2. 007
    Offline

    007 Charter Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    38,328
    Thanks Received:
    7,867
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +11,935
    Of course, NEVER give ANYONE the FREEDOM to buy WHAT they want, WHEN they want.... or *WHERE* they want... we just CAN'T HAVE THAT. I may as well NEVER shop off ebay or Amazon.com EVER AGAIN!

    Moron.

    It's called "COMPETITION" deanbag... get it? If insurance companies know that you'll buy insurance from SOMEONE ELSE if they continually DROP people, then they're not going to be in BUSINESS much longer. Sheeeeezuz... "FREE MARKET."

    WHY do you liberal ZEALOTS *HATE* freedom so much?


    And ain't that funny, that's damn close to how this country was founded and became the greatest nation on earth, and here you are bitching about it because those "rugged individuals" gave you the right to whine your pathetic little face off.

    And don't bother "giving me a gun." I've already got PLENTY.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2012
  3. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    That's not the problem with selling across state lines. The problem with selling across state lines is that without federal coverage standards, the result is that every insurance company will move to the state with the most lax requirements. Even realize that most credit card offers come from South Dakota? Same principle. Even better for the Republican proposal, they want to define territories as states for purchase of health insurance purposes. Hope you enjoy the consumer protections of the Northern Mariana Islands.
     
  4. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,122
    Thanks Received:
    2,006
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,766
    Why should everyone be forced to succumb to your idea of minimum "requirements"? I certainly wouldn't think of standing in your way should you want to purchase insurance that exceeded my idea of maximum "requirements". Can't you just mind your own business?
     
  5. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    Why should people not be able to make rules governing behavior? That's the entire basis of civilization. Your proposal would result in no requirements whatsoever. Why should the narrow interest of de facto slave state dictate policy to 300 million plus Americans?
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2012
  6. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,122
    Thanks Received:
    2,006
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,766
    They should not be able to do that in an unrestrained fashion. That's what constitutionally limited government is all about. The reason is to protect minorities. If government were not carefully limited in a democracy, the minority would be completely at the mercy of the majority - a risky prospect at best.

    No, 'no requirements' would not dictate anything. How do you get confused about that? You could buy whatever kind of insurance you wanted. If you want insurance that covers all kinds of contingencies, and you can afford it, I'm sure you'd be able to find an insurance company that would write you up a policy.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    Pretty hard to buy products that no one offers. Why would a company offer a policy to cover things they could make more money by not covering?
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,725
    Thanks Received:
    15,609
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,861
    "...with the most lax requirements."
    So?
    Only a Liberal would assume that bureaucrats know what's best....

    1. With the fewest mandates, therefore cheapest.

    2. If consumers deem the company one that fits their needs, they will choose same. To the shock of anti-free market Liberals.

    The horror, the horror.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,725
    Thanks Received:
    15,609
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,861
    Free market.

    Demand.

    You'll never get it.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    Gas would be cheaper if we still allowed lead in it. Cars would be cheaper if you could sell them without seat belts.

    The problem is that you don't realize the market isn't truly free. Most markets aren't perfect competition. Consumers aren't that powerful.
     

Share This Page