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

R

rdean

Guest
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.
 
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?


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.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.

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?

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:
Why should people not be able to make rules governing behavior?

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.

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?

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.
 
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?
 
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.

"...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.
 
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.

"...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.

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.
 
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?

Free market.

Demand.

You'll never get it.

I've noticed a lot of what passes for economic knowledge on the right is thumbing through an intro micro textbook and not actually thinking the implications.
 
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.

"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."

So, what's the prob?

If you were correct (notify Guinness book of records, quick!) there'd be no objections to ObamaCare 'cause there'd be " no health care."

Problem solved.
 
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?

Free market.

Demand.

You'll never get it.

I've noticed a lot of what passes for economic knowledge on the right is thumbing through an intro micro textbook and not actually thinking the implications.

So....you can't think of an objection?

Noted.
 
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?

You're kidding, right? Seriously, if you've got the money, insurance companies will write you up a policy to cover just about anything you want.

Let's cut to the chase, you want the extra stuff covered but you don't want to pay for it. You've got it in your head you can just 'mandate' that they cover it and everything will be good. But that just forces the rest of us to pay for shit that you want.
 
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.

"...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.

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.

Obvious why you don't wish to stick to the healthcare subject.

Here are some of the mandates the 50 states and District
of Columbia have imposed, followed by the number
of states. Unless indicated otherwise, the added cost
to insurance is less than 1 percent:
Benefits mandates:
• Alcoholism, 45 states (1 percent to 3 percent added
cost)
• Alzheimer’s, 2 states
• Ambulance services, 8 states
• Breast reconstruction, 48 states
• Chlamydia, 3 states
• Cleft palate, 14 states
• Contraceptives, 30 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Dental anesthesia, 29 states
• Diabetic supplies, 47 states
• Drug-abuse treatment, 34 states
• In vitro fertilization, 14 states (3 percent to 5 percent
added cost)
• Mental health general, 40 states (1 percent to 3
percent added cost)
• Mental-health parity, 42 states (5 percent to 10
percent added cost)
• Newborn hearing screening, 16 states
• Newborn sickle-cell testing, 3 states
• Off-label drug use, 37 states
• Port-wine stain (a skin discoloration) elimination,
2 states
• Prescription drugs, 3 states (5 percent to 10 percent
added cost)
• Prostate screening, 32 states
• Second surgical opinion, 9 states
• Well-child care, 31 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
Provider mandates:
• Acupuncturists, 11 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Chiropractors, 46 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Dentists, 36 states (3 percent to 5 percent added
cost)
• Dieticians, 3 states
• Marriage therapists, 13 states
• Massage therapists, 5 states
• Naturopaths, 3 states
• Osteopaths, 21 states (1 percent to 3 percent added
cost)
• Physical therapists, 16 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Podiatrists, 35 states
• Psychiatric nurses, 16 states
• Psychologists, 44 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Social workers, 27 states (1 percent to 3 percent
added cost)
• Speech or hearing therapists, 18 states
Covered-persons mandates:
• Adopted children, 42 states
• Conversion to nongroup insurance, 42 states (1
percent to 3 percent added cost)
THE
http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/HealthInsuranceMandates2008.pdf
 
I've noticed a lot of what passes for economic knowledge on the right is thumbing through an intro micro textbook and not actually thinking the implications.

So....you can't think of an objection?

Noted.

I already stated a pretty huge objection: your claim rests on the idea that the market for health insurance is perfectly competitive.

ObamaCare. Zero competitive.
 
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.

Competition has always worked in this country.
Give some proof that any Republican has ever said they don't want speed laws, or no regulations on food or car safety or no regulations on guns.
Or the worst lie of all, that they want everyone to drink dirty water.
Wanting to get rid of over reaching and very costly over regulations is not wanting to get rid of everything.
 
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.

Yes like we need federal computer memory standards.

Why can't people just buy a policy thats right for them?
 
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.

Yes like we need federal computer memory standards.

Why can't people just buy a policy thats right for them?

Clearly....that is out of the question.

I was kinda hoping friend Polk would come back so I could pose this question: If he and I were able to purchase healthcare insurance, only for ourselves, mandate-free,
what are the chances that he would choose to be covered for breast-reconstruction, or I for prostate examinations?
 

Forum List

Back
Top