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

[UpAndAbout]

You're not going to answer the question are you? Instead you will hide behind 'collectivism'...if ENOUGH human beings DIE, they will come back and protest outside the insurance company's corporate offices.

But, I'm sure those dead people will choose a different insurance carrier ...IN THEIR NEXT LIFE.

WTF!??? No, that's not what I said. Now take a deep breath and try to pay attention. If the insurance company sent me letter refusing to do what they said they would, I'd promptly call the state insurance commission and I'd fully expect them to do something about it. There's nothing at all implied in the concept of free markets that allows companies to rip you off.

There are people employed by insurance companies whose sole job is to go over your health records with a fine tooth comb and find a loophole, a previous treatment for a mole, wart or something they can create a link to your current illness, and they get rewarded for finding and denying treatment.

THAT my naive friend is how a 'free market' works. Insurance companies are not in the healthcare business. They are in the PROFIT business. Denial of expensive treatments feed the bottom line.

Do you understand the keys to a market transaction? Do you understand the term 'leverage'? If one party in a market transaction has little or no leverage, it is NOT a free market. It is a captured market.

This is true in HMOs, yes, we had one and if you didn't break your arm on the right day of the week or the person processing your claim was having a bad hair day, your payment was denied. HMOs are another form of socialized medicine, Obamacare, whatever you want to call it. all the doctors are paid the same whether they are quacks or not. They refuse payment so management can get big bucks, all the while paying the doctors a fixed income and denying as much as they can in the way of coverage for treatment. I want no part of it. We have NEVER had anything denied on our current insurance. As long as go to a preferred provider, of which we have zillions to choose, in fact all physicians in Washington state practically, it pays for it.

 

[Amazed]

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.

Well...no.

Thats not how it works, policy requirements are set by State Insurance Commissioners. Insurance Companies abide by those requirements...the State the the Company is Domiciled in doesn't make determinations for any other State. One should inform oneself before one types.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why buying health care across state lines is a terrible, terrible idea.
Why buying cars across state lines is a terrible, terrible idea.
Why buying groceries across state lines is a terrible, terrible idea.
Why buying art supplies across state lines is a terrible, terrible idea.
Why buying gasoline across state lines is a terrible, terrible idea.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Liberals think that a Free Enterprise Restaurant would maximize its profits by selling empty plates as dinner.

See? Save on material and pocket the profits!

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

Well...no.

Thats not how it works, policy requirements are set by State Insurance Commissioners. Insurance Companies abide by those requirements...the State the the Company is Domiciled in doesn't make determinations for any other State. One should inform oneself before one types.

Under the legislative proposals on the table, Polk's statements are accurate. His scenario takes the situation to its logical extreme, in which a virtually nationwide standard of sorts does emerge following a destructive race to the regulatory bottom. It's just a convoluted attempt at deregulation.

I tend to think the reality would be a little more messy than Polk's scenario, at least for a while. Each state will have insurers operating under various different regulatory structures, only one of which is influenced by the insurance commissioner or state legislature of that particular state.

 

[Amazed]

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.

Well...no.

Thats not how it works, policy requirements are set by State Insurance Commissioners. Insurance Companies abide by those requirements...the State the the Company is Domiciled in doesn't make determinations for any other State. One should inform oneself before one types.

Under the legislative proposals on the table, Polk's statements are accurate. His scenario takes the situation to its logical extreme, in which a virtually nationwide standard of sorts does emerge following a destructive race to the regulatory bottom. It's just a convoluted attempt at deregulation.

I tend to think the reality would be a little more messy than Polk's scenario, at least for a while. Each state will have insurers operating under various different regulatory structures, only one of which is influenced by the insurance commissioner or state legislature of that particular state.

Actually under ObamaCare ALL States would have an Insurance EXchange that would regulate all coverages and all premium levels.

Under ObamaCare there would be 3 differing policies with different coverages......unlike now the State Exchanges would be federally controlled.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals think that a Free Enterprise Restaurant would maximize its profits by selling empty plates as dinner.

See? Save on material and pocket the profits!

How about this one:


The following is an easy to understand explanation of he healthcare problem vis-à-vis costs, from “Broke,” by Beck and Balfe, found on page 313.

“If you substitute something we all buy every day, like food, for health care, it becomes easier to understand why costs are rising so rapidly.
Imagine your employer were to take $12,000 per year out of your paycheck and then sign you up for a “food plan.” Your options are limited: a few assorted restaurants and one large grocery store that you are covered at. Any time you go to those places, you pay only a small co-pay, something around $10 or $20, no matter what you actually buy.

A few things would happen under a system like this:

a. You would be robbed of choice. Heard great things about the new Mexican place down the street? Sorry, you’re not covered there. Want vegetarian-only options and you’re willing to pay more? Sorry, we have only one plan choice.

b. You would buy more food than you need, since the vast majority of what you’ll pay is set at the beginning of the year and the food co-pays are tiny. Not sure if you really want the apples? Just grab them anyway and throw them out if they go bad. Who cares, they’re free.

c. Most of the restaurants you eat in and the stores you shop at won’t even display prices. The cost is irrelevant to you. It’s like being on a cruise ship- all the food is included, so eat up.

d. Since you don’t care about individual prices, stores and restaurants jack them up. A bag of lettuce for $34? Sure, why not! The people who run the food plan might argue, but how can they ever figure out what the “market price” should be if the market itself lacks any competitive pricing?

In summary, fixed-price, noncompetitive plans result in lack of choice, higher prices, and overconsumption. That’s exactly how our health system works with third-party payers, and it’s exactly why it’s collapsing.”

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You have a health insurance policy you've been paying into for the last 15 years. You were just diagnosed with cancer. Your insurance company just sent you a letter denying payment for life saving treatment...

NOW, explain how the free market fixes this?

Explain how the government fixes it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ANSWER the question.

I did... (in the edit).

But to elaborate, a free market doesn't mean insurance companies get to do whatever they want. They can't lie, steal or cheat any more than any other companies or individuals can. As is often the case, we're equivocating on the term "regulation" by comparing laws requiring insurance be honest, with regulations that tell us what kind of insurance we can or can't buy - or worse, telling us that we must buy it.

You DIDN'T answer the question...

YOU have a health insurance policy you've been paying into for the last 15 years.

YOU were just diagnosed with cancer.

YOUR insurance company just sent you a letter denying payment for life saving treatment...

NOW, explain how the free market fixes this?

Let us make a few wild assumptions.

• Let us assume I have said policy.
• Let us assume that I actually get cancer.
• Let us assume said cancer is terminal.
• Let us assume that there is a treatment that will save my life.
• Let us assume that said treatment is medically accepted.
• Let us assume that the company decides to deny treatment.

Even assuming all of that, your question does not make sense. The free market doesn't fix things, it adapts to forces that control supply and demand. Life sucks, things don't always work, and people die. It sucks, but the government is not the answer. The government can not stop people from dying, nor can it stop insurance companies from not paying for treatment.



Life isn't fair, grow up.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You DIDN'T answer the question...

YOU have a health insurance policy you've been paying into for the last 15 years.

YOU were just diagnosed with cancer.

YOUR insurance company just sent you a letter denying payment for life saving treatment...

NOW, explain how the free market fixes this?

As we say in philosophy when dealing with a paradox, produce the letter.

Denial, the tool of the right.

Here is your term for the day: pre-existing condition

Pre-Existing Condition Health Insurance Horror Stories

1. Your Honor or Your Insurance? In 2009 a Florida woman was the victim of rape. She was slipped a date-rape drug while at a bar in Ft. Lauderdale and lost all recollection of the events that followed. She awakened on the side of the road with injuries which were indicative of rape and went to the hospital for treatment. As part of the normal procedure when dealing with rape the hospital staff prescribed several drugs against sexually transmitted diseases, including a month’s worth of HIV medications. When the woman lost her health insurance a few months later and shopped for new coverage she got the shock of her life: insurers found out about her having taken HIV meds and denied her coverage. Although she had tested negative and has since, she was told to come back in a few years, and if she was still negative they would consider covering her. Do you know what is truly ironic about this case? She was an insurance underwriter! Other victims of sexual assault have reported the same treatment, ranging from denial of coverage to denial of services such as psychological therapy after the incident. So those who are the victims of sexual assault have to ask themselves, which is more important to me? My insurance…or my honor? My ability to seek justice? Unfortunately for many, pragmatism has to win, especially for those with children who would doubly lose out.

2. This One’s Too Big, This One’s Too Little…What’s Just Right? Two children made the news for being excluded from getting health insurance coverage in 2009 for very similar reasons. One child was deemed as “obese” because they weighed in at the 99th percentile on the weight charts for his age…which was only four months. An infant who had only been taking breast milk was called “fat” buy the parents’ health insurance company, and denied coverage. The other child was the opposite: at the age of 2 and weighing in at 22 pounds, a little girl was denied coverage for being “too skinny.” Both children were screened independently by doctors and deemed as healthy despite their weight issues. Insurance companies base these decisions on actuarial weight tables which allow them to screen out up to 11% of applicants due to pre-existing weight issues. Sounds crazy, huh? You can almost understand it when it’s a grossly obese adult who has spent his entire life consuming junk food…but a four month old??? Really???

3. The Future Doesn’t Matter. Only the Past. A 32 year old woman was denied health insurance coverage by several companies due to a history of infertility problems. Although she had been certified as medically sound and healthy and had no desire to have any more children (she had 2) in the future, the insurers said that they could only certify based on the past. A Florida woman who had health insurance went in for surgery for what her doctor suspected was ovarian cancer. A few months later the woman got a $15,000 bill in the mail for the complete amount of her surgery and hospitalization, because the insurer had deemed her as having a pre-existing condition. The woman had actually not had cancer but had a common gynecological condition known as ovarian cysts, which actually affects up to 30% of all women. The fact that an insurer can potentially disqualify up to 30% of the population is truly disgusting. Yet another woman who had beaten non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma eight years previously left her job and insurance when she moved. When she attempted to enroll in her new employer’s program they denied her, telling her she needed to wait another 2 years and be certified as cancer free for a total of 10 years before she could be covered by anyone. The woman then went without medical checkups for the next several years even though she needed them to make sure her cancer hadn’t returned—because she was afraid if she did find out that fact before the 10 year waiting period was up she’d be denied all over again, and this time permanently. She endangered her health because she felt she had to in order to get health insurance.

These are just a drop in the bucket of the horror stories of pre-existing conditions. Health insurance companies aren’t required to give reasons for denials or release their records about cases. They make decisions based on their own standards, not actual standards of care, and mete out treatment based on their bottom line. Thankfully the pre-existing condition is on its way out shortly. 2014 can’t come too soon for millions of Americans who’ve gotten the short end of the stick regarding their insurance.

Hey, genius, do you know the difference between a preexisting condition and getting cancer after you have had insurance for 15 years?

I didn't think so.

 

[rdean]

too stupid but perfectly 100% liberal!!! Who makes more profit, a guy with a good product or a guy with a bad product to sell. The beauty of capitalism is that it makes you a slave to your customers best interests. Still over your liberal head?

How about the guy with the best ad campaign?

Perfectly liberal and stupid. If ads mattered we'd be back in the stone age rather than making steady progress. A liberal lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

You believe Republican campaigns. Those are ads. Only a tard would believe Obama wasn't born here. Only a tard thinks 92% of everyone who lost their job during the recession are women. Only a tard thinks the Grand Canyon was made by Noah's Flood. Only a tard thinks the Republican Party is less than 90% white.

 

[starcraftzzz]

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.

You have a health insurance policy you've been paying into for the last 15 years. You were just diagnosed with cancer. Your insurance company just sent you a letter denying payment for life saving treatment...

NOW, explain how the free market fixes this?

Explain how the government fixes it.

By making it illegal to do that. But of course republicans want to keep it so insurance companies can defraud and abuse their customers

 

[starcraftzzz]

Life isn't fair, grow up.

I see so because life isnt fair you oppose making it more fair and making it so insurance companies can't drop your coverage when you get sick yep you sound like a republcian

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Life isn't fair, grow up.

I see so because life isnt fair you oppose making it more fair and making it so insurance companies can't drop your coverage when you get sick yep you sound like a republcian

You cannot make life "more fair" by punish9ng the lucky people. Republicans, like Democrats, don't understand that.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Life isn't fair, grow up.

I see so because life isnt fair you oppose making it more fair and making it so insurance companies can't drop your coverage when you get sick yep you sound like a republcian

You cannot make life "more fair" by punish9ng the lucky people. Republicans, like Democrats, don't understand that.

I see so according to you making it so corporations can't defraud and abuse people is "punishing lucky people". What you can't seem to understand is well anything above a 3rd grade level

 

[Wiseacre]

I'm not getting this, must be missing something. If I live in CA and I buy a HC policy from a company based in NY, the terms and conditions tell me what my coverage is no matter where I am. Same as auto or home insurance, the home state of the issuer doesn't mean squat. If there are certain states where the coverage is not in force, that's part of the contract. And if they get too complicated about it, they won't sell many policies. Plus, I would assume if the gov't went that route, any insurance company that wants to sell policies across state lines would have to adhere to certain rules such as these. More options in a free market ALWAYS leads to lower prices, that's what competition does for you.

 

[ThinkCritically]

NAFTA did not make many Americans rich.

too stupid!! without Republican free trade you'd have to make everything yourself and you'd be very very poor. The more you trade the richer you get.

...but i though mercantilism was the answer

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see so because life isnt fair you oppose making it more fair and making it so insurance companies can't drop your coverage when you get sick yep you sound like a republcian

You cannot make life "more fair" by punish9ng the lucky people. Republicans, like Democrats, don't understand that.

I see so according to you making it so corporations can't defraud and abuse people is "punishing lucky people". What you can't seem to understand is well anything above a 3rd grade level

Gee, what a brillinat interpretation of what I said. I would be amazed by it, if it weren't so stupid that reading it lowered my IQ.

 

[dblack]

I'm not getting this, must be missing something. If I live in CA and I buy a HC policy from a company based in NY, the terms and conditions tell me what my coverage is no matter where I am. Same as auto or home insurance, the home state of the issuer doesn't mean squat. If there are certain states where the coverage is not in force, that's part of the contract. And if they get too complicated about it, they won't sell many policies. Plus, I would assume if the gov't went that route, any insurance company that wants to sell policies across state lines would have to adhere to certain rules such as these. More options in a free market ALWAYS leads to lower prices, that's what competition does for you.

There's really no need to apply "logic" to this. C'mon! Get with the program! It's all about fear and panic!

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm not getting this, must be missing something. If I live in CA and I buy a HC policy from a company based in NY, the terms and conditions tell me what my coverage is no matter where I am. Same as auto or home insurance, the home state of the issuer doesn't mean squat.

The home state of the issuer means everything in this instance. Auto insurance, besides being a simpler and less important product than health insurance, has to comply with the laws of your state. You can't buy a policy from a company based in another state simply with the goal of finding one below your state's regulatory minimums. That, however, is exactly what's being proposed for health insurance. That's the entire point of the "across-state-lines" legislation." It invalidates state consumer protections, undercuts state law, and empowers insurers relative to consumers.

It's not about "competition," whatever that's supposed to mean in this context (competition is never fostered by a disjointed, opaque, or chaotic marketplace) and it's certainly not about magically importing the lower cost of another state's provider market into your geographic area (that would be like leasing an apartment from a property management company headquartered in Skokie because you think that'll get you a cheaper apartment in downtown Chicago).

It's about letting insurers design the playing field on which they play and segment their risk pools to their hearts' content. Some folks will benefit at the expense of others from stacking the deck in the insurers' favor; they're generally the ones cheerleading for this approach the loudest. But there isn't much redeeming value to the proposal.