Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines A Home Run

[Mr Natural]

The least amount of coverage for th emost amount of money.

That's the plan we're going to get because that's plan the most benefits the insurance companies.

To think that average citizens factor into any decisions coming out of government is foolish and naive.

 

[Oddball]

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?

No, I'm not...Coverage requirements are why we're in the fix we're in right now, with many states prohibiting cafeteria style or catastrophic only coverage.

 

[Oddball]

The least amount of coverage for th emost amount of money.

That's the plan we're going to get because that's plan the most benefits the insurance companies.

To think that average citizens factor into any decisions coming out of government is foolish and naive.

Unless the insurance companies are in collusion (a crime) then they would have to *ahem* COMPETE with one another for customers, with the abolition of state monopolies.

 

[Mr Natural]

The least amount of coverage for th emost amount of money.

That's the plan we're going to get because that's plan the most benefits the insurance companies.

To think that average citizens factor into any decisions coming out of government is foolish and naive.

Unless the insurance companies are in collusion (a crime) then they would have to *ahem* COMPETE with one another for customers, with the abolition of state monopolies.

They have congress in their back pockets, they don't need to be in collusion.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, brother.

 

[code1211]

Plan is a godl mine for insurers and will never pass, it's lousy. Single payer is the way to have competitive prices!

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.

To have healthy competition, you need something to compete with. Health care companies don't make anything, they have nothing to sell that's real. They exist by selling policies and then licensing doctors, nurses, and hospitals. They are merely middlemen who skim money. They skim a lot of money. They work together, they don't compete. You can't offer a better bypass.

They are only legal because congress says they are. Look at companies such as Cigna. The Board eats off gold plated silverware and plates. They have corporate jets worth more than 68 million dollars. How many policies do you need to skim to pay for one 13 million dollar mansion? Do you think that these companies will ever give that up? Opening up to states, the big companies will merely buy the small. It so obvious.

Only a public options will fight this. Only a public options will compete with these money sponges.

Insurance companies sell policies that define premiums charged to pay for procedures used provided by a third party provider. These arrangements are called policies and define coverages which are in truth products no less than any other product.

Every array of coverages defines the list of things that are covered and the amounts to which the insurance company will pay. The cost of the premium covers one list of items from one insurance company and a different list from a different company.

It is these differences in coverage and cost that provide values as seen by the policy holders. An old geezer with many chronic conditions may want to have a policy that has extensive drug coverage. A young man may want a policy that covers injuries and a young woman may want a policy that covers child birth.

A 70 year old woman may be less concerned with pre and post natal care but may want an on call service if she's fallen and can't get up.

THAT is the difference in the products. And, yes, they are products. One size does NOT fit all.

By the by, did you know that about half of all health care insurance in the USA is currently Government run and that many billions of dollars of that are paid by subsidies from the private policies that are paid by the rest of us? That's another hidden cost of health care insurance.

 

[Varth Dader]

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?

Do you think victims of spousal abuse have a higher risk to require coverage? Isn't the point in insurance a certain amount of risk analysis?

 

[Polk]

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?

Do you think victims of spousal abuse have a higher risk to require coverage? Isn't the point in insurance a certain amount of risk analysis?

Do people who have previously been victims of spousal abuse have a higher risk? That would be dependent on several factors.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Plan is a godl mine for insurers and will never pass, it's lousy. Single payer is the way to have competitive prices!

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.

Are you saying most Americans are stupid like you? I didn't think so. There are a PLETHORA of healthcare programs that already can be taken from state to state and bought regardless of your home address. They're called fee for service programs. Boobs like you who are stuck in HMO scams are the ones who suffer. You can thank the late Sen. Ed Kennedy for your current healthcare debacle....he was the author of the first of many HMO bills that have passed into law effectively screwing YOU out of the ability to go "shopping from state to state" for an affordable healthcare plan.

Wake up dumb ass!!!!

 

[auditor0007]

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.

I've heard this argument enough already. It's complete conjecture and bullshit, and here is the reason. Health insurance companies are not raking in huge profits. Their profit margins run between three and six percent. Allowing them to operate across state lines will reduce rates how? The only way they will reduce rates is by cutting costs, something they say just can't be done. And the way the insurance industry works, I believe them. Allowing companies to operate across state lines will not reduce administrative costs. In fact, it will most likely increase them, which in turn will increase costs.

There are three areas where costs can be reduced. One is through tort reform and limiting damages in malpractice suits. Allow people to by insurance riders before surgery or make it part of their health insurance, and limit liability to doctors and hospitals. At the same time, punish the idiots who cut off a patients right arm when they were supposed to cut off the left. Suspend their license for five years.

That is number one. Number two is to get employers out of the healthcare business. Make each individual responsible for their own insurance and tie in Health Savings Accounts. Administrative costs are driving healthcare costs higher more than anything else. Can you imagine how much car insurance would cost if it covered oil changes, new tires, brake pads, mufflers, tune-ups, and gasoline? This is what health insurance does now. Health insurance should be for catastrophic occurences. When you buy a car, you have the option of buying an extended warranty so that if your engine blows up, they'll replace it. That is how health insurance should be also, not a comprehensive plan that covers everything from a doctor's visit to antibitotics for an infection. A simple plan tied to a health savings account could allow for an individual or family to have a cap of X dollars. Anything over that becomes catastrophic and insurance kicks in.

Number three ties in with number two. If people have high deductible catastrophic only plans, they will shop around for the best price when it comes to routine care. In many cases, when an individual needs some form of treatment, they are sent to the hospital. CT Scans, MRI's, Ultrasounds, Cancer treatments, the list goes on and on and on; hospitals charge much more than independent imaging centers and doctor's offices. In most cases, hospitals charge at least double. Actually, I should say hospitals charge about four times as much as other options, but the insurance companies pay them half of that. But that is still double the cost of having it done at an alternate location. As an example, I have phlebotomies done at a doctor's office for less than half of what the insurance companies would pay if I had it done at the hospital. I can get lab tests by ordering them over the Internet, going to the same lab the hospital uses, and prepaying them, and it costs me a fraction of what the insurance companies would pay the hospital.

The problem is that most doctors are affiliated with certain hospitals. When a patient needs treatment, the doctor sends the patient to the hospital he/she is affilitated with. It's convenient, and for the doctor, it makes sense. Who cares how much it costs? The insurance company is paying for it. That would all change if patients were paying the first few thousand out of their own pocket.

Most people don't have $5000 or more per year in medical costs, so if they had a really high deductible, they would shop around. There is a place for insurance companies, but it isn't in routine treatment. If we want competition, it's not going to happen between insurance companies; it has to happen at the treatment level.

 

[Sinatra]

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 beacause it sharply limits it's own power and control.

Right on.

The health care debate is not so much about healthcare as it is about control.

State-to-State competition would greatly increase choice, and from choice comes benefits to the consumer. As it is now, each state is a closed shop where but a handful of insurance carriers are allowed in.

Such a system benefits the insurance companies - not the consumer.


A fully run government system, and make not mistake, that is what the leftist/statists want, would reduce what little competition the consumer enjoys even more than now.

Competition will reduce costs, increase choice and overall affordability. Combine this with long overdue and aggressive tort reform, and the other 15% of Americans who don't have insurance will be given a far greater opportunity to do so.

Also, increase awareness of health savings accounts - something the Democrats appear to want to do away with. Why? Once again, less state run control.

Here is a very brief excerpt on the no-brainer benefits of HSA's:

There is no other renewable plan that can provide better protection for the money. Co-pay plans should be avoided like the PLAGUE. With co-pay plans the sicker you get the more expensive the insurance is --as opposed to with HSA compatible plans that cover you 100% for EVERYTHING once you reach your deductible or maximum out of pocket responsibility.

So yes, your thinking is right on this. The plan you have now, if it has co-pays, is and as always been overpriced and will never provide the catastrophic stop-loss protection an HSA compatible plan can provide.

Drop the co-pay plan and get the non-co-pay 100% plan that is HSA compatible. There is absolutely NO SITUATION where a co-pay plan is better for someone -- especially an elderly person or a diabetic so many of the so-called (clueless) "experts" who write nationally syndicated articles say should stay with co-pay plans to avoid "risks" associated with HSA plans --which is REDICULOUS ---as there ARE NO RISKS.

There are FAR WORSE risks associated with staying with a co-pay plan . Ten $50 co-pays on 10 Rx drugs per month adds up to $6000 per year just for one person's prescription drug copays. Copay plans are expensive and offer zero protection as far as I'm concerned.

If you can get a $3000 deductible where after tax savings really only costs you $2100 in a worst case scenario if you are in a 30% tax bracket, isn't that better than a more expensive co-pay pan that can add up to thousands and thousands of dollars? if people actually looked at the numbers and could see what they are getting for what they are paying and figure in both a bad year and a good year how both plans would perform. It is a NO BRAINER. The HSA compatible plan wins every time.

Read more: Health Savings Accounts - Business, Finance, and Investing - Page 2 - City-Data Forum

____

Open up the system to full and free competition...

 

[DiveCon]

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.

WRONG
it will mean the elimination of those requirements and the need for you to make sure you buy the coverage you need

 

[DiveCon]

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.

you ignore that CUSTOMERS may only want A C D E F G W Y Z

 

[DiveCon]

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.

and the cost savings from that would be HUGE
think if they didnt have to hire tons of people to keep up on the various differnt polies they are required to offer from the different states

 

[DiveCon]

The least amount of coverage for th emost amount of money.

That's the plan we're going to get because that's plan the most benefits the insurance companies.

To think that average citizens factor into any decisions coming out of government is foolish and naive.

the coverage PEOPLE WANT TO BUY

my god how can you people be so ******* stupid
no insurance company is going to market their services if the people dont want it

 

[Varth Dader]

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?

Do you think victims of spousal abuse have a higher risk to require coverage? Isn't the point in insurance a certain amount of risk analysis?

Do people who have previously been victims of spousal abuse have a higher risk? That would be dependent on several factors.

If insurers have data that show that spousal abuse victims are at a higher risk of incurring medical expenses, why shouldn't they be able to exclude these people? It's a money making business after all, not charity!