What's Wrong With Ann Coulter's Approach

[Mr.Fitnah]

Sssshhhheeeesss a man!

 

[rdean]

Sssshhhheeeesss a man!

A Manwitch.

 

[JimH52]

This is the easiest question I have had all day. She is nuts!

 

[Bern80]

This is the easiest question I have had all day. She is nuts!

Again thank you so much to all the liberals for proving my point. Just the mere mention of the word Coulter turns liberals into intellectual neophytes.

 

[Vanquish]

Maybe it's who doesn't know people as well as you think you do. See that's the error the original poster made. Had you excerpted this without stating the author 'maybe' the libs would have been capable of rationale intelligent conversation regarding it. But shame on him, he noted it was by Ann Coulter, thus opening up the flood gates of ad hominems and other general excuses to not actual discuss the ideas presented.

Like your idea. That people who think the free market is a better way to provide health care must obviously hate kids and don't understand suffering. Open your eyes. The reason things are so expensive right now is in large part due to too much government involvement already. It's government regualtion that exempts insurance companies from having to compete nationally. It's state regulations that make insurance companies cover a laundry list of things the consumer may not want to pay for. If those two regulations alone were removed costs would go down for the poor children and suffering and they would be better able to purchase coverage they actually want. Maybe it's YOU that really doesn't care about the poor kids and suffering of people.

You're clueless about the law, so let me school you. The reason why insurance companies don't operate across state lines ISNT some oppressive government. It's because of the sovereignty of each state's own laws.

Let me repeat that for you. States each have their own insurance laws and that's why insurance isn't sold beyond state lines.

If this were changed, the insurer would have to follow the regs in the state where it is based or "domiciled" - not the rules of the state where the consumer or policyholder lives. Allowing the the insurer to choose state laws rather than the laws of the state where the consumer lives to govern health insurance regulation is bad for the consumer. Period.

Selling insurance across state lines invariable means higher premiums for Americans seeking comprehensive insurance. Beyond that, allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines would eliminate any guarantee that important benefits like maternity and emergency care will be included in insurance packages in the future. Consumers would get little in exchange - overwhelming evidence shows that benefit mandates per se are not why health insurance costs so much.

Coulter's a shock-jock in a micro-mini.

yeah, um I'm not the one that needs to go to school. I recommend economics 101 for you. Or maybe even high school level econ. You just proved the point smart guy. That fact that states have an over abundance of regulation prevents them from having to compete. When companies providing like prodcuts or services compete cost goes down for the consumer.

Sigh...where to begin with you. First of all, I've got an Economics degree (among others) and have been published regarding the hyper-inflation problem in Russia of the late 90s.
I doubt you could school me on anything. Especially with your post.

And YOU missed the point. The sovereignty of the states PREVENTS them from being able to compete, not some big government conspiracy as you're trying to paint it. Each state's citizens get to choose THEIR OWN laws and insurance companies can't use jurisdictional issues to hide from that.

You just dont get it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

She has no real concept of people who are suffering with sick kids, parents, themselves. All she is worried about is her own future keeping the republican agenda front and center.

That's what's wrong with her opportunistic approach.

Yes, the only POSSIBLE reason anyone could disagree with YOUR position is because they're selfish and don't give a damn about other people, since YOUR position is OBVIOUSLY the only morally correct and compassionate one. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that someone disagrees with you simply because they have a different idea of how to accomplish caring and compassionate goals, right? The only choices are agreeing with you, and being evil.

She is selfish and she doesn't care about other people.

Oh, you've met her, have you? Yeah, that's what I thought. You're just stuck on your own shining righteousness.

 

[manu1959]

She has no real concept of people who are suffering with sick kids, parents, themselves. All she is worried about is her own future keeping the republican agenda front and center.

That's what's wrong with her opportunistic approach.

just cuz.....why is allowing an insurance company to insure nationwide under one set of federal rules to create as big a pool of insured as possible a bad thing....

 

[Vanquish]

insurance cases deal mainly with tort law

tort law varies state to state

insurance companies could pervert jurisdiction to screw over insureds


that's the reason. 3 simple sentences.

 

[uscitizen]

Everything Coulter says is straight from the horses mouth.

 

[HUGGY]

This is the easiest question I have had all day. She is nuts!

Again thank you so much to all the liberals for proving my point. Just the mere mention of the word Coulter turns liberals into intellectual neophytes.

If only neo con fascists cared as much about the middle class of america as they do about she males.

 

[Foxfyre]

You're clueless about the law, so let me school you. The reason why insurance companies don't operate across state lines ISNT some oppressive government. It's because of the sovereignty of each state's own laws.

Let me repeat that for you. States each have their own insurance laws and that's why insurance isn't sold beyond state lines.

If this were changed, the insurer would have to follow the regs in the state where it is based or "domiciled" - not the rules of the state where the consumer or policyholder lives. Allowing the the insurer to choose state laws rather than the laws of the state where the consumer lives to govern health insurance regulation is bad for the consumer. Period.

Then kindly explain why it is not a problem for work comp insurors or general liability insurors or auto insurors or malpractice insurors or E & O insurors to operate in multiple states? And almost all do.

So if they manage to negotiate the minefields of varying state regulations, please explain why it is so difficult to health insurance companies to do so?

 

[Foxfyre]

This is the easiest question I have had all day. She is nuts!

Again thank you so much to all the liberals for proving my point. Just the mere mention of the word Coulter turns liberals into intellectual neophytes.

It does tend to emphasize the wingnuts who are unable to get past the messenger so that they can even see the message, much less comment coherently on it.

 

[Bern80]

You're clueless about the law, so let me school you. The reason why insurance companies don't operate across state lines ISNT some oppressive government. It's because of the sovereignty of each state's own laws.

Let me repeat that for you. States each have their own insurance laws and that's why insurance isn't sold beyond state lines.

If this were changed, the insurer would have to follow the regs in the state where it is based or "domiciled" - not the rules of the state where the consumer or policyholder lives. Allowing the the insurer to choose state laws rather than the laws of the state where the consumer lives to govern health insurance regulation is bad for the consumer. Period.

Selling insurance across state lines invariable means higher premiums for Americans seeking comprehensive insurance. Beyond that, allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines would eliminate any guarantee that important benefits like maternity and emergency care will be included in insurance packages in the future. Consumers would get little in exchange - overwhelming evidence shows that benefit mandates per se are not why health insurance costs so much.

Coulter's a shock-jock in a micro-mini.

yeah, um I'm not the one that needs to go to school. I recommend economics 101 for you. Or maybe even high school level econ. You just proved the point smart guy. That fact that states have an over abundance of regulation prevents them from having to compete. When companies providing like prodcuts or services compete cost goes down for the consumer.

Sigh...where to begin with you. First of all, I've got an Economics degree (among others) and have been published regarding the hyper-inflation problem in Russia of the late 90s.
I doubt you could school me on anything. Especially with your post.

And YOU missed the point. The sovereignty of the states PREVENTS them from being able to compete, not some big government conspiracy as you're trying to paint it. Each state's citizens get to choose THEIR OWN laws and insurance companies can't use jurisdictional issues to hide from that.

You just dont get it.

I get it just fine. I'm not sure how what you said changes the fact that government regulation, state or othewise, is preventing competition.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You're clueless about the law, so let me school you. The reason why insurance companies don't operate across state lines ISNT some oppressive government. It's because of the sovereignty of each state's own laws.

Let me repeat that for you. States each have their own insurance laws and that's why insurance isn't sold beyond state lines.

If this were changed, the insurer would have to follow the regs in the state where it is based or "domiciled" - not the rules of the state where the consumer or policyholder lives. Allowing the the insurer to choose state laws rather than the laws of the state where the consumer lives to govern health insurance regulation is bad for the consumer. Period.

Then kindly explain why it is not a problem for work comp insurors or general liability insurors or auto insurors or malpractice insurors or E & O insurors to operate in multiple states? And almost all do.

So if they manage to negotiate the minefields of varying state regulations, please explain why it is so difficult to health insurance companies to do so?

Hey, stop reading my mind! lol

 

[uscitizen]

So the right is all for states rights as long as it suits their purpose?

 

[Foxfyre]

You're clueless about the law, so let me school you. The reason why insurance companies don't operate across state lines ISNT some oppressive government. It's because of the sovereignty of each state's own laws.

Let me repeat that for you. States each have their own insurance laws and that's why insurance isn't sold beyond state lines.

If this were changed, the insurer would have to follow the regs in the state where it is based or "domiciled" - not the rules of the state where the consumer or policyholder lives. Allowing the the insurer to choose state laws rather than the laws of the state where the consumer lives to govern health insurance regulation is bad for the consumer. Period.

Then kindly explain why it is not a problem for work comp insurors or general liability insurors or auto insurors or malpractice insurors or E & O insurors to operate in multiple states? And almost all do.

So if they manage to negotiate the minefields of varying state regulations, please explain why it is so difficult to health insurance companies to do so?

Hey, stop reading my mind! lol

I'm still waiting for Mr. Economic's degree to address that.

 

[Ragnar]

What's Wrong With Ann Coulter's Approach

- It does not empower government at the expense of our liberty

- It would lower cost and improve care w/o any possible credit for elected politicians

- Adams apple

- It could give people funny ideas about using free markets in telephone and TV industries

- There would be fewer excuses for further government encroachment in the future

- Fewer bureaucrats

- It does not demonize big (medium or small) business

All that said, there are some things I consider right about her viewpoint.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When we take the Congress back in 2010 we'll deem the Coulter Bill passed and we'll even deem it signed by President Biden.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Hey, where is Vanquish to answer the questions posed to him? I would really like to know why many other types of insurances are able to be sold across state lines but health care is not.

 

[Vanquish]

Hey, dropped in to say I'm posting in between getting some work done. I'll post further on the issue I promise.

EDIT: I'll simply say for now that the differences between the types of insurance boils down to excessive state mandates and mutual enforcement agreements. The even shorter answer is because the states say so.

I'll be back later.