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

[Polk]

I'm really glad you guys have magical boxes to see in to the future and know which illnesses you're going to contract. Sadly, most people don't have the clairvoyance you all seem to manifest.

 

[dblack]

I'm really glad you guys have magical boxes to see in to the future and know which illnesses you're going to contract. Sadly, most people don't have the clairvoyance you all seem to manifest.

Weak. You can do better.

 

[Polk]

I'm really glad you guys have magical boxes to see in to the future and know which illnesses you're going to contract. Sadly, most people don't have the clairvoyance you all seem to manifest.

Weak. You can do better.

The argument isn't weak at all. You're saying people should be able to buy a policy to protect against disease x and illness y. The problem is no one knows in advance which illness they will be struck with. They may have some idea from family history and risk factors, but even that is somewhat shaky. We are increasingly reaching a point where technology will enable people to have a much better idea about these questions, but the entire insurance market falls apart at that point anyway, because no insurance company is going to issue a policy for lung cancer if they know you're going to get it. The actuarial tables only work at the level of broad societal risk. That's the entire reason health care (as in the kind people need to survive, not cosmetic procedures) doesn't really work well as a market good.

 

[dblack]

I'm really glad you guys have magical boxes to see in to the future and know which illnesses you're going to contract. Sadly, most people don't have the clairvoyance you all seem to manifest.

Weak. You can do better.

The argument isn't weak at all. You're saying people should be able to buy a policy to protect against disease x and illness y. The problem is no one knows in advance which illness they will be struck with.

Right. That means you don't either. No one does - it's different for every single person. So why shouldn't we be allowed to decide for ourselves our level of risk tolerance? Why do we need consensus on such a personal decision?

 

[Polk]

I never claimed I did, which is exactly why I want a policy that will cover a wide range of possible outcomes. You can decide your level of risk tolerance by choosing not to buy insurance if you don't want it.

 

[dblack]

I never claimed I did, which is exactly why I want a policy that will cover a wide range of possible outcomes. You can decide your level of risk tolerance by choosing not to buy insurance if you don't want it.

So you're opposed to the mandate. That's good. But it seems you're still saying that you (or the majority, or Congress, or regulators) should be able to dictate how much, or how little insurance we should be able to buy, right?

 

[dblack]

I never claimed I did, which is exactly why I want a policy that will cover a wide range of possible outcomes. You can decide your level of risk tolerance by choosing not to buy insurance if you don't want it.

So you're opposed to the mandate. That's good. But it seems you're still saying that you (or the majority, or Congress, or regulators) should be able to dictate how much, or how little insurance we should be able to buy, right?

Also, I want to be clear. I'm not opposed to government making sure insurance companies aren't ripping people off. Reasonable regulation to make sure they are honest and actually covering what they say they will cover is a good thing. But if someone wants (or can only afford) insurance that will only cover certain things, they should have the freedom to choose. They shouldn't be forced into someone else's idea of minimum coverage.

 

[Polk]

I never claimed I did, which is exactly why I want a policy that will cover a wide range of possible outcomes. You can decide your level of risk tolerance by choosing not to buy insurance if you don't want it.

So you're opposed to the mandate. That's good. But it seems you're still saying that you (or the majority, or Congress, or regulators) should be able to dictate how much, or how little insurance we should be able to buy, right?

I am not opposed to the mandate. It is rationally related to the exercise of an authority Congress unquestionably has, and it still doesn't require people to buy insurance. It nudges people in the direction of buying insurance by giving them a tax incentive to do so.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

The reasons dems are against this is b/c then people will suddenly have the facts about hc.

The the dems are evil liars that want to take their freedoms.

Nothing more.

 

[dblack]

I never claimed I did, which is exactly why I want a policy that will cover a wide range of possible outcomes. You can decide your level of risk tolerance by choosing not to buy insurance if you don't want it.

So you're opposed to the mandate. That's good. But it seems you're still saying that you (or the majority, or Congress, or regulators) should be able to dictate how much, or how little insurance we should be able to buy, right?

I am not opposed to the mandate. It is rationally related to the exercise of an authority Congress unquestionably has, and it still doesn't require people to buy insurance. It nudges people in the direction of buying insurance by giving them a tax incentive to do so.

That's like saying stop signs don't require people to stop at intersections - they only nudge them in that direction. A law that penalizes people for not complying is compulsive in nature. No way around it.

 

[gallantwarrior]

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?

That's exactly what the obama healthcare "plan" does. It represents a very narrow interest that wants to go way beyond just dictating policy. It seeks to control every aspect of healthcare in this country. So, why should your narrow interest trump someone else's?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Did you know that health insurance is one of the few things that you cannot sell across state lines? People buy cars across state lines all the time. In fact, people buy cars in New York and drive them to California, have problems with them, and never have to sue anyone in New York because it is a national market. Can you explain why insurance wouldn't work the same way?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Of course that will happen, because no one in this country actually wants a policy that covers all the bells and whistles you are demanding.

Either that, or you are a fool.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Aren't you one of the idiots that is complaining about people trying to impose their morality on you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

It is impossible to want anything that somebody doesn't sell. Try it sometime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Cars would be safer if you could sell them without mileage requirements. I bet that for every good example of a government regulation I can find at least 10 that are bad.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm really glad you guys have magical boxes to see in to the future and know which illnesses you're going to contract. Sadly, most people don't have the clairvoyance you all seem to manifest.

I am really sad, but not surprised, you think insurance is supposed to prevent illness.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm really glad you guys have magical boxes to see in to the future and know which illnesses you're going to contract. Sadly, most people don't have the clairvoyance you all seem to manifest.

Weak. You can do better.

The argument isn't weak at all. You're saying people should be able to buy a policy to protect against disease x and illness y. The problem is no one knows in advance which illness they will be struck with. They may have some idea from family history and risk factors, but even that is somewhat shaky. We are increasingly reaching a point where technology will enable people to have a much better idea about these questions, but the entire insurance market falls apart at that point anyway, because no insurance company is going to issue a policy for lung cancer if they know you're going to get it. The actuarial tables only work at the level of broad societal risk. That's the entire reason health care (as in the kind people need to survive, not cosmetic procedures) doesn't really work well as a market good.

No, we are saying that young people should be able to buy insurance that covers unexpected expenses, if they want it. Insurance only covers specific illnesses when the government decides it has to.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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?

Imagine you buy a book from Amazon or anything on the internet across state lines, they don't ship. Imagine you buy soup across state lines from Progresso, it poisons you. Who are you going to for justice?

A liberal will simply have no brains at all. Is any other conclusion possible?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

again, liberal and too stupid for words. If one company has lax standards they will encourage competition from companies with higher standards. We buy Japanese cars because they have higher standards for reliability regardless of what state or federal standards are.

A liberal is someone who simply lacks the IQ to understand capitalism. Sorry