Posted on 12/30/2016 8:19:22 AM PST by cba123
Actually I do trust Trump on this topic.
I do NOT trust the GOP. For the very reason all of them are for sale. As are the entire democrat party. Everyone is sold out.
Trump is however, not sold out, the same way. That is why, in my opinion he was elected. He is a renewal of what was once the GOP, before it became a sold-out nothing standing up never.
Go Trump. :D
The first thing to do is repeal the Miami Herald.
25% of the Federal budget goes to healthcare. Almost $1T.
Like it or not the Feds are and will remain involved, so we all better hope they manage that involvement.
Actually, while I can't attest to the number of people who were denied coverage I know there were many.
Every insurer which offered individual plans in my market denied me coverage due to a pre-existing condition.
They didn't just exclude coverage related to the condition - they flat out refused to write a policy at any price.
Exactly. Their track record shows they are never even in the race.
Democrats won’t come to the table to pass a replacement till the ACA is nuked and end dated.
They should set the date 6-8 months out. Then dems will come to the table.
No, no they can't. At least not overnight. It WILL indeed take AT LEAST 2 years to transition into the replacement. There is more to it than Congress repealing. Once repealed, insurance carriers must then re-work their entire slate of plans (which takes time & $$$), then submit those new plans to the state insurance commission (who approves ALL rate hikes, plans, etc), wait for approval, make changes where approval will not come, and all that nice, bureaucratic BS. Then, and only then, will the plans be prepped to go into effect the following year.
Anyone begging for an over night solution is begging for a single payer system.
Agreed - I wasn’t aiming my comment at you, but at the author of the article. I absolutely trust Trump at this juncture.
What GOP? Oh, the GOP that just yesterday said that Obamas sanctions against Russia were long overdue?! That GOP?!
I am not sure about why it would not be constitutional for health insurers to compete across state lines. Life insurance companies do it all of the time, as do disability insurance and long-term care insurance companies. Some do have special products for New York, for example, due to excessive regulation there. Why couldn’t health insurance carriers have some regionalized-pricing in their products? (Not something that is BC/BS for each state, etc.).
1. The states in question have regulations for these policies that are so similar that they can be served across state lines, probably even with cross-acceptance of certifications/licenses for insurance brokers.
2. The states have agreements between their insurance commissions documenting the terms under which these interstate insurance carriers operate.
I suspect the biggest question for these carriers involves legal disputes. If I live in Nebraska and I buy a life insurance policy from a company located in Texas, which insurance commission and/or state courts would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate a formal/legal complaint if one arises?
I'm a licensed professional who can legally work in any U.S. state (and in some international jurisdictions as well). I have to secure a professional license in each jurisdiction where I do business, though -- and some are easier to get than others.
Because they pay 70% of the bills, one way or another, and since it's taxpayer money, their representatives should have a say in how it's spent.
That's because everyone's costs vary by state and region.
Anthem operates BC/BS plans in 14 states. It's true that each region may have it's own legal entity, but they're clearly operating across state lines.
The reality is that insurance companies have to develop networks in each state/region, and the rates for Anthem in Indiana may be very different than for Anthem in CA.
Insurance companies being able to compete across state lines won't really change much as long as the providers remain local or regional.
The issue is the cost of setting up shop in each state. Allowing the selling across state lines without the need to setup a full operations center in each state would reduce operating costs for insurance companies. This would also allow for serious competition and cause prices to drop as those with smaller costs could effectively sell insurance at lower rates.
Medicare caused the collapse of the private sector - not as fast as LBJ and Wilbur Mills thought it would, but after 1986, Medicare was living on borrowed or printed money.
Obamacare, or something like it, was inevitable, GIVEN THAT our national debt was out of control, and there was no way to pay Medicare fees without borrowing or printing money.
What the Democrats did not foresee in 1964-65 was that the promise to pay, without limit, for any "necessary" health products and services would change the definition of "necessary" to "useful or potentially useful", and the river of money flowing from that promise would erect entire new industries and many useful inventions.
Renal dialysis, for one thing, would not exist without Federal payment guarantees. Joint replacements, cataract surgery, implantable defibrillators, minimally-invasive open heart surgery, most cancer chemotherapy, nearly all targeted radiation therapy, and many other things exist only because of Medicare's promise to pay without limit.
They aren’t operating across state lines. The company has operations in each of those 14 states. It offers the same coverage plans in all 14 of those states and only those 14 states. It is the appearance of selling across state lines, but it is not. True selling across state lines would me being able to buy an Anthem BC/BS plan and live in a state other than the 14 it is setup in.
Nationalization.
Right, but in that scenario what would their network look like? Why would they have a network in your state if they didn't operate there? Would there be one big network with the rates being the same in every state?
That would make them uncompetitive in the lower cost states.
They're still going to have to recruit and manage providers within each region so I fail to see how this would change much of anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.