Posted on 12/30/2016 8:19:22 AM PST by cba123
Bingo!
Sorry, I just looked, and couldn't find anything in the U.S. Constitution concerning healthcare.
Apparently, people 200 years ago - or even as little as 50 years ago - didn't think that this was the government's responsibility, or that the government could do a better job than the individual.
Regards,
My experience (41 years in a few weeks) is that the state in which the policy was purchased has jurisdiction, because that state’s insurance commission theoretically protects consumers in that state, and granted the insurance carrier the right to sell to people in that state (in your example, Nebraska).
Why couldn’t the rate of of insurance be the same? The cost of medicine is the same. The only difference is operating costs between states. At that point, selling across state lines would minimize operating costs because the insurance company wouldn’t need to staff a full operations center in each state to sell insurance there.
Who writes this crap? Did these morons ever hear of Tom Price? I mean they all hate him because he is a conservative so they hate him of course but don’t they know why they hate him?
Yeah, yeah, Cringing Negativity Network. We’ve seen your OCD schtick before. Give it a rest.
One big reason why the Dems wanted Obamacare passed, and for it to cover preexisting conditions : over 20% of the homosexual male population now is HIV positive. The percentage is significantly higher in urban areas.
The cost of treatment? $36K per year, for life.
http://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/monthly-cost-treating-hiv
No it isn't. Not by a long shot.
...selling across state lines would minimize operating costs because the insurance company wouldn’t need to staff a full operations center in each state to sell insurance there.
They don't staff full operations centers in each state.
I know for a fact that Anthem consolidates IT operations, call centers, claims processing operations, etc. across all of the Blue plans it operates. Some states may require some in-state support but not the back office stuff.
I'm positive it's the same for United Healthcare, Cigna, Aetna, and all of the other large carriers.
The only state-specific operations are those needed to support network development and management, state compliance, and in some cases some aspects of customer support.
Get them out of paying 70% of the bills. They should be paying 0%.
HEY!! Who said you could use well-informed, thoughtful reasoning on an FR thread about health insurance? This is nearly unprecedented! P.S. You are right, except it would take longer than two years (many blue-ish states will drag their feet on any changes).
Allow people to keep their group plans if they leave their job and make it tax deductible just like businesses and self employed. It’s an easy fix. Ideally I’d like to see it separated from employment completely but that’s a much bigger change that would be a tough sell. For now give the option to go independent of employers and see where things sit a few years down the road. Imagine a business community not saddled with massive insurance and HR management costs. We’d be so much more competitive and insurance would be free market and cheaper with greater access.
Repeal the mandate. Private insurance. Each state has a high-risk pool for preexisting conditions separate from the private insurance pool.
Maybe so, but I suspect those are a very small portion of the cost of health care delivery in the U.S.
I've gone back and forth on this concept.
Basically you're just shifting the cost from the pool of those with insurance to the general taxpayer. I can see arguments in favor of both.
Yep. I think it'll take longer than 2 years too, however, 2 years would, if all entities worked as they should, be the very minimum length it would take, in a perfect world.
They have that now with COBRA although it is only for 18 mos and rather expensive. At my age, it would be cheaper to go with a gold COBRA plan than a crappy bronze plan if I had to pay full fare.
A portability option seems interesting, but would people pay extra for that option?
It’s not insurance if you let people buy it after they have the accident.
Insurance should be insurance. Entitlements should be entitlements.
True.
The problem under our system is that you can have insurance, have an "accident", and from that point forward you can't buy insurance again.
Rules and regulations can be fixed.
“Insurance” that does not use rational underwriting standards cannot.
The problem isn't based in insurance. It's that the doc's and hospitals and pharmacies charge too damn much. MRIs are $1000 here, and $100 in Japan. And, in the veterinary field, which is relatively unregulated compared to human doc/hospitals, it's about $100 too.
Karl Denninger has a bunch of posts on this at market-ticker.org. We are overcharged for everything. Eliminate the medical monopolies, require fair and published pricing, and the costs will drop.
Insurance companies aren't angels, they are involved in the high priced scamming of the customer too. But it is secondary to the medical industry overcharges.
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.