Posted on 03/20/2010 3:12:54 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
Federal law and state law shall not inhibit health insurance companies from offering coverage in as few or as many states as the company chooses. The exclusive regulator of any health insurance company shall be the state where the company's home office is. As such, the federal government shall not regulate health insurance products or services beyond the general regulations and laws that apply to all other companies and that are not specific to the health insurance industry. Every health care provider shall advertise the rate for all its services on the internet, and shall always charge its advertised rate for these services. All payers shall pay the advertised rate for all services except that a patient may be charged a lesser amount for services that are never submitted to an insurer for payment or reimbursement; insurers and health care providers may offer a patient an incentive to avoid submitting such a claim to an insurer for payment or reimbursement.
LOL, nailed it, Ann. Negative rights, limited government... it ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Sounds good to me-IMHO, if the gubmint got out of the industry regulation, costs would plummet. We didn’t have the problems prior to the Medicare act of ‘64 and that began Fed involvement, and it’s continued to worsen.
I don't think this would be too onerous provided the companies are free to set the premium accordingly.
HOORAY Ann!
In order for it to be something other than welfare, the premiums would have to be higher than the total ongoing cost of the pre-existing condition, and what's the point of that?
Perfect
NOT perfect. Remove the “state law” part in the beginning. States should have the right to limit if they want.
We could have all the lawyers on FR pick this law apart, but it’s really no more poorly written than most laws these days. It would certainly be a good start at real reform!
Works fine for me.
But then I am a mere voting taxpayer. My thoughts on the matter are not of consequence to our “representatives”.
If she cannot get coverage in the private sector she WILL have to depend upon some government program - 'welfare'.
I'm not sure exactly what can be done in this kind of situation but surely there is a free market solution available.
Well, I agree. Thanks for pointing that out. Here you go:
Notwithstanding the provisions of this law:
- the exclusive regulator of any health insurance company shall be the state where the company’s home office is;
- the federal government shall not inhibit a health insurance company from offering coverage in as few or as many states as the company chooses;
- the federal government shall not regulate health insurance products or services beyond the general regulations and laws that apply to all other companies and that are not specific to the health insurance industry;
- in no event shall the federal government, or a payer acting on behalf of the federal government, pay a rate less than the lowest rate paid by any other non-government payer for a service.
Notwithstanding state law to the contrary:
- every health care provider shall advertise on the internet the rate for all services;
- all payers shall pay the advertised rate for all services except that a patient may be charged a lesser amount for services that are never submitted to an insurer for payment or reimbursement;
- insurers and health care providers may offer a patient an incentive to avoid submitting such a claim to an insurer for payment or reimbursement.
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.