Posted on 11/13/2009 9:21:52 AM PST by Huck
Antitrust exemption:
A 1945 law prevented the federal government from regulating all forms of insurance, leaving that duty to the states.[Huck's note--so did a 1787 law, called the 10th amendment]. As a result, the law also shielded insurers from federal antitrust laws that prohibit price-fixing and collusion. This is seen as a problem for residents in many areas where only one or two health insurers operate. Rather than go to a neighboring state where another insurer might be offering a better deal, residents are forced to choose between the insurers that are regulated by their state government.
Buying across state lines:
A proposal to allow [people to buy insurance across state lines] was part of the bill that passed in the Democrat-controlled Senate Finance Committee last week. Republicans, however, have been the ones arguing the loudest in support of the idea. Currently, a resident in one state cannot buy a policy offered in another state because it would not meet state requirements and there would be no government regulator to ensure that the policy was honored. If the law were changed to allow interstate sales of health insurance, this could open the industry to federal antitrust laws because an interstate insurance regime would have to be regulated by the federal government.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
If you are for these GOP reforms. That's fine. Just don't pretend to be on any constitutional high ground. You're not.
And really, I don’t blame the GOP. Might as well. The Constitution is a giant gaping government loophole anyway. No sense staying inside the cage when the cage door is wide open and has been all along. Just be honest about it.
I do not agree with you. Have you heard about the commerce clause? Restricting insurance is a violation of the commerce clause at least in spirit. I do not see the issue of anti trust. Anti trust prevents collusion among competitors and just one or two providers from dominating. Competition across states will provide economies of scale, not a constitutional violation.
There was talk about a year and a half ago from NAIC of the federal government OFFERING a national charter for insurance companies on a voluntary basis. (Similar to banks - they can choose to have a national charter or a state charter - I believe the national charter allowed banks to have branches across state lines - this was changed about the time of the S&L demise.)
Many Property & Casualty companies get licensed in all states. The “licensed in all 50 states” is something that makes a company attractive for purchase. I don’t understand why Health companies don’t do this - it HAS to be the jumping through hoops for more than one state.
No one is restricting insurance. States simply set their own regulations. Companies choose to do business in a state or not. The Commerce Clause had to do with states putting duties and imposts on imports from other states--interstate trade wars, basically. It had nothing to do with state regulations of INTRA-state business.
If a company does business in a state, that is not interstate commerce. It's intrastate commerce. Each state sets its own regulations. There is no law preventing a state from doing business is all 50 states if it wants to.
What they want to do is take the regulatory power FROM the states and assume that control at the NATIONAL level. That way, THEY can regulate ALL insurance. And they sell that to America buy calling it "letting people buy across state lines." If you are in California or Massachusetts, I suppose things can't get any worse, so you might not mind national control, but you red folks states better think twice before you surrender your regulatory power to the national gubmint.
That's still out there. It was in the Baucus bill. Each participating state would have to sign off on the plans. States would have some administrative regulatory functions, but in most substantive ways it would be a nationalized plan--regulated by the national gubmint. It is thought this would kill state regulations, and you'd end up with only nationalized plans in the end.
In other words, states aren’t setting harsh rules for “outsiders” and separate, easy rules for insiders. That is what the commerce clause was designed to prevent. Trade wars.
Sorry for the sloppy typing.
I disagree with your assessment. You make your point well but state regulations are preventing inter state commerce. This situation is similar to auto sales. State regulations have prevented manufacturers from directly selling autos to consumers. States have franchise laws that prevent direct selling to consumers. State regulation of insurance prevents the same policy from being sold across states. States have effectively setup barriers to inhibit interstate commerce.
While state practice on insurance may not be a violation of the commerce clause, reforms to allow interstate sales would also not be a constitutional violation. I support reforms for interstate sales of insurance policies. Perhaps you oppose it but your opposition should not be based on constitutional grounds.
No they aren't. There is no law preventing interstate commerce. Insurance companies can choose to operate in a state or not.
While state practice on insurance may not be a violation of the commerce clause,
Of course it's not a violation. States are not regulating interstate commerce. They are regulating commerce within their own state. It has nothing to do with interstate commerce.
reforms to allow interstate sales would also not be a constitutional violation.
Saying it's so doesn't make it so. You've already admitted that state regulation of insurance companies operating in its jurisdiction (the state) is not interstate commerce. So where is the Constitutional power for the national government to regulate health insurance??? Where is it?
I support reforms for interstate sales of insurance policies.
That's fine. Like I said, I don't blame people for supporting it. Maybe it's a fine idea. Just don't pretend it has anything to do with limited government or "original intent", etc. It doesn't. It's nationalization.
It just goes to show how jokey the Constitution is. Totally unlimited national power.
You have a very backwards view of this.
I don’t care what a company is allowed or not allowed to do. I care what I am allowed or not allowed to do.
Under the current system, I cannot go into Maryland and buy cheap health insurance. I cannot go online and find the cheapest insurance on the country.
I am stuck with whatever insurance my state allows me to buy.
Now, this is not a violation of anything. But the commerce clause clearly ALLOWS the federal government to remove state barriers to commerce, and therefore allows them to grant ME the right to buy a policy from company in another state.
Of course that opens up chances for new regulation. But it doesn’t HAVE to. Why should any government “regulate” what kind of insurance I can buy?
I favor allowing states to continue to regulate within the states, but allowing citizens to buy from other states if they like.
People who like government interference can stick to buying policies offered within the state. People who like to live dangerously and think for themselves can shop globally.
But that requires federal intervention.
You can if you move to Maryland. Once you allow FEDZILLA to regulate ALL insurance, see how many options you have.
Now, this is not a violation of anything.
That's right. It's not.
But the commerce clause clearly ALLOWS the federal government to remove state barriers to commerce,
The commerce clause allows the national government to regulate interstate commerce. This is not interstate commerce. It is you buying insurance in your state. The insurance YOU buy must meet your states regulations. If a company meets your states regulations, you can buy its insurance. If not, you can't.
What you want is for the feds to nullify state regulation of health insurance. Which they are happy to do--watch. They will.
Of course that opens up chances for new regulation. But it doesn’t HAVE to. Why should any government “regulate” what kind of insurance I can buy?
Not the chance. The certainty. What you are asking for is nationalized health care regulation.
IF I want to buy something from another state, and I can’t do so because my state prohibits me from doing so, that certainly IS interference in “interstate commerce”.
I don’t want new federal regulations. I want a federal law that allows me to circumvent my state prohibition on buying insurance regulated by other states.
I simply do not see any compelling state interest in my state prohibiting me, a citizen of the United States, from entering into a contractual relationship with a company which offers insurance under the regulations of Delaware, or Californiat, or Texas.
This isn’t like homeowners insurance, where the property is tied to the state, and the state can rationally argue that the community would be negatively impacted if I bought insurance regulated by another state that didn’t appropriately protect the local community from hazards (I think it’s a weak argument, but at least it is rational).
But there is no rational argument that the state, or my neighbors, would in any way be impacted if my health insurance was substandard. The state can easily protect itself by passing a law that prohibits me from getting state-supported treatment if I choose to pick an insurance company from another state.
We can pass a law granting all citizens of the United States the right to purchase insurance from any licensed insurer in any state — without changing a single state regulation, or invoking ANY federal regulation whatsoever.
I don’t need the federal government setting a minimum standard for health insurance (although we have long since stopped fighting the federal government as a watchdog over shoddy products and services, ala the consumer product safety commission, the FDA, and other federal entities which try (badly) to make things “safe” for us). Nor do we need the feds to set a minimum standard in order to allow citizens to buy insurance across state lines. “Let the Buyer Beware” — and let them freely purchase insurance regulated by whatever state they choose to purchase from.
Now, we could argue against this, and accept the fact that insurance will be more expensive if we allow each state to set it’s own regulations. That’s not an argument really, it’s not like “cheap insurance” is a guarantee under the constitution, and we can argue over whether the freedom of each state to impose limits on it’s own citizens outweighs the ability of the citizens to buy cheap insurance from other states.
But a federal allow allowing such purchases would fall squarely in the bosom of the commerce clause, and granting citizens of the country the right to cross state lines and purchase products is exactly what the clause is intended to allow the feds to regulate.
No it wasn't. It was designed to prevent interstate tariffs/protectionism. It's basically a negative state right--the feds are merely supposed to ensure that there are no interstate tariffs,and that whatever trade agreements/policies we have with foreign countries are uniform.
Of course, what it means today is so far removed from that it's pretty funny actually. So federalizing health insurance regulation is not a big deal at all. Nowadays, something doesn't have to be commerce or interstate to fall under the commerce clause. So you've got no worries. They'll be able to federalize it.
A state doesn't prohibit you from buying out of state. It requires that what you buy meet the state regulations. Any company that does so can be licensed to sell in your state.
The truth is so much has already been nationalized (federalized is a misnomer) that they might as well nationalize health care too. That's what you are calling for. One government or the other is going to regulate health insurance--the states or the feds. You want the feds? You'll be sorry. It's the only way to get what you want. You'll see. They've very cleverly sold it. I don't think most conservatives even understand or suspect that "let people buy across state lines" actually means nationalize health insurance regulation.
What you need has nothing to do with it. I am certain the government doesn't care what you need. If you give them the power to regulate all health insurance in all states--which is what you must do to get what you want---they will take it, and you will be sorry. It was a short snippet I posted. Go back to the top and read it again--if you change the laws so that you can "let people buy across state lines", what you have done is federalized (nationalized) health insurance regulation.
The feds don’t need the power to regulate insurance to allow citizens to purchase insurance across state lines.
Not that this would be the first time the feds regulated something anyway. There are many degrees of regulation.
But all that is needed is to remove the boundaries forbidding purchase of insurance across state lines — something the interstate commerce clause is well equipped to handle.
You realize this statement is contradicted by your other statement?
But all that is needed is to remove the boundaries forbidding purchase of insurance across state lines — something the interstate commerce clause is well equipped to handle.
The interstate commerce clause---"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
So Congress doesn't need to regulate insurance, all they have to do is regulate insurance?
You say all they need to do is "remove the boundaries." But what are the "boundaries"? State regulation of insurance. The "fix" is for the feds to take over regulatory authority. The feds will regulate ALL insurance under that scenario.
The boundaries are a specific federal law which allows states to prohibit citizens of each state from buying insurance from a company that has not submitted to the regulation of the state.
All that needs to be done by the feds is to change the existing federal law, so that states cannot prohibit their citizens from purchasing insurance regulated by another state.
The “commerce” the feds would be regulating would be the purchase of the insurance, NOT the content of the insurance.
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.