Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SeekAndFind; All
Apologies in advance, as I'm going to somewhat hijack the thread for a question..

One of the long standing GOP ideas that are offered as an alternative to Obamacare is to allow people to purchase medical insurance across state lines..IOW to buy whichever plan is best for them, at the best cost.

While that sounds fine in theory, I'm not quite sire that it would actually be a viable solution, for two reasons.

1. Cost. A plan with identical benefits and features cannot cost the same for an insured in Los Angeles vs. one in, say, Little Rock. So companies would need to price for all 50 states.

2. Administration: Just because these plans could be available, in theory, I, in Florida, could buy a plan from Mutual of Alasks, assumign that they were willing to market in Alaska, I doubt that the majority of doctors and hospitals would want to have to deal with several hundred diffeent insurers. They would most likely refuse to accept them, for obvious reasons.

Again, I'm not opposed to the idea..it sounds great, but I do think there are major problems in implementing this idea. Thoughts?

34 posted on 02/09/2011 8:22:59 AM PST by ken5050 (Palin/Bachman 2012 - FOUR boobs are better than the two we have now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ken5050

You get it. Republican plans suck too.


42 posted on 02/09/2011 8:30:18 AM PST by screaminsunshine (34 States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: ken5050
I doubt that the majority of doctors and hospitals would want to have to deal with several hundred diffeent insurers. They would most likely refuse to accept them, for obvious reasons.

Or, doctors could refuse to deal with insurance altogether and have the patient do all of the dealing instead.

46 posted on 02/09/2011 8:34:17 AM PST by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: ken5050

Probly the sane way to handle this is to first have Tort reform to protect well meaning providers. Second..Outlaw managed care completely. Third have a two tier system. Those who can afford it can buy real insurance and others get socialized medicine complete with rationing. Or charity care. I see no other viable alternatives. The corruption and fraud now is not ‘curable’.


47 posted on 02/09/2011 8:37:35 AM PST by screaminsunshine (34 States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: ken5050
I do think there are major problems in implementing this idea.

I agree, but I think that the end result would be a "flattening" of policies, or "a-la-carte" options, either of which would be desirable.

For instance, thtough my company, I'm covered for all mental health issues, although I have absolutely no history of problems. I'm also covered for drug and alcohol addiction (again, not going to happen). I'm also covered for pregnancy. I'm not expecting that one, either.

If, and this is impossible due to stifling regulations within many states, but if I could go to an "a-la-carte" type plan and choose NOT to be covered for a number of ailments - in effect, self-insuring for them (a risk I'm willing to take) - the policy rates would necessarily go down.

For instance, Mrs WBill chose NOT to be covered for pregnancy (that's the one thing that can be opted out of in our state). Saved us thousands per year on her health insurance.

48 posted on 02/09/2011 8:38:41 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: ken5050

This may not answer your question but may offer some insight.

1. Companies do price various insurance products for all 50 states. The catch is they must file what they offer (coverage and rates) with each State insurance regulator. That is a cost item that could be reduced.

2. A plethora of forms would be a problem, but it is a problem the free market could deal with by voluntary standardization. What insurance is accepted may become a moot point, but unless it is allowed, how would we ever know if it could work.

The barrier is a court decision (name escapes me) that made insurance regulation the sole province of the States, and hence the added cost for all the required filings.


52 posted on 02/09/2011 8:44:31 AM PST by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson