I don’t want to say “nonsense” to your post. I am sure you are correct about regulation being the problem. However, much commerce takes place across state lines without restrictive regulation. So why not health insurance?
The key there is “without restrictive *federal* regulation.” The states are very jealous about *their* regulation of insurance companies. Which varies tremendously between states.
“State regulation of insurance provides a major source of state revenue. In 2000, states collected more than $10.4 billion in revenues from insurance sources. Of this amount, $880 million — roughly 8.4 percent — went to regulate the business of insurance while the remaining $9.6 billion went to state general funds for other purposes.
“State systems are accessible and accountable to the public and sensitive to local social and economic conditions. State regulation has proven that it effectively protects consumers and ensures that promises made by insurers are kept. Insurance regulation is structured around several key functions, including company licensing, producer licensing, product regulation, market conduct, financial regulation and consumer services.”