Posted on 03/07/2019 5:45:23 AM PST by DoodleDawg
Remember when President Trump campaigned on a health care platform of eliminating "the lines around the states?" Well, that particular white whale has re-emerged.
Driving the news: The Trump administration posted a 15-page document Wednesday asking for public comment on a range of questions related to the interstate sale of health insurance — including questions about using part of the Affordable Care Act to make that change.
How it works: Critics see this as a backdoor way to deregulate insurance. If a patient in New York can buy a lightly regulated policy from Iowa, what good are New York's rules about what plans have to cover and how they have to cover it?
There are logistical hurdles: It's pretty hard to set up a network of doctors and hospitals that will work for patients in both Iowa and New York.
Between the lines: The administration already took a bit of a victory lap on this front when it expanded access to association health plans.
That wasn't a full-scale deregulation, but it did expand of a type of insurance that can cross state lines — even though, due to the difficulty of creating provider networks, those plans are generally confined to one metro area.
It already works just fine. Are you some shill for state regulators? Or maybe you are going in the insurance industry benefitting from all the rules and regards? Multistate employers already buy across state lines. Trade groups and associations buy across state lines. What an ignorant post by you.
Only if it results in lower costs. If an insurance company does not currently do business in your state then why would it want to sell a policy to you?
No bias here. Yes, yes, we get it: Trump is crazy Ahab off on a senseless mission fueled by pure hatred.
The media is not interested in any sort of serious debate about the merits of any particular solution. They just know OrangeManBad.
it wont work because of how much power states have over insurance companies.
the reason insurance is so much cheaper in some states than others... is “all” about interferance by the states themselves.
If California forces all insurance companies that sell insurance in the state to offer free maternity care for instance.. and other states dont.. then insurance will be cheaper when purchased outside of California. So on the surface it looks like you would save money if you were able to buy insurance from another state. BUT that’s assuming the state would allow you to buy such insurance!
lol
PDJT has always said he is favor of LEGAL immigration.
It is just that the lie-berals didn’t believe it.
Let’s see: Don’t allow selling across state lines. Keep them separate but get rid of the electoral college.
I agree with you absolutely. You can go to a state like Alabama and find all kinds of insiders/lobbyists who are milking the state system, to ensure x-policies cost this much, and that the state commission avoids asking loaded questions.
Imagine having a state by state milk system, and that a gallon of milk in Tennessee cost $1.25, and in Kentucky, it’d be $0.94. You’d eventually wise up and buy the product in Kentucky.
this, this, and this .... says it all ....
I have trouble believing self-described Conservatives on this forum think regulation is good and freedom is bad. Insurance IS a contract and there is no good reason enforcement of that contract can’t be done with an out of state company. Contracts between citizen of a particular state and businesses outside of that state happen all of the time.
"There are logistical hurdles: It's pretty hard to set up a network of doctors and hospitals that will work for patients in both Iowa and New York."
which might have been a hurdle back in pre-computer days. Today, companies like Premera, Humana, and many others have no problem setting up networks not just within states, but within counties in a state.
Going interstate should be no problem at all.
I have too. Really small potatoes.
The "across state lines" argument appeals to the base but as you point out it does little to reduce premium costs. Still, it should be part of the grand solution.
New York, for example, has long had a reputation for expensive insurance policies. But New York also has a stellar reputation for keeping insurance companies solvent through its regulatory system. You simply don't find crappy, fifth-rate insurance companies in New York like you'll often find in many states that don't regulate the insurance industry very well.
I'm sure there are plenty of New Yorkers who would love to pay Mississippi premiums for their insurance coverage ... but they'd be shocked to find that the Mississippi insurance company may be out of business by the time the New Yorker files a claim.
Worth repeating.
I don't. Just keep in mind that "freedom" also means you'd have to be prepared to be ripped off, too.
Contracts between citizen of a particular state and businesses outside of that state happen all of the time.
I do it all the time. And every contract I sign has a line that says something to this effect ... "This contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of X." Personally, I am reluctant to sign a contract that is governed according to the laws of another state unless I am familiar with how that state's legal system works as it relates to my business.
Health insurance is going to be regulated - voters will demand it.
The question is should it be by the states or centralized in the federal government.
Most conservatives favor the states.
I do it just to see how many ignorant responses I can get. So far, one.
Insurance Companies ARE establishing networks out of state.
Mine, Priority Health has Hospitals/Doctors thru out the US that are considered in Network for services. Granted not as many as here in my State but that network continues to grow.
It’s a selling point when they come trying to get our Company’s Business. I Have been involved in that process now for the past 10 years when looking at options for our Employees Plans. All that we have looked at have some form of out of State coverage (In Network cost/coverage).
If they do NOT expand their Networks they lose customers.
It’s a big deciding factor when we choose. So yes they DO and are continuing to try to establish a nation wide network of coverage.
The problem isn't technical, it's economic.
Insurance companies compete by negotiating discounted contracts with providers - who are generally local or regional players at best.
The higher the volume of patients the insurance company can offer the lower the cost. An out-of-state insurer won't be able to guarantee many patients and therefore won't get nearly as good a price from the provider.
They just won't be competitive.
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.