Axious is not a reliable source
My health and dental and vision insurance is a national company. Fedvip is a nationalized umbrella why wouldn’t that work? I don’t understand. I think it’s a lobbying issue and K Street is dominating Congressional thought on national insurance coverage rather than state by state with defined borders for regions of insurance providers.
I’ve seen estimates that allowing interstate insurance sales might result in a 5% reduction in premiums, at most.
NeverTrumper’s gonna hate...
Why can’t it work? If a state requires you to have certain coverages then those states need to get together and decide why those coverages are needed and allow citizens to decide if they want to pay for them.
Gee, I thought liberals were all about choice. It doesn’t seem like Axios is...
The market is essentially owned by just two entities, Aetna and United Health Care. But big or small, they tell the doctors what to do and to whom and they play God as far as the patient goes.
State chartered is some protection, and the two big ones need to be trustbusted to allow for more small companies and non profits to compete.
The Left craves the power and control of local and state jurisdictions until it doesn’t.
Competition is always good for the consumer.
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.
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.
"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.
Gaia forbid that people be allowed to purchase the products that they want!
“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.”
PPO deals are collusion between insurers and medical providers that are all to the gain of the parties in those deals more than they are to the gain of health care consumers. They restrict patient choice and impede healthy health care competition.
Insurers should have one thing - what they cover and how much they will reimburse for that item. The rest is what is on the consumer. Let the consumer find providers that meet that combination of cost and service that THEY desire and/or require. Make collusion between insurers and health care providers illegal, like any other “restraint of trade” would be.
Yes. Insurance should be admittedly “Interstate Commerce”.000
Employees everywhere are working for employers with multi-state presence with shifting of employees between those different locations. Individuals can also be residents of one state and working in a next-door state. Besides, a truly free national market place theoretically does mean the ability to buy insurance from an insurer that is anywhere in the country, and that insurer not needing 50 different sets of “regulations” they have to comply with.
Insurers should be able to apply for a “national charter” that puts them under one set of regulations and allows them to cross state lines.
I would not house that regulating body inside the federal government.
I would convene representatives of the 50 state insurance boards, and the insurers operating in the states, to hash out one set of nationwide rules on health insurance, achieved by majority votes of both the state regulators and insurers - independently, and not needing 100% agreed on consensus either way.
The regulator whose rules they would be writing would be a non-governmental body that insurers can voluntarily choose to be regulated by, instead of the states. A federal law or regulation would protect them for making that arrangement. Annually, the state insurance boards & the insurers could jointly review the rules they have agreed to for the multi-state regulator. Insurers fees paid to the multi-state regulator would pay for its minimal needed operations. That fee method could also be used for funding the establishment of the single national “market exchange” the insurers and insurance consumers can communicate, regarding the signing up for and cancellation of an insurance policy.
Ergo - no new federal government tax supported bureaucracy for the political class to argue over funding.
This always seemed like a good idea to me. At the very least the large multi-state companies can save money by consolidating bureaucracies.