3M to dump retirees from medical coverage

[Care4all]

Who said anything about states enforcing their laws in other states? Not me.

That's what "Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable." means. At least the way it's constructed by conservatives today.

Insurers locate in a "primary state." Their products are subject to the laws governing that primary state (which is why they'd have an incentive to 1) choose a state with lax laws or 2) be enticed by states willing to let them rewrite the state insurance laws in exchange for headquartering there and bringing much-needed jobs with them). They can then sell their insurance products in any other state ("secondary states") but those products are still subject only to the laws of the primary state. Thus the point of the exercise is to grant federal authority to states to effectively deregulate each other by empowering them to make end runs around each other's laws. That's why they call it a race to the bottom.

However, enforcement responsibility still falls to the primary state ("‘IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (b), with respect to specific individual health insurance coverage the primary State for such coverage has sole jurisdiction to enforce the primary State’s covered laws in the primary State and any secondary State."). Which means that every state becomes responsible for enforcing its laws in every other state (or at least those in which its insurers are operating).

If you weren't endorsing the standard Republican across-state-lines proposal, apologies. And if you were, you should probably look into it a bit more.

And if the plan conforms to the state that they are selling it in, no problem.

We do it with motor vehicles, and other products. I see no valid reason why it couldn't be done with health insurance.

Right now, each state, legislates what it requires from thos insurance companies practicing in their state do.

Anthem wanted to raise their insurance rates by 20% plus, our Health Secretary put a stop to it and held them to an 11% increase...Anthem sued the State, the courts sided with the State, saying they could do such....and held Anthem to only increasing 11%....(which was still beyond reason of a yearly increase imho)

Our state has also chosen what and whom has to be covered by the Insurance companies asking to be licensed in our State... to sell to our citizens.

Letting insurance companies to sell across state lines, has to come with the insurance company meeting the requirements of each state they plan to sell to, OR the Federal gvt just doing such, wrongly usurps the RIGHTS OF THE individual STATES imo.

 

[RadiomanATL]

That's what "Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable." means. At least the way it's constructed by conservatives today.

Insurers locate in a "primary state." Their products are subject to the laws governing that primary state (which is why they'd have an incentive to 1) choose a state with lax laws or 2) be enticed by states willing to let them rewrite the state insurance laws in exchange for headquartering there and bringing much-needed jobs with them). They can then sell their insurance products in any other state ("secondary states") but those products are still subject only to the laws of the primary state. Thus the point of the exercise is to grant federal authority to states to effectively deregulate each other by empowering them to make end runs around each other's laws. That's why they call it a race to the bottom.

However, enforcement responsibility still falls to the primary state ("‘IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (b), with respect to specific individual health insurance coverage the primary State for such coverage has sole jurisdiction to enforce the primary State’s covered laws in the primary State and any secondary State."). Which means that every state becomes responsible for enforcing its laws in every other state (or at least those in which its insurers are operating).

If you weren't endorsing the standard Republican across-state-lines proposal, apologies. And if you were, you should probably look into it a bit more.

And if the plan conforms to the state that they are selling it in, no problem.

We do it with motor vehicles, and other products. I see no valid reason why it couldn't be done with health insurance.

Right now, each state, legislates what it requires from thos insurance companies practicing in their state do.

Anthem wanted to raise their insurance rates by 20% plus, our Health Secretary to a stop to it and held them to an 11% increase...Anthem sued the State, the courts sided with the State, saying they could do such....and held Anthem to only increasing 11%....(which was still beyond reason of a yearly increase imho)

Our state has also chosen what and whom has to be covered by the Insurance companies asking to be licensed in our State... to sell to our citizens.

Letting insurance companies to sell across state lines, has to come with the insurance company meeting the requirements of each state they plan to sell to, OR the Federal gvt just doing such, wrongly usurps the RIGHTS OF THE individual STATES imo.

So instead we usurp the rights of the individuals.

Look, at this point nearly everyone has conceded it's a national issue. Everyone is saying that it needs to be fixed. So if it's a national issue then it supersedes states.

Or, we can just change the law in California and New York and everyone could be happy.

 

[Greenbeard]

A standardized federal law across state lines that allows for easier selling of the products across state lines.

Ah. Well, this is a start toward that. Since all state exchanges will be subject to federal minimum standards starting in 2014, it will be considerably easier for states to allow plans from other states into their exchanges in the future (in fact, states can choose to merge their exchanges if they wish). The presence of federal standards also makes it more likely that states will enter interstate compacts (encouraged by the ACA) to allow sales between states that voluntarily enter into an agreement. And multiple private, multi-state plans overseen by the OPM (similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan) will be present in every state's exchange.

So aside from the steps the ACA takes specifically toward regulated across-state-lines purchasing, it sets the federal minimum standards that are necessary for any progress in that area in the future.

 

[Trajan]

I think they have a commission on each state which vets ins. co. requests and plan changes, which of course is a problem in and of itself.

They should restrain their charter to address allegations of denied coverages etc. not tell private co's what they are allowed to charge or offer.

it may sound good, but I think its a double edged sword. My wife has to pay as part of her policy which her co's offers (and we recently scrutinized) for Mental health coverage....she asked if she could opt out they said no but we could up our coverage if we wished by paying a surcharge.

The co. told her that the state requires some form of mental health coverage in the plan they offered...*shrugs shoulders*...is that really efficient,it may be 'legal' but is that a decision I need them to make for me? really? Where is our choice in the matter?

 

[Care4all]

And if the plan conforms to the state that they are selling it in, no problem.

We do it with motor vehicles, and other products. I see no valid reason why it couldn't be done with health insurance.

Right now, each state, legislates what it requires from thos insurance companies practicing in their state do.

Anthem wanted to raise their insurance rates by 20% plus, our Health Secretary to a stop to it and held them to an 11% increase...Anthem sued the State, the courts sided with the State, saying they could do such....and held Anthem to only increasing 11%....(which was still beyond reason of a yearly increase imho)

Our state has also chosen what and whom has to be covered by the Insurance companies asking to be licensed in our State... to sell to our citizens.

Letting insurance companies to sell across state lines, has to come with the insurance company meeting the requirements of each state they plan to sell to, OR the Federal gvt just doing such, wrongly usurps the RIGHTS OF THE individual STATES imo.

So instead we usurp the rights of the individuals.

Look, at this point nearly everyone has conceded it's a national issue. Everyone is saying that it needs to be fixed. So if it's a national issue then it supersedes states.

Or, we can just change the law in California and New York and everyone could be happy.

read what Greenbeard has said on this....IT IS LEADING to where the States can merge or combine their exchanges with other state's exchanges...where they can choose to do such, without being mandated to do such by the Federal gvt.

I agree the process is needed, to be able to purchase across state lines....for mere competitive/price reasons....but do NOT believe the federal gvt has the POWER given to them to do such for health insurance, and I do NOT want to relinquish my power as a citizen of the state, completely....I want my State Secretary of Heath to be able to keep them from unreasonably raising prices 30% a year.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think they have a commission on each state which vets ins. co. requests and plan changes, which of course is a problem in and of itself.

They should restrain their charter to address allegations of denied coverages etc. not tell private co's what they are allowed to charge or offer.

it may sound good, but I think its a double edged sword. My wife has to pay as part of her policy which her co's offers (and we recently scrutinized) for Mental health coverage....she asked if she could opt out they said no but we could up our coverage if we wished by paying a surcharge.

The co. told her that the state requires some form of mental health coverage in the plan they offered...*shrugs shoulders*...is that really efficient,it may be 'legal' but is that a decision I need them to make for me? really? Where is our choice in the matter?

This is the exact issue. States should have no right to say who must sell what to their citizens. If I want to buy a cheaper policy out of AZ then that is between me and the company in AZ. Policies in MA and NY are more expensive than in surrounding states because they mandate more coverage.
Obamacare increases these mandates, which will increase costs. All this was plain and apparant. But the Left kept crying hysteria. It wasn't hysteria. It was the truth.
Everything Obama and the Dums in Congress claimed about health care reform was wrong. Every word of it was a lie.
Now they're going to suffer the wrath of the (informed) voters in Nov.
They stuffed it down our throats in 09. We'll shove it up their asses in '10.

 

[Charles_Main]

I think they have a commission on each state which vets ins. co. requests and plan changes, which of course is a problem in and of itself.

They should restrain their charter to address allegations of denied coverages etc. not tell private co's what they are allowed to charge or offer.

it may sound good, but I think its a double edged sword. My wife has to pay as part of her policy which her co's offers (and we recently scrutinized) for Mental health coverage....she asked if she could opt out they said no but we could up our coverage if we wished by paying a surcharge.

The co. told her that the state requires some form of mental health coverage in the plan they offered...*shrugs shoulders*...is that really efficient,it may be 'legal' but is that a decision I need them to make for me? really? Where is our choice in the matter?

This is the exact issue. States should have no right to say who must sell what to their citizens. If I want to buy a cheaper policy out of AZ then that is between me and the company in AZ. Policies in MA and NY are more expensive than in surrounding states because they mandate more coverage.
Obamacare increases these mandates, which will increase costs. All this was plain and apparant. But the Left kept crying hysteria. It wasn't hysteria. It was the truth.
Everything Obama and the Dums in Congress claimed about health care reform was wrong. Every word of it was a lie.
Now they're going to suffer the wrath of the (informed) voters in Nov.
They stuffed it down our throats in 09. We'll shove it up their asses in '10.

Well said

 

[Greenbeard]

If I want to buy a cheaper policy out of AZ then that is between me and the company in AZ.

Out of curiosity, why would a random insurer in Arizona have contracts with hospitals and other providers in Nashville? Presumably that would work best if the insurer you're eying in Arizona is in fact a subsidiary of an insurer with a national (including in Tennessee) presence--say, BCBS of Arizona, piggybacking on reimbursement contracts already negotiated by BCBS of Tennessee. Out-of-state smaller insurers--i.e. those without a national or at least multi-state presence--wouldn't have much reason to have existing relationships (i.e. favorable reimbursement rates) with providers in your area. Nor, if the hypothetical small AZ insurer has only one client or a handful of clients in Tennessee, would it have much clout in initially negotiating reasonable reimbursements. So this sounds like a case, in terms of market share, of the rich getting richer.

 

[Revere]

If I want to buy a cheaper policy out of AZ then that is between me and the company in AZ.

Out of curiosity, why would a random insurer in Arizona have contracts with hospitals and other providers in Nashville? Presumably that would work best if the insurer you're eying in Arizona is in fact a subsidiary of an insurer with a national (including in Tennessee) presence--say, BCBS of Arizona, piggybacking on reimbursement contracts already negotiated by BCBS of Tennessee. Out-of-state smaller insurers--i.e. those without a national or at least multi-state presence--wouldn't have much reason to have existing relationships (i.e. favorable reimbursement rates) with providers in your area. Nor, if the hypothetical small AZ insurer has only one client or a handful of clients in Tennessee, would it have much clout in initially negotiating reasonable reimbursements. So this sounds like a case, in terms of market share, of the rich getting richer.

Reimbursements don't vary much from carrier to carrier for similar plans, since they're experience rated.

The biggest expense, by far, for group health plans, is claims incurred.

 

[Greenbeard]

Reimbursements don't vary much from carrier to carrier for similar plans, since they're experience rated.

The biggest expense, by far, for group health plans, is claims incurred.

Reimbursements for a given procedure from a given provider will vary between commercial payers; as examples, there are links to case studies of this in California and Massachusetts in this thread and this is something that's being accounted for in evaluations of a multi-payer medical home pilot that's going on in Rhode Island right now. It's not unusual for providers to charge different commercial payers different rates for procedures based on factors like market share.

The only place this isn't true is Maryland, where they have an all-payer rate setting system so that all payers are paying the same rates for hospital procedures. As I explained in a thread a while back, I'm a fan of Maryland's system.

So you're right that claims are the expense we're talking about here--what I'm saying is that the value of the claim for a given procedure often varies between commercial payers, provided that the provider has the market clout (and thus the negotiating clout relative to certain payers) to at least partially set those rates.

An insurer with one client in a state isn't going to be able to command the lower reimbursements that a payer with 70% market share in that state could negotiate.

 

[code1211]

People in other states are no longer American citizens?

Also, I need to be protected from Alabama and Florida insurance companies?

You're a tool.

Do you really think Florida should be able to enforce its state health insurance laws inside Georgia, even when those conflict with Georgia state law? For that matter, do you think Florida has the resources to enforce its insurance laws in Georgia (and 48 other states)?

The reality is that those suggestions are designed to cut costs by shifting our system away from treating the sick. It's that simple. No serious health care scholar has ever endorsed those proposals because, frankly, they're perverse. Generally they're offered by unserious persons (generally those who don't understand their implications), although I suppose for some ill will can't be ruled out.

The ability to choose whether you will need to make a choice is the first choice and that has been removed.

When did this become a freshman philosophy seminar? These employees will, in several years, be getting their benefits in the form of a private account set up by the company that they can then take into the exchanges to select any plan offered in the state (as opposed to a single plan or a small set of plans selected by the company). I'm sorry if enabling them to put company money toward any plan offered in the state--as opposed to some subset selected for them--doesn't meet your very bizarre definition of choice. You guys will really contort yourselves into some crazy shapes, won't you?

So these folks can choose any plan at all as long as it's not the one they want. Excellent!

 

[code1211]

3M Co. citing new federal health laws, said Monday it won’t cover retirees with its corporate health-insurance plan starting in 2013.

Instead, the company will direct retirees to Medicare-backed insurance programs, and will provide reimbursement for that coverage. It’ll also reimburse retirees who are too young for Medicare; the company didn’t provide further details.

The company made the changes known in a memo to employees Friday; news of the move was reported in The Wall Street Journal and confirmed Monday by 3M spokeswoman Jackie Berry

3m has 23,000 retirees, many of them likely to be living in Minnesota. They’re also likely to vote in the upcoming midterms, perhaps even more likely now than ever. That won’t be good news for House Democrats in the Minnesota delegation hoping to win a new term in four weeks.

3M to dump retirees from medical coverage Hot Air

Wow. AARP really did sell out their members. Wonder how much they will be profiting at the end of the day.

but isn't this what republicans are pushing?
isn't this actually BETTER for 'the free market''? with individuals being able to pick the best insurance plan for themselves at the best price possible? instead of ones company forcing their 1 or 2 generic health care plans that the Company has chosen?

3m says they are giving their retirees the choice to pick what they want in an insurance plan and ARE GOING TO REIMBURSE/PAY for it?

Prior to the bending of the cost curve by the Big 0, the insurance was provided. Once the costs got propelled up by the Big 0's brilliance, the costs were no longer within the budgeted amount so the retirees are on their own to get what they can with the funds that used to b adequate, but are now just a part of the total required.

The issue is not one of choice. The preferred choice was to stay with the provided plan at no personal cost. The choices that have replaced that choice are all inferior thanks to the enlightened planning and near omniscient understanding of all by the Big 0.

You won't know what's in it until we pass it. The costs will never go up and the benefits will never go down. -Nancy Pelosi

 

[code1211]

Who said anything about states enforcing their laws in other states? Not me.

That's what "Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable." means. At least the way it's constructed by conservatives today.

Insurers locate in a "primary state." Their products are subject to the laws governing that primary state (which is why they'd have an incentive to 1) choose a state with lax laws or 2) be enticed by states willing to let them rewrite the state insurance laws in exchange for headquartering there and bringing much-needed jobs with them). They can then sell their insurance products in any other state ("secondary states") but those products are still subject only to the laws of the primary state. Thus the point of the exercise is to grant federal authority to states to effectively deregulate each other by empowering them to make end runs around each other's laws. That's why they call it a race to the bottom.

However, enforcement responsibility still falls to the primary state ("‘IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (b), with respect to specific individual health insurance coverage the primary State for such coverage has sole jurisdiction to enforce the primary State’s covered laws in the primary State and any secondary State."). Which means that every state becomes responsible for enforcing its laws in every other state (or at least those in which its insurers are operating).

If you weren't endorsing the standard Republican across-state-lines proposal, apologies. And if you were, you should probably look into it a bit more.

That is simply not true. The insurance Commissioner or a similar authority regulates insurance within any particular state. License is granted to insurance companies to operate within any state and every state regulates insurance per its own laws.

Insurance companies can create versions of their products which fit the rules and regulations within various states, but simply having a product approved in Texas, as an example, does not automatically make that product legal to sell in Indiana.

Licenses to sell insurance are issued at the state level and without a license granted from any particular state, it is illegal for any agent to sell insurance outside the state for which he is licensed.

 

[code1211]

That's what "Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable." means. At least the way it's constructed by conservatives today.

Insurers locate in a "primary state." Their products are subject to the laws governing that primary state (which is why they'd have an incentive to 1) choose a state with lax laws or 2) be enticed by states willing to let them rewrite the state insurance laws in exchange for headquartering there and bringing much-needed jobs with them). They can then sell their insurance products in any other state ("secondary states") but those products are still subject only to the laws of the primary state. Thus the point of the exercise is to grant federal authority to states to effectively deregulate each other by empowering them to make end runs around each other's laws. That's why they call it a race to the bottom.

However, enforcement responsibility still falls to the primary state ("‘IN GENERAL- Subject to subsection (b), with respect to specific individual health insurance coverage the primary State for such coverage has sole jurisdiction to enforce the primary State’s covered laws in the primary State and any secondary State."). Which means that every state becomes responsible for enforcing its laws in every other state (or at least those in which its insurers are operating).

If you weren't endorsing the standard Republican across-state-lines proposal, apologies. And if you were, you should probably look into it a bit more.

And if the plan conforms to the state that they are selling it in, no problem.

We do it with motor vehicles, and other products. I see no valid reason why it couldn't be done with health insurance.

Right now, each state, legislates what it requires from thos insurance companies practicing in their state do.

Anthem wanted to raise their insurance rates by 20% plus, our Health Secretary put a stop to it and held them to an 11% increase...Anthem sued the State, the courts sided with the State, saying they could do such....and held Anthem to only increasing 11%....(which was still beyond reason of a yearly increase imho)

Our state has also chosen what and whom has to be covered by the Insurance companies asking to be licensed in our State... to sell to our citizens.

Letting insurance companies to sell across state lines, has to come with the insurance company meeting the requirements of each state they plan to sell to, OR the Federal gvt just doing such, wrongly usurps the RIGHTS OF THE individual STATES imo.

I don't see why this is. Insurance is a product like a car or a microwave oven. It is intended to perforn a function, has a cost and has a benefit.

Why should the regulation of a product be different in Montana than in Indiana absent any compelling difference in the product or the customer?

I am all for states rights, but in this case, I don't see how reserving the rights of insurance regulation to states is advatageous or even wise.

Healthcare Reform should have, it seems to me, reformed Healthcare. This monstrocity only concocted a method to funnel more cash through Washington which is not known for its efficiency, wisdom, hosesty or cost containment.

What RIGHT with this picture?

 

[code1211]

Right now, each state, legislates what it requires from thos insurance companies practicing in their state do.

Anthem wanted to raise their insurance rates by 20% plus, our Health Secretary to a stop to it and held them to an 11% increase...Anthem sued the State, the courts sided with the State, saying they could do such....and held Anthem to only increasing 11%....(which was still beyond reason of a yearly increase imho)

Our state has also chosen what and whom has to be covered by the Insurance companies asking to be licensed in our State... to sell to our citizens.

Letting insurance companies to sell across state lines, has to come with the insurance company meeting the requirements of each state they plan to sell to, OR the Federal gvt just doing such, wrongly usurps the RIGHTS OF THE individual STATES imo.

So instead we usurp the rights of the individuals.

Look, at this point nearly everyone has conceded it's a national issue. Everyone is saying that it needs to be fixed. So if it's a national issue then it supersedes states.

Or, we can just change the law in California and New York and everyone could be happy.

read what Greenbeard has said on this....IT IS LEADING to where the States can merge or combine their exchanges with other state's exchanges...where they can choose to do such, without being mandated to do such by the Federal gvt.

I agree the process is needed, to be able to purchase across state lines....for mere competitive/price reasons....but do NOT believe the federal gvt has the POWER given to them to do such for health insurance, and I do NOT want to relinquish my power as a citizen of the state, completely....I want my State Secretary of Heath to be able to keep them from unreasonably raising prices 30% a year.

That may require that he be able to opt out of Obamacare.

The big selling point was that there are those who are uninsurable with pre-existing conditions and so on.

Why wasn't the solution to have the government offer insurace to these folks much like the Coastal Hurricane Insurance ot he Mississippi River Valley Flood insurance?

I know the answer to this one. It would not have provided access to the 1/6 of the economy's cash that the vile thieves and averice riddled crooks in our Congress covet so insanely.

 

[Greenbeard]

That is simply not true. The insurance Commissioner or a similar authority regulates insurance within any particular state. License is granted to insurance companies to operate within any state and every state regulates insurance per its own laws.

Insurance companies can create versions of their products which fit the rules and regulations within various states, but simply having a product approved in Texas, as an example, does not automatically make that product legal to sell in Indiana.

Licenses to sell insurance are issued at the state level and without a license granted from any particular state, it is illegal for any agent to sell insurance outside the state for which he is licensed.

That's how things work now. I was describing how Republican across-state-lines proposals work--Shadegg's Health Care Choice Act, the repeal-and-replace law (which lifts the portion on interstate purchasing directly out of H.R. 3217), even Ron Paul's much more terse H.R. 5444.

Under those proposals (you know, the ones Republicans are ostensibly going to try and implement next year), no state may prevent the sale of any insurance policy inside its borders if the issuer is headquartered in a different state. The only insurance companies subject to that state's insurance laws or consumer protection laws are those that are headquartered in that state. Insurers choose the primary state in which they will be licensed, at which point they may sell their products in any of the 49 other secondary states without being licensed in those secondary states or complying with the laws of those states. Which, of course, means each state's insurance market is effectively deregulated. And, as I noted, enforcement authority remains with the primary state, meaning every state will be responsible for enforcing its insurance laws--on products licensed in that state--in every other state.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is simply not true. The insurance Commissioner or a similar authority regulates insurance within any particular state. License is granted to insurance companies to operate within any state and every state regulates insurance per its own laws.

Insurance companies can create versions of their products which fit the rules and regulations within various states, but simply having a product approved in Texas, as an example, does not automatically make that product legal to sell in Indiana.

Licenses to sell insurance are issued at the state level and without a license granted from any particular state, it is illegal for any agent to sell insurance outside the state for which he is licensed.

That's how things work now. I was describing how Republican across-state-lines proposals work--Shadegg's Health Care Choice Act, the repeal-and-replace law (which lifts the portion on interstate purchasing directly out of H.R. 3217), even Ron Paul's much more terse H.R. 5444.

Under those proposals (you know, the ones Republicans are ostensibly going to try and implement next year), no state may prevent the sale of any insurance policy inside its borders if the issuer is headquartered in a different state. The only insurance companies subject to that state's insurance laws or consumer protection laws are those that are headquartered in that state. Insurers choose the primary state in which they will be licensed, at which point they may sell their products in any of the 49 other secondary states without being licensed in those secondary states or complying with the laws of those states. Which, of course, means each state's insurance market is effectively deregulated. And, as I noted, enforcement authority remains with the primary state, meaning every state will be responsible for enforcing its insurance laws--on products licensed in that state--in every other state.

OK. That's a problem how?

 

[uscitizen]

That is simply not true. The insurance Commissioner or a similar authority regulates insurance within any particular state. License is granted to insurance companies to operate within any state and every state regulates insurance per its own laws.

Insurance companies can create versions of their products which fit the rules and regulations within various states, but simply having a product approved in Texas, as an example, does not automatically make that product legal to sell in Indiana.

Licenses to sell insurance are issued at the state level and without a license granted from any particular state, it is illegal for any agent to sell insurance outside the state for which he is licensed.

That's how things work now. I was describing how Republican across-state-lines proposals work--Shadegg's Health Care Choice Act, the repeal-and-replace law (which lifts the portion on interstate purchasing directly out of H.R. 3217), even Ron Paul's much more terse H.R. 5444.

Under those proposals (you know, the ones Republicans are ostensibly going to try and implement next year), no state may prevent the sale of any insurance policy inside its borders if the issuer is headquartered in a different state. The only insurance companies subject to that state's insurance laws or consumer protection laws are those that are headquartered in that state. Insurers choose the primary state in which they will be licensed, at which point they may sell their products in any of the 49 other secondary states without being licensed in those secondary states or complying with the laws of those states. Which, of course, means each state's insurance market is effectively deregulated. And, as I noted, enforcement authority remains with the primary state, meaning every state will be responsible for enforcing its insurance laws--on products licensed in that state--in every other state.

OK. That's a problem how?

Increased enforcement costs?
Bigger Government?

 

[The Rabbi]

That's how things work now. I was describing how Republican across-state-lines proposals work--Shadegg's Health Care Choice Act, the repeal-and-replace law (which lifts the portion on interstate purchasing directly out of H.R. 3217), even Ron Paul's much more terse H.R. 5444.

Under those proposals (you know, the ones Republicans are ostensibly going to try and implement next year), no state may prevent the sale of any insurance policy inside its borders if the issuer is headquartered in a different state. The only insurance companies subject to that state's insurance laws or consumer protection laws are those that are headquartered in that state. Insurers choose the primary state in which they will be licensed, at which point they may sell their products in any of the 49 other secondary states without being licensed in those secondary states or complying with the laws of those states. Which, of course, means each state's insurance market is effectively deregulated. And, as I noted, enforcement authority remains with the primary state, meaning every state will be responsible for enforcing its insurance laws--on products licensed in that state--in every other state.

OK. That's a problem how?

Increased enforcement costs?
Bigger Government?

You didn't take the econ quiz I posted in another thread, did you?

 

[uscitizen]

OK. That's a problem how?

Increased enforcement costs?
Bigger Government?

You didn't take the econ quiz I posted in another thread, did you?

Naah figured it was a gimme if you could pass it.