• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why selling insurance across state lines makes no sense.

Incisor

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2016
Messages
2,453
Reaction score
533
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From the LA Times:

As the Georgetown University study team observed, laws allowing cross-state health insurance sales have no organized champions. Consumers aren’t clamoring for them; insurers aren’t interested in them; doctors and hospitals don’t care; and state regulators aren’t inclined to cede their oversight to interlopers from somewhere else. Their only backers are preening political candidates who don’t understand health insurance and hope you don’t, either.

Or preening political candidates who take donations from insurance companies and executives.
 
From the LA Times:



Or preening political candidates who take donations from insurance companies and executives.

Not to mention that there is a reason some insurance companies are not allowed to do business in some States, Bad business practices.
 
The article makes plenty of very compelling points. Not bad.
 
From the LA Times:



Or preening political candidates who take donations from insurance companies and executives.


Consumers aren't clamouring for them because they don't understand.

Insurers don't want it as it increases supply, thus reducing demand via introduction of competition. The rest of the speculative opinion piece does not get better.
 
We can't have people making their own choices...and taking responsibility for them...now, can we. No, we should instead rely on the government to provide us with a one-size-fits-all "choice" and...when it all goes to ****...we can just blame the government instead of ourselves.

/s
 
Consumers aren't clamouring for them because they don't understand.

Insurers don't want it as it increases supply, thus reducing demand via introduction of competition. The rest of the speculative opinion piece does not get better.

I would argue it is politicians that do not understand it, and "supply" is only increased if the plan from some state has real network use in another state.

The main point being In Network Coverage negotiations between healthcare insurers offering individual plans and providers dramatically changes if Blue Cross of Georgia tries to sell a policy in Texas (for instance.) What you do not have is some automatic mechanism of reduced healthcare costs because Blue Cross of Georgia offers a plan that is mostly designed for Georgia but offered in Texas' marketplace. The more common employer-sponsored insurance plans are not impacted much by this discussion, those are handled (and regulated) differently. With individual plans all we have really bypassed is which State does the regulating (if at all.) The race to the bottom becomes the State with the least regulations over and above the Federal regulations for individual plan marketplaces.

One thing the article did not mention much is we already see providers trying to leave ACA sponsored plans, and removing State barriers does not in itself bring those providers back. All it does is decide which State to base the plans from, and hope those plans negotiate good rates with enough providers in other States they offer their plans in. That is no sure thing, and is anything but market based competition.
 
So it has happened.. the US has become communist. Screw competition and lower prices.. put laws and regulations in place to prevent the free market and competition..

Why does this article smell like a paid piece from the insurance industry?
 
From the LA Times:



Or preening political candidates who take donations from insurance companies and executives.

I don't see why a larger or even international market for insurance products should be other than other financial products. They are much more efficient in larger markets with many players, when properly regulated.
 
The biggest reason why selling insurance across state lines is a ****ing idiotic solution is because if that were the case, all the insurance companies would just move to the states with the least restrictions (like, say, provisions for people with pre-existing conditions for example), like how all credit card companies seem to be headquartered in the Dakotas.
 
From the LA Times:



Or preening political candidates who take donations from insurance companies and executives.

Apparently the author must get kickbacks from the insurance companies. Because selling insurance across state lines makes perfect sense. Because insurance in more densely populated states is cheaper than in lesser populated states because of the fact there is more people to in the pool to share the costs.
 
One of the points from the OP's link...
"...state regulators aren’t inclined to cede their oversight to interlopers from somewhere else..."
What would stop states from still having their own regulations as in auto insurance and other issues? Nothing, from what I can tell. This is an irrelevant point, IMO.
 
The biggest reason why selling insurance across state lines is a ****ing idiotic solution is because if that were the case, all the insurance companies would just move to the states with the least restrictions (like, say, provisions for people with pre-existing conditions for example), like how all credit card companies seem to be headquartered in the Dakotas.

Exactly.
 
So it has happened.. the US has become communist. Screw competition and lower prices.. put laws and regulations in place to prevent the free market and competition..

Why does this article smell like a paid piece from the insurance industry?

Prices are set through negotiations between insurers and health care providers. Insurers bargain down provider prices by building networks and negotiating contracts with providers. They can't effectively build networks and negotiate on price in markets where they have no customers to offer the local providers (that's part of why when Georgia opened its doors to out-of-state insurers, none came). Or in markets where they otherwise have no leverage relative to provider systems.

Hopefully this is an impetus for people to sit down and think much more carefully about what "competition" means in this situation and how they think it's supposed to work. Because it seems like many people haven't done that yet.
 
One of the points from the OP's link...

What would stop states from still having their own regulations as in auto insurance and other issues? Nothing, from what I can tell. This is an irrelevant point, IMO.

Every GOP across-state-lines proposal ever introduced has forbidden states from regulating out of state insurers. Insurers abide by the consumer protection laws of their home state (which, absurdly, is then responsible for enforcing its laws in those other states). Meaning insurers in a given market would be operating under different sets of rules. It's a dissonant mess.
 
From the LA Times:



Or preening political candidates who take donations from insurance companies and executives.

THIS THREAD IS A TOTAL FAIL......."Georgetown University Study Team" That says it all. In other words a group of people who have no experience in the real world private sector economy. Who have never run a business or made a dime outside Govt funded academia, and who are 96% Leftists.

By the way, the only candidate who was getting money from insurance corporations was Hillary. What have you been living under a rock lately?
 
The biggest reason why selling insurance across state lines is a ****ing idiotic solution is because if that were the case, all the insurance companies would just move to the states with the least restrictions (like, say, provisions for people with pre-existing conditions for example), like how all credit card companies seem to be headquartered in the Dakotas.
Can't they pick and choose which states they operate in now?
 
Every GOP across-state-lines proposal ever introduced has forbidden states from regulating out of state insurers. Insurers abide by the consumer protection laws of their home state (which, absurdly, is then responsible for enforcing its laws in those other states). Meaning insurers in a given market would be operating under different sets of rules. It's a dissonant mess.
May be true. Doesn't have to be. I would agree that would be a provision worth opposing, but it by itself shouldn't damn the concept. Most industries have their own laws that corporations must comply to operate in that sate. I see no reason why this would have to be different. My son used to work for Geico, and they had to adhere to all sorts of laws that were state-by-state.
 
Can't they pick and choose which states they operate in now?

Not if the State has banned them from doing business, almost always because of poor business practices such as not paying the claims in a timely manner or not paying at all.
 
Can't they pick and choose which states they operate in now?

Indeed they can and do. But they don't get to carry along another state's regulatory climate (and ignore that of the particular state they're selling in) now. That's what across-state-lines proposals seek to change.
 
Indeed they can and do. But they don't get to carry along another state's regulatory climate (and ignore that of the particular state they're selling in) now. That's what across-state-lines proposals seek to change.
Right, and I said in my other post that that concept shouldn't exist. Just because it's been tried and/or done in the past does not lock it in as the only option.
 
Prices are set through negotiations between insurers and health care providers. Insurers bargain down provider prices by building networks and negotiating contracts with providers. They can't effectively build networks and negotiate on price in markets where they have no customers to offer the local providers (that's part of why when Georgia opened its doors to out-of-state insurers, none came). Or in markets where they otherwise have no leverage relative to provider systems.

Hopefully this is an impetus for people to sit down and think much more carefully about what "competition" means in this situation and how they think it's supposed to work. Because it seems like many people haven't done that yet.

Insurers and healthcare providers dont negotiate anything.. they set prices because they can. That is why the Bush big pharma giveaway made it illegal for the US government to negotiate with big pharma and illegal to import drugs from places like Canada. It is a scam pure and simple. The less insurers, the less competition and the smaller the cartel.. and the bigger the profits they can pull out of sick people.

The US healthcare system is sick.. with greed. The only way to get rid of this greed is via competition and the only way to do that, is to have more than one or two insurers per state and of course not having for profit healthcare providers... but hey cant get it all.
 
From the LA Times:



Or preening political candidates who take donations from insurance companies and executives.

But the quote says insurance companies aren't interested.
 
Insurers and healthcare providers dont negotiate anything.. they set prices because they can. That is why the Bush big pharma giveaway made it illegal for the US government to negotiate with big pharma and illegal to import drugs from places like Canada. It is a scam pure and simple. The less insurers, the less competition and the smaller the cartel.. and the bigger the profits they can pull out of sick people.

The US healthcare system is sick.. with greed. The only way to get rid of this greed is via competition and the only way to do that, is to have more than one or two insurers per state and of course not having for profit healthcare providers... but hey cant get it all.
Overall I agree with you that the system is run with greed, and a big part of that is legal protectionism that both the insurance industry and the healthcare industry have been able to get from the politicians, but insurers and health providers do indeed negotiate things all the time, as well. It is very common for there to be two prices (or more) for a given procedure. One for individuals who pay out-of-pocket, and another for an insurance company who has pre-negotiated a lower price for said given procedure. Even different insurance companies may not pay the same price, depends on their negotiating power and abilities of each insurance company.
 
Back
Top Bottom