President Obama talked about how 75% of insurance is held by a few companies and then used Alabama as an example of a state where one company has 90+% of the insurance policies. Then the republican response talked about opening insurance companies across state lines. So my question is why are some against allowing you to buy insurance across state lines? and What is the benefit to allowing people to buy insurance from across state lines?
Why was such a simple idea not put forth by the GOP in 2001, 2002,2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008? Seems odd such a simple idea wasn't put forward doesn't it?
Summer, if we are going to get this mess solved, we need to deal with it today. Opening up selling of insurance sounds like a good idea. Do you disagree? We also need Tort reform. If we are going to be bi-partisan then we need to open up these two issues.
Why can we buy auto insurance, life insurance, and homeowners insurance across state lines but not health insurance? Seems like it would help solve a lot of the problem. You could also have an assigned risk pool that would force insurance companies to take the people with conditions that are now considered uninsurable.
Grove..Okay, that makes sense. If so, how will the insurance you select from the proposed "exchange" get around each state's laws. It would seem the exchange choices would be bound by whatever restrictions you mentioned. If Congress can solve that problem with the exchange, could they not solve the problem you discussed?
Yes. The exchange and the current bills will get rid of the problem because it will set federal limits on minimum insurance requirements. The exchange will also make it so much easier for consumers in Alabama to determine if they are getting screwed over as opposed to New Yorkers because prices in the exchange will be published on line.
Why do we need Federal limits on minimum coverage? I think that the need for such a consumer protection only exists when employers are given substantial Federal subsidies as the primary consumers of health insurance. Indeed, if consumers actually have the ability to choose and buy their own coverage, consumer choice is a better alternative to artificial minimums.
I have no problem with eliminating the right for a business to deduct healthcare as an expense. But politically, it would have less of a chance to pass than a single payer system similar to Canada. If you told Americans that a bill would cause their companies to cancel their insurance policies, the current Townhalls would look tame. But I do not disagree that if Americans had to pay out of their pocket the approximate $6,500 a year per person for healthcare, significant changes in the system would occur.
