Health Care Reform

[Garfield1966]

Can someone explain this argument of insurance companies selling across state lines? If there were only one insurance company in each state I could understand how it would be beneficial. As it is now there are several companies in each state and the policies they all offer pretty much suck. I am not oppose to opening up competition across state lines (in normal circumstances any competition is good, more competition should be better) but I do not think it will be much better if at all. Like I said, there is plenty of competition now with in the state and the policies suck. If we want them to compete, we need them to compete with someone who is really trying to play.

Seems to me, if the public option is bad, then people will keep/return/switch to a different insurance carrier. If the public option insurance is better than what is offered by the standard insurance carriers, then they either need to be more competitive with the public option or call it quits. I do not have my pay stub handy but I have pretty good insurance. I pay less than $90 a month for my wife and my self for pretty good insurance. The public option would have to be pretty damn good to beat that. I am pretty sure it won't and I'll stick with mine. I guess we will see.

 

[KCFlyer]

So that means your just another armchair pundit who really has no experience to speak of on the subject...nice try elmo.

Sorry...I didn't know you started an airline. After all, you said

I chose to start my own business years ago and nobody gave me squat. I didnt ask for handouts and live off gov entitlements. Never have, never will. Man up.

If you didn't start an airline, then I guess you aren't much more than an armchair pundit either, eh?

 

[Freedom4all]

Sorry...I didn't know you started an airline. After all, you said

If you didn't start an airline, then I guess you aren't much more than an armchair pundit either, eh?

Its in the aircraft industry, civilian and military, and a majority of the airlines around the world use what we developed and patented.

Go back to your armchair.

 

[KCFlyer]

Its in the aircraft industry, civilian and military, and a majority of the airlines around the world use what we developed and patented.

Go back to your armchair.

HOw do you know what I do isn't something in the aircraft industry? Knowing the missile systems on an F16 qualifies you to discuss airlines about as much as it does me. Most airlines around the world also use Scott tissues in the lavs...does that make the person supplying the airlines with it more knowledgeable than someone else?

 

[Freedom4all]

HOw do you know what I do isn't something in the aircraft industry? Knowing the missile systems on an F16 qualifies you to discuss airlines about as much as it does me. Most airlines around the world also use Scott tissues in the lavs...does that make the person supplying the airlines with it more knowledgeable than someone else?

Oh...I don't work in the industry...I just follow it. I like my current job just fine, thank you. But...since I do follow the airline industry, I guess I should point out one thing...if the government screws up everything it touches, then how come every airline made a profit...right up until we let the 'free market' run the industry and the government bowed out?

Foot in mouth disease?

No missiles either...thank you very much.

 

[KCFlyer]

Foot in mouth disease?

No missiles either...thank you very much.

Oooooh...you got me. Now...tell me the difference between you and the guy making Scott tissue that is used by most airlines.

 

[ORDmech]

wow....all that in health care reform? Amazing stuff!

 

[Freedom4all]

Oooooh...you got me. Now...tell me the difference between you and the guy making Scott tissue that is used by most airlines.

We talk to every airline on a daily basis. In fact a few of our employees work on site 365 days a year. So we have gotten to know the people, the management and the inner workings very well.

Not toilet paper either. If we did guess what picture would be printed on them?

 

[tech2101]

Sorry...I didn't know you started an airline. After all, you said
If you didn't start an airline, then I guess you aren't much more than an armchair pundit either, eh?

Now that is funny, and relevant.

I am quite sure that the employees that have

"not that great of a plan. Do you know why? Because the government doesn't allow other insurances companies to sell across state lines.

I have challenged you on this before and received dead silence.

You should really respond to this post.

 

[Freedom4all]

Now that is funny, and relevant.

I am quite sure that the employees that have

I have challenged you on this before and received dead silence.

You should really respond to this post.

Nice try wannabee Perry Mason. Washington could very well include this provision into their health care proposal. But they wont. They can. But they wont. What part of that is unclear to you?

 

[KCFlyer]

We talk to every airline on a daily basis. In fact a few of our employees work on site 365 days a year. So we have gotten to know the people, the management and the inner workings very well.

Not toilet paper either. If we did guess what picture would be printed on them?

Har har....can I use that to wipe my Cheney after I take a Bush?

 

[tech2101]

Nice try wannabee Perry Mason. Washington could very well include this provision into their health care proposal. But they wont. They can. But they wont. What part of that is unclear to you?

Why don't you just respond to my question in the post?

Here it is for you again:

Are you willing to give the federal government the authority and take it away from the state's?

State's rights supporters would be all over that. Insurance is regulated at the state level. There would be huge state's rights legal hurdles to make that happen. However, it could be done. Be careful what you wish for. That could open the door to more federal regulation of what has traditionally been a state regulated function...

A. State Insurance Regulation under the McCarran-Ferguson Act States have historically had the primary role in regulation of insurance products. This role was reaffirmed by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 (McCarran-Ferguson Act),...
The Act had two aims: (1) to re-affirm the role of the states as the primary regulators of the insurance industry while preserving federal authority to regulate insurance through “specificâ€￾ enactments; and (2) to provide limited federal antitrust immunity for the insurance industry.23 The relevant statutory language is as follows:
(a) State regulation
The business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.
(b.) Federal regulation
No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically
relates to the business of insurance... (Kanwit p14)

I agree with you that there should be change.
All of these quotes are from a well written piece by Stephanie Kanwit, J.D., from the O’NEILL INSTITUTE FOR NATIONAL AND GLOBAL HEALTH LAW.
The major obstacles to this are contained in the introduction in her paper:

Any federal legislation to enact PASL in an individual insurance market would have to address two main legal considerations: 1) the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which allows the states to retain their regulatory authority over insurance, and 2) a constitutional prohibition against the commandeering of state officials by the federal government. ... Additionally, the concepts discussed here may be relevant to any federal health reform legislation involving regulation of health insurance or the use of state officials. (Kanwit p9)

Full article is here.

It is titled: The Purchase of Insurance Across State Lines in the Individual Insurance Market - Stephanie Kanwit

Citation:

This paper is posted at Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW.
http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ois papers/26

 

[Freedom4all]

Tech, the problem is the proposals being presented so far, speak of the same. Coops, exchanges, etc with one glaring caveat, after a set time (5 years) people will be getting dumped into the public plan en masse.

So arguing about it is irrelevant as the end result is the public plan. They could simply stop at the coop or exchanges, but those are only a means to an end.

 

[tech2101]

Tech, the problem is the proposals being presented so far, speak of the same. Coops, exchanges, etc with one glaring caveat, after a set time (5 years) people will be getting dumped into the public plan en masse.

So arguing about it is irrelevant as the end result is the public plan. They could simply stop at the coop or exchanges, but those are only a means to an end.

That is not an answer to the question. As I have shown in the previous posts with citations, that is not an option without huge legal hurdles at the Supreme Court level.

Stop dancing. This is what you have said twice:

Yes I pay 100%. Always have. And its not that great of a plan. Do you know why? Because the government doesn't allow other insurances companies to sell across state lines. So we are stuck with an average insurer. If i could get a better plan I would. But i cant.

If people had that option then people just might. But yet again THE GOVERNMENT restricts the insurance industry from competing against each other across state lines.

Get it? :blink:

So I will ask you one more time:

Are you willing to take the authority to regulate insurance away from the states and give it to the federal government?

 

[Freedom4all]

That is not an answer to the question. As I have shown in the previous posts with citations, that is not an option without huge legal hurdles at the Supreme Court level.

If you would have been paying attention you would recognize that...

THEY ARE DOING IT ANYWAY​

What part do you not understand...again? :blink: