Why are most (all?) repubicans so vehemently in favor "buying insurance across state lines"?

[Stinky The Clown]

That phrase, I confess, seemed innocuous enough to me. Until I kept hearing it and hearing it from only one side - repubicans.

I couldn't find any specific explanation. But I can speculate:

They find it far more difficult to lobby 50 individual state insurance commissioners, any one of whom could find out something about their practices and make their lives miserable in the other 49 states. Far easier to lobby (rent) - or just purchase outright - a national insurance board/agency/regulatory body.

Does anyone know why they actually favor this and keep pushing it?

[BR_Parkway]

1. It's another regulation they want to remove in the service of big business

first thing you know, companies would start consolidating and there wouldn't be any more choice left.

So it gives them 1) an ass kiss to the their true constituents owners and 2) something to make the public think they have solutions to the problems (there are only so many different ways to say "tax cut" after all)

Remember when banks were regulated to within their state lines? Well, we can sure see how well it's worked out for everyone by letting them go national

[phantom power]

2. In this case, it may be simply a defensive position...

They've got practically nothing as a credible alternative to health care reform. They may simply see this as at least something to offer. "Hey we have a solution too!!1!1"

I agree it's suspicious, because it might actually help, and it actually does align with the paleo-GOP platform of actually supporting competition and free markets, etc.

I feel like there ought to be some kind of Angle of Evil in there, but I can't figure out what it is.

[Botany]

3. Because it is a talking point given to them by the insurance companies.

1) There is no state that has cheap universal health insurance from private companies that have
no "pre-existing" condition clauses.

2) It keeps money going to the private for profit health care insurance companies.

[redqueen]

4. Because some states' laws regulating insurance co's are very lax.

They would like for the companies in the states with the weakest laws to be able to sell everywhere.

[laughingliberal]

10. Exactly! All the companies would flock to states which do not regulate them well

AND have access to the customers in the entire country.

[moondust]

43. Then regulate them at the federal level?

With tough new regulations?

I don't know if a sell-out Congress would do that plus if the neocons ever gained control of the fed gov't again they could repeal the federal regulations leaving nothing in their place.

:shrug:

[csziggy]

24. Deja vu - remember when the laws changed concerning credit cards

And the credit card companies all suddenly had offices in the states that allowed unlimited fees and no cap on interest rates? Think of how hard it will be to fight insurance abuses if you cannot go to the insurance commissioner in your own state, but have to go to another state, meaning an out of state attorney, travel, etc.

[Laelth]

45. +1 That's the answer.

They all want to be governed by the law of the state with the least regulation. And they want that state's law to apply in all 50 states (ever heard of Citibank of South Dakota?), and it will apply in all 50 states if we allow "inter-state insurance." That's why.

:dem:

-Laelth

[joeycola]

5. not allowing across state lines gives monopolies to insurance

companies within each state.

[ddeclue]

11. No it doesn't : Exemption from the Sherman Anti-Trust act has done that.

[joeycola]

19. umm. I do not know the details.. Perhaps?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. This. Interstate competition would theoretically lower rates.

Interstate insurance competition would allow the cheapest insurance companies to sell to everyone, not just their state.
Basically, it puts more fish in the pond for the consumers to choose from.

[joeycola]

18. yes, thanks for finishing my thought.

[redqueen]

20. Yes, but as with Wal Mart...

sometimes lower prices come with hidden costs.

[DefenseLawyer]

30. Theoretically.

That assumes they would compete and not simply collude. Even if every health insurance company was allowed everywhere, there are still a very small number of players and the startup costs make new companies unlikely to emerge. The result would be similar to the "competition" among the 4 or 5 major oil companies. There would be none. They would all agree on a price and everyone would get their piece of the pie. And even that is assuming there wouldn't be swift mergers with the big swallowing up the small to make potential competition even more illusory.

[Chulanowa]

33. "Theoretically" being the key word

As others have pointed out, this is simply the cover story to trying to allow insurance companies to work out of deregulated states.

[rgbecker]

37. Are you saying insurance companies can't sell in every state if they meet the state regulations?

I think in most states you can buy blue cross/ blue shield....in fact does any body know a state in which you can't? What is exactly stopping insurance companies from doing business in any state they choose?

[JuniperLea]

6. Seems like a red herring talking point to me...

Insurance companies have actuarial departments that review statistics and set fees accordingly. I would think that once all the out-of-state zip codes got in their systems, the rates would adjust accordingly anyway.

[BlooInBloo]

7. They're just trying to attenuate the reform as much as possible. It's a fine thing to do...

But the nub of it is: that's ALL they want to do.

[ddeclue]

8. Ask Delaware about Credit Cards - it is a deregulation race to the bottom in favor of big business.

This is an attempt to gut state level regulation so that states with no regulation or taxes will be where they put insurance company HQ's.

:hide:

[meegbear]

22. Exactly!!

[theoldman]

9. I see no advantage to going across state lines for insurance.

Insurance rates in Texas are among the highest in the US. Who in their right mind would want to buy our insurance. Texas had tort reform and it did not do a damn thing for doctors insurance rates.

[kctim]

29. How many Texans would want to

save money by buying from another state?

[frazzled]

12. All the insurance companies could move to the least regulated state, like Alabama

They don't want federal regulation of the insurance companies. Right now, these companies are regulated in each state. So allowing to "buy across state lines" means they can set up shop in the least regulated state, and uninsured people in New York or Illinois would have to buy their crappy product from them.

[KamaAina]

34. I heard Kentucky was going to be to health plans

what South Dakota and Delaware are to credit cards. :eyes:

[cyberswede]

13. Some states have more regulations

and therefore more protections for consumers. If insurance can be purchased across state lines, people who live in states with good consumer protection regulations might find themselves covered by a companies with poor consumer protection regulations.

I think the Republicans favor this because of the "free market." They think that if the market is free and open, people will shop around for the best deal, and that alone will keep costs competitive. What will actually happen is that companies in states with more regulations (and therefor more overhead) will lose business to cheaper competitors in low-regulations states. Insurance coverage would actually get WORSE for consumers (or, as I prefer to say, "citizens").

Make no mistake, this will screw the little guy.

[Fresh_Start]

15. industry consolidation

fewer big players means easy money for them

[MNDemNY]

16. That way instead of 50 giant for profit monsters, we can eventually have 1.

[doc03]

31. Hmm! Walmart Health Plan? n/t

[MNDemNY]

32. Not out of the relm.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[dysfunctional press]

17. they love to watch states race to the bottom...

kind of like the people who like to throw a quarter out the car window on skid row, just to see the winos fight for it.

[Ezlivin]

21. Crossing state lines always worked for them when seeking illicit sex

Some of them even left the country in order to indulge their fantasies.

[KansDem]

23. I always thought it gave the perception that they're "doing something"

The Repubs have no plan, but if they keep pushing something like, "We want Americans to be able to buy insurance across state lines!," it sounds like a plan. Personally, I don't see any advantage.

It's a lot like US auto ads during the mid-1990s. Remember when Toyota announced its revolutionary steering technology in which the rear wheels turned in tandem with the front wheels? I saw an ad for this on TV, then just a few commercials later I saw one for one of the Big Three. It was pushing "pinstriping" as a "standard equipment." Big whoop!!! I mean, the perception was that this was a fantastic offer, but when you really thought about it, not even close to Toyota's tandem steering. I was embarrassed to think the US auto maker would think I would be influenced to buy their car because of some fucking decals...

[Ian David]

25. They're looking forward to a new era of Chartermongering. n/t

[juno jones]

26. So they can get jacked by people even further removed from their intimate circle, why else? N/T

[ejpoeta]

27. if they can go across state lines thwn they can avoid state regulations. just go to a state

with the least rules and sell from there. sounds good until you realize that means they don't have to cover anything and can drop you for any reason.

[safeinOhio]

36. I don't think would want strict federal regulations in trade for interstate

options. We could, or should ask them.

[KT2000]

28. states regulate ins. companies

as others have explained, the ins. cos would move to the least regulated states.
This is a way of getting around insurance regulations. The state of Washington has had some really good insurance commissioners and we have some decent protections that would be voided for cross state line insurance companies.

There is another area they are attempting to do this and that is by creating pools that businesses could join. Those pools would be run by insurance cos located in states with the least regs.

[unpossibles]

35. an emoty talking point

they like to pretend to offer choices and options, as long as the options are all the same.

[Juche]

38. Depends on the conservative

The wealthy business interests want to do it because then you can set up shop in the one state with the weakest consumer protections. It'll be far easier to rip people off and deny them or kick them off the rolls once they get sick in that scenario.

Conservatives on the grassroots level support it because most are not too bright or thoughtful and are just parroting the talking points that the wealthy business interests pay groups like Cato or Heritage to write and then give to right wing mouthpieces on talk radio or fox news.

Ask one of these conservatives if they understand anything about the issue. Or the potential risks. Ask them what happens if this means that all insurance companies set up shop in a state where it is far easier to kick people off the rolls over technicalities after they start getting sick. They haven't thought of it.

Modern conservatism consists of two groups

Wealthy individuals and businesses
Stupid, dogmatic, uninformed, simple minded right wing authoritarian followers

[B Calm]

39. Will this be like their deregulating the electric companies? Boy that

really worked to lower my electric bill. . . .

[ljm2002]

40. What it means is this:

The insurance companies could sell into all 50 states. They would be free to incorporate in any state with the most favorable (to them) policies. So people from states with more stringent (read: consumer-friendly) laws, would not get the benefit of those laws as the insurance companies would only have to follow the laws in their state of incorporation.

So yes, of course if the Republicans like it, you know it's gotta benefit the big corporations over mere citizens.

[SoCalDem]

41. They are expert at pushing the whack-a-mole coverage plans

because they know it will keep people "busy"..

Can you imagine this scene at a doctor's reception desk....say in California.

Receptionist: Do you have insurance?

Patient: Yes we have Acme Health insurance of Ohio

Receptionist: You ARE aware that we are in California, aren't you?

Patient: But it was the cheapest.

Receptionist: I'll need your credit card, please..you'll have to sort out payment with your company...later.. Today we are going to need $483.00 from YOU.

[Engineer4Obama]

42. So they can do with insurance what they do with credit cards and banking

Have safe haven states where the regulations are minimal and all the insurance companies can flock there. Its how credit card companies get around ushery laws.

[justinaforjustice]

44. More De-Regulation For Private Insurers.

Now, to sell insurance in a given state, the company must comply with that state's regulations. The strictness of the regulations and the effectiveness of their regulatory enforcement varies from state to state. Allowing companies to sell insurance "across state lines" would allow the insurers to pick their state of incorporation by choosing to incorporate in the state with the least regulation and most lax enforcement. Voila, less regulation, more profits for the company.

If the federal government steps in to replace state regulation, the companies can lobby for less stringent regulations. They were very successful at this with credit cards. Again, less regulation means more profits -- their mantra.

Everything the private insurers do politically is to decrease regulation and so increase their profits. The Republicans support their corporate donors by demanding that the companies can sell anywhere in the country.