In 2007 2 bills passed through Congress that reformed the way insurance companies operated in regards to nationwide homeowners, life and auto insurance. Basically what it did was setup a Optional Federal Charter. This allowed insurance companies to organize themselves as either state providers of nationwide providers. While each insurance provider would have to operate according to state guidelines, they would be operating under a federal bureau which would enforce the same laws throughout the country. This allowed the insurance companies that classified themselves as federal providers to provide home, life and auto insurance nationwide.
The same thing could be done with health insurance companies, and it could be done by the Federal Government.
But hey, lets stick to more mindless rhetoric and not even bother to look up how it could be accomplished.
The two bills, in case anyone was wondering were H3200 and S.40. And here are the links just in case you're too lazy to look them up, which you probably are considering the stupid rhetoric you'd rather stick too.
In 2007 2 bills passed through Congress that reformed the way insurance companies operated in regards to nationwide homeowners, life and auto insurance. Basically what it did was setup a Optional Federal Charter. This allowed insurance companies to organize themselves as either state providers of nationwide providers. While each insurance provider would have to operate according to state guidelines, they would be operating under a federal bureau which would enforce the same laws throughout the country. This allowed the insurance companies that classified themselves as federal providers to provide home, life and auto insurance nationwide.
The same thing could be done with health insurance companies, and it could be done by the Federal Government.
But hey, lets stick to more mindless rhetoric and not even bother to look up how it could be accomplished.
The two bills, in case anyone was wondering were H3200 and S.40. And here are the links just in case you're too lazy to look them up, which you probably are considering the stupid rhetoric you'd rather stick too.
So the only way Obama can be a success in your mind is if he gets all 50 states to simultaneously change their own regulatory systems.
Like I already pointed out, he wouldn't have to do that.
Quote:
Not to mention that you're calling him "stupid" for even talking about this issue at all! So to sum up--you'd prefer that he eliminate all state regulations of the insurance industry, in the process trampling states' rights and arrogating to the federal government regulatory authority over something that it does not currently have--and to do it without telling anyone about it, ever!
No, I never said he should eliminate all state regulations. See my previous post as to what could be done.
Quote:
In all honesty, if you want to avoid giving the impression that you hate Obama because you just don't like him, then you should at least outline reasonable criteria by which you might judge him to be successful. If nothing could possibly please you, then that's a pretty good indication that your objections are personal and ideological, not practical.
Yes, because asking the Federal Government to introduce insurance reform that has already been passed before is entirely not practical.
I actually went and figured out just exactly how the federal government could set up nationwide insurance companies. Did you? No, because you're only interested in mindless rhetoric. Which is why you resorted to making stupid comments about Obama having to force each state to change their insurance regulation laws.
Which they won't, but you wouldn't know that because you have no interest in looking it up.
Like I already pointed out, he wouldn't have to do that.
No, I never said he should eliminate all state regulations. See my previous post as to what could be done.
Yes, because asking the Federal Government to introduce insurance reform that has already been passed before is entirely not practical.
I actually went and figured out just exactly how the federal government could set up nationwide insurance companies. Did you? No, because you're only interested in mindless rhetoric. Which is why you resorted to making stupid comments about Obama having to force each state to change their insurance regulation laws.
Which they won't, but you wouldn't know that because you have no interest in looking it up.
As I said before, I have no idea why you're being so defensive about this.
But surely you understand the difference between passing new federal insurance regulations and repealing existing state regulations. Don't you? Because if you don't, then there isn't a lot of point to this debate.
Put simply: you're asking Obama to exceed his constitutional authority before he can satisfy you. Doesn't that tell you something?
I thought I was throwing you a bone by explaining why the WSJ article you posted was probably written by a monkey.
I actually went and scoured through Senate and House records to find out which bills those were and then I explained to you how the restriction of insurance companies operating out of state could be fixed by the Federal Government and this is your response?
As I said before, I have no idea why you're being so defensive about this.
But surely you understand the difference between passing new federal insurance regulations and repealing existing state regulations. Don't you? Because if you don't, then there isn't a lot of point to this debate.
Put simply: you're asking Obama to exceed his constitutional authority before he can satisfy you. Doesn't that tell you something?
Did I say he should repeal existing state regulations? The entire point of the bills which I posted, which you also didn't read(quite obviously)...is that they still have to obey state regulations in regards to how insurance companies operate, but they're allowed to operate nationwide.
Bills have already been passed that do this with other kinds of insurance. And your response? More mindless rhetoric about me asking Obama overriding his constitutional rhetoric, which he wouldn't, if you would bother to read the actual bills I posted and see how the government made it possible for other kinds of insurance companies to operate nationwide.
I actually went and scoured through Senate and House records to find out which bills those were and then I explained to you how the restriction of insurance companies operating out of state could be fixed by the Federal Government and this is your response?
No, the response was to the "stupid rhetoric" comment, which you've now repeated about seven times. Sounds kind of like a weak attempt to avoid real debate.
For my response to the bills you posted, see above. These bills do not repeal existing state regulations. Existing state regulations are the reason that health care insurance is not portable across state lines. Obama cannot repeal those, not because he doesn't want to (though I certainly don't know for a fact that he does) but because he lacks the constitutional authority to do so. Pretty simple, really. The President is not a dictator.
Anyway, aren't we kind of splitting hairs? Do we really think insurance portability is the panacea that will save the U.S. health care industry? John McCain proposed this very thing during the campaign, and as I recall the collective laughter from factchecking organizations was pretty deafening.
Did I say he should repeal existing state regulations? The entire point of the bills which I posted, which you also didn't read(quite obviously)...is that they still have to obey state regulations in regards to how insurance companies operate, but they're allowed to operate nationwide.
Sigh. Let me try again.
The Problem: Existing state regulations mostly prevent health insurance carriers from offering health insurance to out-of-state customers.
Assumption: Portability across state lines would reduce costs across the board. (still not sure why--sounds a bit like an underwear gnomes scheme to me...)
Your Solution: Federal regulation of insurance companies.
See how that doesn't make any sense? Even if you assume (and I don't) that this would create magical cost savings, your solution doesn't even address the problem you identified!
For my response to the bills you posted, see above. These bills do not repeal existing state regulations. Existing state regulations are the reason that health care insurance is not portable across state lines.
You do realize that there has been a bill in play for 4 years that would do exactly what I said?
Here is an article from the NTU talking about the bill.
Quote:
(Washington, DC) – To expand health care choices and control costs, consumers must be allowed to purchase health insurance from out-of-state providers: that’s the message an official with the 350,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU) stressed today at a Capitol Hill briefing session for lawmakers and their staff on reform legislation in the 109th Congress. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance sponsored the event.
“By imposing more than 1,500 burdensome benefit-mandates on health insurance companies for services such as hair prostheses and infertility treatments, many states have made insurance coverage for their residents unaffordable,” said NTU Director of Government Affairs Paul Gessing. “Allowing consumers to shop for health care insurance across state lines will help the 40 million-plus Americans now lacking health coverage find an option they can afford.”
In May, the National Taxpayers Union re-affirmed its longstanding support for the Health Care Choice Act (H.R. 2355) in a letter to the legislation’s sponsor, Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ). According to Gessing, the legislation “would harness the power of the marketplace” by giving consumers access to a broader range of health plans, spurring competition among state policymakers, and by creating a robust nationwide health insurance market.
“Individual preference is essential to determining health care insurance plans, and the law should respect rather than reject that principle,” Gessing said. “Consumers – even those requiring only ‘bare bones’ plans – are forced to pay for benefits they don’t need and risk being uninsured because they cannot look outside their own state for health insurance. It is ridiculous that in our increasingly global economy, where Americans can shop for goods and services five thousand miles from our shores, they cannot purchase health insurance plans offered outside their home state’s borders.”
Gessing concluded by noting that the Health Care Choice Act, which polls indicate over 70 percent of Americans support, would open up restricted state markets, lower health care costs, and give consumers additional choices without harming the taxpayer. “Why force taxpayers and private entities to shoulder the $125 billion cost of providing health care coverage for the uninsured when this legislation could help accomplish that goal in a way that is friendly to every American’s pocketbook?” he asked. “The Health Care Choice Act is a key part of the long-term therapy our system needs to thrive.”
In 2007 2 bills passed through Congress that reformed the way insurance companies operated in regards to nationwide homeowners, life and auto insurance. Basically what it did was setup a Optional Federal Charter. This allowed insurance companies to organize themselves as either state providers of nationwide providers. While each insurance provider would have to operate according to state guidelines, they would be operating under a federal bureau which would enforce the same laws throughout the country. This allowed the insurance companies that classified themselves as federal providers to provide home, life and auto insurance nationwide.
The same thing could be done with health insurance companies, and it could be done by the Federal Government.
But hey, lets stick to more mindless rhetoric and not even bother to look up how it could be accomplished.
The two bills, in case anyone was wondering were H3200 and S.40. And here are the links just in case you're too lazy to look them up, which you probably are considering the stupid rhetoric you'd rather stick too.
"It’s clear that federal regulation has proven no better than state regulation at addressing market failures or protecting consumer interests,” he said. “Moreover, unlike state regulatory failures, federal regulatory mistakes could have disastrous economy-wide consequences.
-Chairman of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
But even if we accept that passing a law regulating health insurance in the same manner as life and auto would be greatly beneficial to the consumer - is this what you consider to be a viable alternative to Obama's health care reform with subsidies?
The Problem: Existing state regulations mostly prevent health insurance carriers from offering health insurance to out-of-state customers.
Assumption: Portability across state lines would reduce costs across the board. (still not sure why--sounds a bit like an underwear gnomes scheme to me...)
Your Solution: Federal regulation of insurance companies.
See how that doesn't make any sense? Even if you assume (and I don't) that this would create magical cost savings, your solution doesn't even address the problem you identified!
You do realize that is quite possible to allow health care insurers to be federally chartered, right?
I never called for complete federal regulation of all insurance companies. What I proposed was a Optional Federal Charter.
"It’s clear that federal regulation has proven no better than state regulation at addressing market failures or protecting consumer interests,” he said. “Moreover, unlike state regulatory failures, federal regulatory mistakes could have disastrous economy-wide consequences.
-Chairman of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
Except that the insurance companies would still have to abide by state regulations.
Even if they are federally chartered.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
I'm not even going to argue with you about this not being possible due to state regulations. It is quite possible and someone has been trying to do it without success for four years.
Fixed. How does that support your point again?
In any case, this really does seem like a pretty minute detail. I'll echo Gozer's question: how does portability help more than a public option would? I guess I'm pretty skeptical.
Is it something like this?
1. Create health insurance portability across state lines.
2. ???
3. Profit!
But even if we accept that passing a law regulating health insurance in the same manner as life and auto would be greatly beneficial to the consumer - is this what you consider to be a viable alternative to Obama's health care reform with subsidies?
I don't consider it an alternative within itself. I just think it should be part of the process.
Here is an article talking about it, back when Bush proposed something like it.
Realize that I'm not strictly against subsidies, or against a public option. I just think that certain steps should be taken beforehand to reduce costs as well.
In any case, this really does seem like a pretty minute detail. I'll echo Gozer's question: how does portability help more than a public option would? I guess I'm pretty skeptical.
Is it something like this?
1. Create health insurance portability across state lines.
2. ???
3. Profit!
Oh for Christ sakes are you this dense?
Where have I EVER said that this by itself would help more than a public option? Where have I EVER said that I disagree with the public option?
Just like with the two-tier system, you simply can't see beyond point A.
Wanting this kind of reform does not mean I disagree with the public option. Is that clear enough? It does not have to be one or the other.
When I say people should be able to afford health care it doesn't mean that they should be able to afford it at the expense of more taxes, more debt and bigger deficits which result from subsidizing the costs to MAKE it more affordable.
I just think that certain steps should be taken beforehand to reduce costs as well.
Hey, I agree. I think one place to start would be some kind of reform of billing practices that discourages providers from providing care that is probably unnecessary, but which allows them to bill tens of thousands of dollars to patient insurance companies--angioplasty for chronic angina being just one egregious example, which alone costs enough money that eliminating the practice could pay for health insurance for every uninsured child in America.
