Comments on: Why Buying Health Insurance across State Lines might Not be a Good Idea

By: John

John — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:56:30 +0000

As an agent in a state where there is one carrier that owns 75%+ of the market, I’m open to more competition. I feel like it’s only a matter of time before they cut the agent out of the picture entirely.

By: Allen

Allen — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:23:36 +0000

Stopping federal government mandates and pumping money into the our federally subsidized system need to be limited or done with. The government prints money to pay for deficit spending and health care is huge for deficit spending. The more money pumped in the lower the value of the dollar, henceforth the more care costs. The fed are supposed to regulate interstate commerce not stop it per article 1,section 8 of the good old constitution. Let the states regulate it. Let the individual consumer decide whether or not he/she needs alcohol rehab therapy, acupunture or some other type of medical care. The costs of policies will go down since consumers are not mandated to buy a plan they do not need. Individuals can determine their own needs not a bureaucrat in DC. Also the people who cost the most are those sick which is generally the older people not the younger so they are the most expensive to pay for. If you are insured for all or most of your adult you should pay enough in to pay for coverage;if not a plan needs to be developed to meet that situation by governments. So I say stop the federal government over reaching power doing what they are not supposed to do in the health care industry. States cannot print money to meet their budgets like the Feds can. That right there will reduce costs dramatically do to reduce money supply, thereby also strengthening our dollar so we will have the best economy due to higher quality at a lower cost. So leave it to the states and not the socialists in DC.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 00:09:06 +0000

Buying across state lines is a bad idea and I’ll tell you why.
First, there is nothing stopping any insurance company from selling their product in every state in the union. Nothing.
Second. The insurance industry is the only industry besides baseball that has anti trust exemption. If you want insurance companies to compete, a good place to start might be not letting them collude – price fix.
The issue is all about state regulations and lowering insurance companies costs in order to increase profits.

Every state regulates the insurance industry in their state. If you can buy insurance from another state, what you are doing is side stepping your states regulations and consumer protections. What will then happen is that insurance companies will set up shop in the state with non existent regulations. You might pay less, but you will also get less. And again, since insurance companies can legally collude, their is no real competition.

By: Health Care: The House’s Vote to Repeal | Bear Market Investments

Health Care: The House’s Vote to Repeal | Bear Market Investments — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 15:40:43 +0000

[...] and if you don’t mind finding out that your insurer doesn’t cover your illness”); Why Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines Minght Not be a Good Idea; Allowing health insurers to sell across state lines is a BAD idea on Democratic Underground [...]

By: FR

FR — Wed, 19 Jan 2011 19:23:40 +0000

Cross state line health insurance plan will authorize regulation of health care plans by a Federal bureaucracy. One of Obamacare provisions that is most offensive is control of health care by a Federal agency.

ERISA moved us dangerously close to this type of Federal intervention and interference.

Currently a health care plan in Texas is regulated by the Texas Department of Insurance.

In Texas if you have been rejected for a private personal health insurance you are qualified for participation in the Texas Health Insurance Pool.

Eligibility and exclusions are available at the Texas Health Pool website.
(http://www.txhealthpool.org/eligibil.html)

Rates are currently set at 200% of rates for private sector health insurance. Though there is a 6 month lookback for pre-existing conditions, participation in the plan is not denied. Following 12 months participation in the plan the pre-existing condition itself is covered.

The lookback does not apply if you had prior coverage for the preceding eighteen months with no gap of more than 63 days.

Additionally, the plan specifically covers certain catastrophic conditions.

Texans will not be benefited by participation in an inter-state compact or losing local control over our health care insurance.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:21:46 +0000

The possibility that high-risk insurance disincentivizes price-cutting under competition is dubious. There will be a market for high-risk plans and cross-state competition will lower those prices, more than they were before Health Care was passed and certainly more than they are now. Competition naturally does this, all the time. The fact that this article finds this obvious for low-risk insurance but not for high-risk insurance is an arbitrary distinction.

This policy should not occur in a vacuum, however. High-risk insurance pools lower prices, especially if they’re given a broader base of clients. Cost-cutting provisions could free up plenty of government revenue for subsidies to lower high-risk and other insurance further. These include such provisions as fraud prevention, tort reform, and entitlement cutting.

By: zxthed

zxthed — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 22:41:18 +0000

They idea that care would get worse if insusures were allowed across state lines is rediculous. Well maybe if it’s Medicare/Medicaid. Ezra Klein wrote that if this were to happen, it would create confusion about what is covered and what isn’t, and his plan is a gov’t option-which do what he warned people against. Gov’t itself doesn’t know what should/shouldn’t be covered. Look at the NHS in Britain. They may mean well, but they make terrible decisions based on cost containment. Some of you may think that the private insurers do the same, but if you made the deduction you’re missing one important point-insurers make a profit, allowing them to make more flexible financial decisions. Medicaid, Medicare, and any other gov’t option does not have that luxury.

By: nibbles

nibbles — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 03:10:26 +0000

I am sorry, but I do not want anyone coming into to Pennsylvania to sell their insurance policies. From my understanding, our state has very tough laws that requires insurance companies to offer a “minimum” amount of services on their coverages. allyThis is a consumer protection that our legislators provide for our citizens. Hospitals and doctors should also be protected as well. They need to know that the services that are needed to treat their patients will be covered and payed for.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:50:26 +0000

Conservatives are always espousing the competitive cost benefits of allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. I agree with Obama that it would likely lead to insurance companies “cherry picking” the healthiest customers as well as circumventing tough insurance regulations in highly regulated states in favor of selling their products “across state lines” from whatever loosely regulated state allows them to offer the least protections to consumer. HOWEVER, my real confusion over this entire idea is how insurance companies can offer their “product” in any state without having a program in place to manage reimbursement costs in each state.

I live in NYC and there are many insurance providers to choose from here. Nevertheless I have to check with each doctor to see whether they accept a particular provider’s insurance. No doctor is in every available insurance network and that’s when we’re talking about maybe a dozen to choose from. What would it mean for 1300 insurance companies from across the country to offer their “product”? Insurance companies make money by negotiating reimbursement rates to health providers that choose to join their plan (ie – are “in network”.)

I just don’t see 1300 insurers setting up networks in every state and I certainly don’t see doctors joining 1300 networks. So what happens when I buy an insurance policy from a health insurer in Wyoming. How does that insurer cover my expenses in New York. Are we talking about departing from the HMO / PPO co-pay model and returning to patients paying all expenses out of pocket and then submitting bills to the insurer for some percentage of reimbursement? If that’s the case, I don’t think it would make sense for most insurers and it certainly doesn’t seem like it would be cheaper or easier to manage for patients who would have to lay out huge sums of money for treatment and then pray for reimbursement (not to mention meeting deductibles and other requirements.)

Basically, I want to know on what basis insurance companies from outside of a state can compete with those insurance companies already well-established and well-entrenched within a state.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:44:38 +0000

I love all the presumptions about what unregulated companies would do for high risk candidates if they were flooded with healthy low-risk members. Let’s face it, they will do less, and it will be worse. What is their motivation to take on high risk patients? Answer -none – those people will be priced out of coverage. The insurance industry is all about low risk and high shareholder profits, it’s not about which company will feel the most charitable once they get rich. This isn’t about selling cars or cell phones, it’s about people’s lives, what this “deregulated across state lines” policy will do is turn healthcare into a hit-and-miss gamble on people’s lives. If there are proper regulations for all companies then that may stave off the run to the state with little or no regulation, so Federal regulation HAS to be a starting point.

Another poster mentioned that physicians ‘probably’ won’t care where your insurance is from – WRONG – they most certainly WILL care, I have insurance from what many consider one of the top insurers in the country and I’ve had 2 doctors already drop them due to failure to pay for tests, visits, and certain office procedures. Can you imagine the massive amount of office time this will incur, not to mention the constant back-and-forth with any one of 500 insurance companies with different policies and coverage plans? This will require Federal regulations to work efficiently, there is no doubt.