Trump to Terminate Sketchy ACA Subsidies

[AuH20]

And tens of thousands will suffer and die! Or at least that's what the talking heads will say.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-to-end-key-aca-subsidies-a-move-that-will-threaten-the-law%e2%80%99s-marketplaces/ar-AAtkha9?ocid=spartandhp

[euphemia]

It made Jimmy Kimmel cry.

Trump has more political courage and creativity than anyone in Washington right. He warned Congress. They had a choice to come up with a bill or he would do it himself, and he is keeiping his word.

[AuH20]

Trump is fearless. What a tweet!

918772522983874561

[specsaregood]

And tens of thousands will suffer and die! Or at least that's what the talking heads will say.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-to-end-key-aca-subsidies-a-move-that-will-threaten-the-law%e2%80%99s-marketplaces/ar-AAtkha9?ocid=spartandhp

the timing is great with the EO signed yesterday that will open up the markets outside the exchange. so there should be new less expensive options for people to move to once the subsidies stop.

[dannno]

It made Jimmy Kimmel cry.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXFF1lmtFHg

[Madison320]

I don't think this is a good move by Trump. He's not fixing it but now he owns it.


Google's headlines:

Throwing a bomb into the insurance markets, Trump now owns the broken health-care system.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/10/13/daily-202-throwing-a-bomb-into-the-insurance-markets-trump-now-owns-the-broken-health-care-system/59dff67a30fb041a74e75d48/


The real reason Trump is so dead set on crushing Obamacare
(because he's a racist, according to the writer)

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/trump-obamacare-subsidies/index.html

Trump’s Obamacare Order Will Deepen Health Inequality

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/opinion/trump-obamacare-executive-order-health-insurance.html

I'm waiting for the democrats to start sending out universal health care trial balloons. I think it's almost a certainty that the 2020 candidate runs on it, and will win. Although the economic crash that's probably going to hit before then will change the parameters.

[angelatc]

I don't think this is a good move by Trump. He's not fixing it but now he owns it.

.

He doesn't have to fix it. He just has to make people believe they're going to be better off than they were.

[euphemia]

Why wouldn't people be better off? Being told the truth about the high cost of mandate insurance is a good thing. And why would someone with high premiums not like having the freedom to shop for cheaper insurance?

[AuH20]

They illegally pulled funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pay these subsidies. I hope Trump repeats this fact ad nauseum.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/05/01/mnuchin-on-fannie-and-freddie-funds-used-to-pay-for-obamacare-its-true.html

[euphemia]

Maybe next Trump will end subsidies for vaccines. What then?

[juleswin]

And end the mandate penalty? Good move. The whole healthcare system need to feel some pressure or else they would never lower their prices. They have been living high of the hog while every other industry have been forced to adapt to the new reality of our economy.

Good on him even though id prefer he end the individual mandate 1st

[angelatc]

They illegally pulled funds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pay these subsidies. I hope Trump repeats this fact ad nauseum.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/05/01/mnuchin-on-fannie-and-freddie-funds-used-to-pay-for-obamacare-its-true.html

The media isn't parroting that. Gee I wonder why.

[Madison320]

Why wouldn't people be better off? Being told the truth about the high cost of mandate insurance is a good thing. And why would someone with high premiums not like having the freedom to shop for cheaper insurance?

I agree that the changes are good, but they are microscopic. Overall people are going to be worse off, just not quite as worse off.

Until they remove the pre-existing condition mandate, they haven't done squat. The pre-existing condition mandate is the core of Obamacare.

[angelatc]

I agree that the changes are good, but they are microscopic. Overall people are going to be worse off, just not quite as worse off.

Until they remove the pre-existing condition mandate, they haven't done squat. The pre-existing condition mandate is the core of Obamacare.

Despite the histrionics of the headline the NYT article actually seems to point out some painful economic truths. Healthy people will pay less, sick people will pay more. This language is chilling:


Obamacare tries to build large, comprehensive “risk pools” in which the healthy and the unhealthy commingle. This has never been perfectly achieved: There are too many channels that allow low-risk individuals and groups to avoid keeping costs down for the unhealthy. This executive order dredges new channels for the healthy to segregate their costs from people with expensive care needs.

[EBounding]

Despite the histrionics of the headline the NYT article actually seems to point out some painful economic truths. Healthy people will pay less, sick people will pay more. This language is chilling:

Obamacare tries to build large, comprehensive “risk pools” in which the healthy and the unhealthy commingle. This has never been perfectly achieved: There are too many channels that allow low-risk individuals and groups to avoid keeping costs down for the unhealthy. This executive order dredges new channels for the healthy to segregate their costs from people with expensive care needs.


Does the EO say that these health associations can't discriminate based on health status?

[Zippyjuan]

Expect insurance premiums to rise even more.

http://images.dailykos.com/images/374821/story_image/trump_obamacare_promises.png?1488917718

https://www.democraticwhip.gov/sites/default/files/tweet%20DJT%205.2.17.png

[Swordsmyth]

Expect insurance premiums to rise even more.

Expect zippy to lie about everything.

[dannno]

Despite the histrionics of the headline the NYT article actually seems to point out some painful economic truths. Healthy people will pay less, sick people will pay more. This language is chilling:

What part of Rand Paul's 6 explanations that he has given in the last day that said that is wrong do you disagree with?

[Zippyjuan]

Expect zippy to lie about everything.

You expect premiums to go down? Cutting subsidies means less money to the insurance companies. They will raise rates to make up the difference. If any plan changes mean fewer young, healthy people signing up for insurance, they will have to raise the rates on everybody still left. Yes- rates will be going up.

[Swordsmyth]

You expect premiums to go down? Cutting subsidies means less money to the insurance companies. They will raise rates to make up the difference. If any plan changes mean fewer young, healthy people signing up for insurance, they will have to raise the rates on everybody still left. Yes- rates will be going up.

Some plans will go up others will go down.

[Anti Federalist]

Good.

[angelatc]

What part of Rand Paul's 6 explanations that he has given in the last day that said that is wrong do you disagree with?

My comment wasn't disagreing with Rand - it was mocking the NYT.

I do disagree with Rand about allowing people to buy across state lines. That's federalization, taking rights away from the states. Also it will only drive prices up in rural areas, not lower them in high density areas.

[Krugminator2]

Does the EO say that these health associations can't discriminate based on health status?

Yes it does. It wouldn't make sense otherwise.




I do disagree with Rand about allowing people to buy across state lines. That's federalization, taking rights away from the states. Also it will only drive prices up in rural areas, not lower them in high density areas.

I don't agree with the first part. But I do think allowing people to buy insurance across state lines is very overrated. Good on Rand for getting a GOP talking point into law. But it really doesn't do much because of how hard it is to set up an insurance network.

[angelatc]

You expect premiums to go down? Cutting subsidies means less money to the insurance companies. They will raise rates to make up the difference. If any plan changes mean fewer young, healthy people signing up for insurance, they will have to raise the rates on everybody still left. Yes- rates will be going up.

Rates for sick people will go up, rates for healthy people will go down. Boo fuckin hoo.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/12/557444683/what-does-trumps-executive-order-mean-for-health-care


MCEVERS: So what does the order do?

KODJAK: Well, I have been told several times today that the order itself doesn't really do anything to the health care system.

MCEVERS: OK.

KODJAK: But what it does do is direct three different federal agencies to look at their regulations around health insurance to try to make it easier for trade groups and small businesses to work together to negotiate with insurance companies for better deals. And those companies can be in different states. And they theoretically could get cheaper insurance than they do now. Small businesses today have to buy their insurance through their local Obamacare exchange.

MCEVERS: Right. I mean, it sounds like a reasonable concept. Is - will it work?

KODJAK: Well, there are a couple of challenges. And the first one is legal. There are a whole bunch of people - health care analysts, lawyers - that are saying essentially there are significant legal hurdles to creating what these - they're called association health plans - in a way that makes them cheaper than insurance that's already on the market. And these are people - Democrats and Republicans.

What would have to happen is the administration has to allow those small businesses to be governed by the rules of large employers. That would pretty much reverse a long history of legal precedent in how that law has been understood. The order says this outright. It encourages the agencies, as they say, to modernize their interpretation of the law. The second challenge is just that these plans are only cheaper if they cut benefits or exclude people who are sick or small businesses with a sicker employee group.

MCEVERS: I mean, why is that? Wouldn't their combined market power give them advantage - an advantage?

KODJAK: Well, not necessarily because today, small businesses already are sort of combining their market power through the Obamacare exchanges. They're buying in a group. All the businesses in D.C., for example - in Washington, D.C. - they have to buy on the Washington exchange. So there's not really a new strength in numbers that would come with these association plans. The advantage only comes if they include companies with younger people and leave out older, sicker people.

MCEVERS: These association plans weren't the only thing in this executive order, I understand. What else did the president put in there?

KODJAK: So he's trying to loosen rules regarding short-term insurance plans. And these are policies - right now they're limited to only 90 days, and they'd be good for up to a year. And I looked at some today on the market that are available now, and they have the deductibles as high as $10,000. They don't necessarily cover prescription drugs. And they don't have to cover you if you have a health history. So they're not the greatest insurance, and they don't fit the Obamacare consumer protections.

MCEVERS: Overall so far, what has been the reaction to this executive order?

KODJAK: Well, as I said, there's some skepticism about whether or not it's legal or can accomplish...

MCEVERS: Right.

KODJAK: ...Anything. And then there's this figure that it could split the market again to where it was before the Affordable Care Act was passed, which is, people who are healthy and young can get really cheap insurance, but people who need health care will find it really hard, expensive or out of reach.

[Krugminator2]

"Well, not necessarily because today, small businesses already are sort of combining their market power through the Obamacare exchanges. They're buying in a group. All the businesses in D.C., for example - in Washington, D.C. - they have to buy on the Washington exchange. So there's not really a new strength in numbers that would come with these association plans. The advantage only comes if they include companies with younger people and leave out older, sicker people."


That, of course, has nothing to do with promoting associations. The issue is for self-employed people and 1099 workers who don't get group insurance through a business.

[Zippyjuan]

That, of course, has nothing to do with promoting associations. The issue is for self-employed people and 1099 workers who don't get group insurance through a business.

The real change isn't the associations idea- that basically already happens with the exchanges- individuals achieving group purchasing discounts. The big change is the allowing of short term policies (no longer than a year) which let insurance companies sell policies which cover little if anything. That removes such people out of the bigger pool of insured people (the healthy subsidize the costs of the older and sick) and leaves those who cost the insurance companies more money. That means they will have to charge higher rates.

[dannno]

I do disagree with Rand about allowing people to buy across state lines. That's federalization, taking rights away from the states.

The states aren't preventing insurance companies from going across state lines, THE FEDS ARE!!!

...and it is Constitutional, right? I mean, that is the actual purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause, right? Is there any other area in the market where the government has intervened and disallowed companies from purchasing legal goods across state lines besides things maybe like raw milk?



Also it will only drive prices up in rural areas, not lower them in high density areas.

Why on earth do you come to that conclusion when the EXACT OPPOSITE is true? You aren't listening to what Rand says about this bill at all, are you? You don't seem to get what this is doing at all.

The point is that people who live in big cities and work for large companies that already are allowed to skirt federal regulations and use insurance that is sold across state lines have cheaper insurance that is going up at a rate of 2-3% per year..

The government has FORCED EVERYBODY ELSE into the individual market, where insurance rates are going up 20-30% per year, and these are mostly small businesses and people in rural areas..

Now people with small businesses and in rural areas will be able to join up with millions of people across the country to buy insurance, instead of having to deal with the individual market.

All Rand/Trump did was legalize freedom, what the hell is wrong with this??

[Krugminator2]

The real change isn't the associations idea- that basically already happens with the exchanges- individuals achieving group purchasing discounts.

No. People on Obamacare do not get group purchasing discounts. That is just factually wrong. Obamacare is much more expensive than if a person got an individual plan prior to Obamacare. In Obamacare healthy people are subsidizing unhealthy people.

[Zippyjuan]

No. People on Obamacare do not get group purchasing discounts. That is just factually wrong. Obamacare is much more expensive than if a person got an individual plan prior to Obamacare. In Obamacare healthy people are subsidizing unhealthy people.

Under all insurance plans (health, financial, auto, other), those who don't file claims help pay for (subsidize) those who do. It is how the business operates. Healthcare premiums were rising long before Obama even became president.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/robbmandelbaum/2017/02/24/no-obamacare-hasnt-jacked-up-your-companys-insurance-rates/#283dc1263a01


Health insurance premiums have been rising for decades, almost (though not quite) as stubbornly reliable as an eastern sunrise. And it turns out that these increases actually slowed after the Affordable Care Act became law in 2010. That's according to data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which tracks a range of topics around spending on health care in its Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. The survey tracks the health insurance offered by private firms big and small, and in all cases, the average rate of premium growth from the time the law passed in 2010 through 2015 was actually lower than from 2004 to 2010. And premium growth was lowest for firms with fewer than 50 employees.

A similar study, prepared every year by the Kaiser Family Foundation, shows a similar trajectory for premiums, and it continues into 2016. "Everything's been slower because we had the recession and health care costs just haven't been going up that much," says Gary Claxton, who directs the Kaiser Family Foundation's Health Care Marketplace Project. "That's still true, though it's wearing off a bit now."

[Krugminator2]

Under all insurance plans (health, financial, auto, other), those who don't file claims help pay for (subsidize) those who do. It is how the business operates. Healthcare premiums were rising long before Obama even became president.


Every liberal publication even admits premiums are much higher specifically as a result of Obamacare. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and Washington Post all have articles explaining this with a simple Google search.

Here is the first thing that shows up on Google from ABC in an article titled Why Health Care Premiums Are Rising Under Obamacare

. "HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell cautioned that insurers are “continuing to adapt” to a market that looks very different from before “Obamacare,” one in which they are trying to compete for costumers “based on price and quality” and not necessarily by “finding the healthiest customers.” http://abcnews.go.com/Health/health-care-premiums-rising-obamacare/story?id=43047190

[Zippyjuan]

This is before his most recent actions.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insurance-premiums-20170810-story.html


Trump's moves are causing health insurance premiums to jump, study says

Actions by the Trump administration are triggering double-digit premium increases on individual health insurance policies purchased by many people, according to a nonpartisan study.

The analysis released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that mixed signals from President Trump have created uncertainty “far outside the norm” and led insurers to seek higher premium increases for 2018 than would otherwise have been the case.

Republicans in Congress have not delivered on their promise to repeal and replace the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. Trump is insisting that lawmakers try again and that Obama’s signature health overhaul is collapsing. At the same time, he has threatened to stop billions of dollars in payments to insurers. Some Republicans are considering fallback measures to stabilize markets.

Kaiser researchers looked at proposed premiums for a benchmark silver plan across major metropolitan areas in 20 states and Washington, D.C. Overall, they found that 15 of those cities will see increases of 10% or more next year.

The highest is a 49% jump in Wilmington, Del. The only decline: a 5% reduction in Providence, R.I.




The researchers analyzed publicly available filings through which insurers justify their proposed premiums to state regulators. Insurers are struggling with sicker-than-expected customers and disappointingly low enrollment, and an industry tax is expected to add 2 to 3 percentage points to premiums next year.

On top of that, researchers found that mixed signals from the administration account for some of the higher charges. Those could increase before enrollment starts Nov. 1.

“The vast majority of companies in states with detailed rate filings have included some language around the uncertainty, so it is likely that more companies will revise their premiums to reflect uncertainty in the absence of clear answers from Congress or the administration,” the report said. Once premiums are set, they're generally in place for a whole year.

Insurers that assumed that Trump would make good on his threat to stop billions of dollars in payments to subsidize copayments and deductibles requested additional premium increases ranging from 2% to 23%, the report found.

Insurers that assumed the IRS under Trump would not enforce unpopular fines on people who remain uninsured requested additional premium increases ranging from 1.2% to 20%.

“In many cases, that means insurers are adding double-digit premium increases on top of what they otherwise would have requested,” said Cynthia Cox, a co-author of the Kaiser report. “In many cases, what we are seeing is an additional increase due to the political uncertainty.”

That doesn't sound like what Trump promised when he assumed the presidency.

In a Washington Post interview ahead of his inauguration, Trump said, “We're going to have insurance for everybody.”

[nobody's_hero]

Ripping the band-aid off sucks, but it's gotta be done. The wound is festering.

I'm actually surprised that Trump has the balls to do this. It's gonna be rough for markets to adjust (just as it was when the ACA went into effect), and the media is going to rake him face-down over the coals for the short-term negative consequences, but they already use him as a punching bag anyway. Maybe he figured he has nothing to lose.

[Madison320]

The states aren't preventing insurance companies from going across state lines, THE FEDS ARE!!!

...and it is Constitutional, right? I mean, that is the actual purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause, right? Is there any other area in the market where the government has intervened and disallowed companies from purchasing legal goods across state lines besides things maybe like raw milk?


Yeah, the commerce clause is horribly abused. It was intended to be a check on government power by not allowing states to tax imports and exports to other states. Instead it does the exact opposite, it greatly expands the power of govt.

[Zippyjuan]

Ripping the band-aid off sucks, but it's gotta be done. The wound is festering.

I'm actually surprised that Trump has the balls to do this. It's gonna be rough for markets to adjust (just as it was when the ACA went into effect), and the media is going to rake him face-down over the coals for the short-term negative consequences, but they already use him as a punching bag anyway. Maybe he figured he has nothing to lose.

It's OK. Trump says everybody will have cheap, awesome insurance plans.

https://i.imgflip.com/1rfwhm.jpg

[Madison320]

Rates for sick people will go up, rates for healthy people will go down. Boo $#@!in hoo.

But who determines the rates? Is it a voluntary contract between the insurance company and the customer? Or does the govt set the rates? I thought one version of TrumpCare "allowed" insurance companies to charge 30% more for sick patients. That's still a joke if it's something like that.

Peter Schiff explained this really well. He said the only way insurance works is if healthy people sign up for it before they get sick (duh!). And there's only two ways to get healthy people to sign up, by govt law or by the free market. The way the free market gets healthy people to sign up is the knowledge that they can't get insurance after they get sick. Just like you can't get fire insurance after your house burns down. So you can either go free market or if you want to mandate coverage for sick people you have to make healthy people get insurance by force. Like in Switzerland. You can't have it both ways. You can't remove the individual mandate and then force companies to cover sick people otherwise everyone will just wait until they get sick to get insurance. Which is what's happening now and it's why rates for healthy people are going up.

[Krugminator2]

Peter Schiff explained this really well. He said the only way insurance works is if healthy people sign up for it before they get sick (duh!). And there's only two ways to get healthy people to sign up, by govt law or by the free market. The way the free market gets healthy people to sign up is the knowledge that they can't get insurance after they get sick. Just like you can't get fire insurance after your house burns down. So you can either go free market or if you want to mandate coverage for sick people you have to make healthy people get insurance by force. Like in Switzerland. You can't have it both ways. You can't remove the individual mandate and then force companies to cover sick people otherwise everyone will just wait until they get sick to get insurance. Which is what's happening now and it's why rates for healthy people are going up.

That's exactly right. That would be my ideal. That is what would happen in a free society. The problem is that will never happen. So I am for forcing people like in Singapore and Switzerland to get insurance and forcing people to save. It isn't a good way to do things but it is more free market than the current system of Obamacare, the VA hospital Medicare, Medicaid and letting people stiff the emergency room when they don't have insurance and can't pay. And it is a much better alternative to French and Canadian style socialized medicine.

[angelatc]

This is before his most recent actions.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-health-insurance-premiums-20170810-story.html

Subsidies are bad. Downward pressure to prices is good.

[angelatc]

But who determines the rates? Is it a voluntary contract between the insurance company and the customer?.

Sure. The insurer looks at the pool of the insured, assesses risk, then offers a rate.

[juleswin]

Actuarian professional usually help come up with insurance rates for groups if the insurance market is allowed to operate uninterupted.

[Madison320]

Sure. The insurer looks at the pool of the insured, assesses risk, then offers a rate.

But I mean Trump's plan. I'm guessing it doesn't let insurance companies set whatever rates it wants but I don't know for sure.

[Madison320]

That's exactly right. That would be my ideal. That is what would happen in a free society. The problem is that will never happen. So I am for forcing people like in Singapore and Switzerland to get insurance and forcing people to save. It isn't a good way to do things but it is more free market than the current system of Obamacare, the VA hospital Medicare, Medicaid and letting people stiff the emergency room when they don't have insurance and can't pay. And it is a much better alternative to French and Canadian style socialized medicine.

I agree, it seems to be the best compromise. The problem with the current system is that healthy people are having to pay much higher rates to cover all the people who get it for free/subsidized.

Another thing Schiff mentioned is that we should do it the right way and amend the constitution because currently it's unconstitutional to force people to get healthcare. Of course I seriously doubt that would happen, they'll just do it without authority.

[Swordsmyth]

18 states sue over Trump-halted ObamaCare paymentshttp://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/355360-15-states-sue-over-trump-halted-obamacare-payments

[angelatc]

All Rand/Trump did was legalize freedom, what the hell is wrong with this??

I believe the Constitution gives the states the right to regulate insurers within their borders. This takes that away. Sorry for supporting the constitution here on Ron Paul forums.

[Swordsmyth]

I believe the Constitution gives the states the right to regulate insurers within their borders. This takes that away. Sorry for supporting the constitution here on Ron Paul forums.

Where does it allow them to block interstate commerce?

[angelatc]

Yeah, the commerce clause is horribly abused. It was intended to be a check on government power by not allowing states to tax imports and exports to other states. Instead it does the exact opposite, it greatly expands the power of govt.

The only thing that keeps insurers from operating in multiple states is state laws. Blue Cross / Blue Shield proves that point. This makes me crazy - people that don't understand insurance deciding how it should be run.

As it stands, there are 50+ sets of rules and regulations dictating what hoops insurers have to jump through in order to sell policies in each 50+ states/territories. Most specifically, the biggest hurdles are items that states dictate MUST be covered, and the amount of cash the company must hold in reserve to pay claims.

This is just paving the way for the next big collapse. One insurer in one state collapses? Meh. One insurer collapses with millions of customers in all 50 states? Bailouts and stimuli!!!!

[angelatc]

Where does it allow them to block interstate commerce?

They aren't blocking interstate commerce. They're regulating intrastate commerce.

[Swordsmyth]

They aren't blocking interstate commerce. They're regulating intrastate commerce.
By prohibiting me from purchasing insurance from another state?

Where does it allow states to regulate it anyway? it seems to me it gives that power to the feds.

[angelatc]

By prohibiting me from purchasing insurance from another state?

Yes. The state you live in has the right to regulate the products and services sold within its boundaries.


Where does it allow states to regulate it anyway? it seems to me it gives that power to the feds.

Which enumerated power gives the federal government the right to regulate health insurance at the federal level?

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. The state you live in has the right to regulate the products and services sold within its boundaries.
It doesn't have the right to prevent me from buying a product offered by a company in another state.




Which enumerated power gives the federal government the right to regulate health insurance at the federal level?
None, they shouldn't be doing it any more than a state should be regulating interstate commerce.

[angelatc]

It doesn't have the right to prevent me from buying a product offered by a company in another state.

Maybe not morally but legally it does indeed have the right (or it did, until Trump erased another constitutional line) to regulate goods and services sold within its boundaries.

I'll type this again because I'm apparently having an insomniac night - each state currently regulates insurers operating within its boundaries. Those regulations include training, licensing, coverages and reserves. The only thing that stops you from buying a policy from a company not currently operating in your state is the decision of that company not to adhere to your local government's regulations.

Taking away the right of the states to write those regulations is not a win for freedom when it means only the federal government will be allowed to write those rules now. This is a loss for local, smaller government.
.





None, they shouldn't be doing it any more than a state should be regulating interstate commerce.

It's intrastate commerce. You're buying the policy from your basement in your home state, and you're using a system of medical providers in your home state.

Whether they should do it is a different issue than whether they have the right to do it. I actually have a cite for my position, which is obviously that the Tenth Amendment clearly gives all rights not specifically delegated to the Fedgov to the states or the people.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe not morally but legally it does indeed have the right (or it did, until Trump erased another constitutional line) to regulate goods and services sold within its boundaries.

I'll type this again because I'm apparently having an insomniac night - each state currently regulates insurers operating within its boundaries. Those regulations include training, licensing, coverages and reserves. The only thing that stops you from buying a policy from a company not currently operating in your state is the decision of that company not to adhere to your local government's regulations.

They are not operating within my states boundaries, I am purchasing a service that takes place in another state.


Taking the right of the states to write those regulations is not a win for freedom when it means only the federal government will be allowed to write those rules now. This is a loss for local, smaller government.

They can still regulate insurance companies in their state, and the feds already regulate anything they feel like whether they should or not so this doesn't change that, if they stopped the state/s with the best regulations (in the opinion of the customers) would end up deciding what the rules should be.
.







It's intrastate commerce. You're buying the policy from your basement in your home state, and you're using a system of medical providers in your home state.

The cashing and cutting of checks and all the calculations involved in the business takes place in the other state, I am engaging in interstate commerce when I buy their services.


Whether they should do it is a different issue than whether they have the right to do it. I actually have a cite for my position, which is obviously that the Tenth Amendment clearly gives all rights not specifically delegated to the Fedgov to the states or the people.

And that does not include the regulation of interstate commerce.

[dannno]

Trump erased another constitutional line

..because Rand Paul told him to??

Wow..

I gotta agree with Swordsmyth on the issue that you are purchasing the service in the other state. They are the ones who have the money. You get a bill, you send it to them, and they pay some part or all of your expenses. That service occurs in another state, they just send the money back to your state. The medical service occurs in the state you are in.

[Working Poor]

Did it give me back my right to not be forced to buy something that I do not want?

[timosman]

It's OK. Trump says everybody will have cheap, awesome insurance plans.

This would be awesome for you. You could finally afford to treat your exhibitionistic disorder.

[nobody's_hero]

That's exactly right. That would be my ideal. That is what would happen in a free society. The problem is that will never happen. So I am for forcing people like in Singapore and Switzerland to get insurance and forcing people to save. It isn't a good way to do things but it is more free market than the current system of Obamacare, the VA hospital Medicare, Medicaid and letting people stiff the emergency room when they don't have insurance and can't pay. And it is a much better alternative to French and Canadian style socialized medicine.

The problem with mandates is that if the insurance companies are f'king you over you can't really just say to hell with them and apply market pressure. The insurance companies have people by the balls right now. Actually, the IRS has people by the balls on behalf of the insurance companies, so it's actually a bit worse.

The customers aren't blameless, either. One cost-driver for insurance premiums is using the ER for every little sniffle and scrape. I would wager that at least 90% of the patients who come through the ER where I work aren't experiencing a true emergency. Much of the stuff we treat could and should wait for a clinic visit in the morning that might cost $50 out-of-pocket versus the $600 that gets charged just for walking through the ER's doors.

Australia's "ER abuse" has gotten so bad some hospital systems have started running ads as if to try to dissuade people from coming to the ER.

I wish like hell our hospital system would do this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvOz4nAQLCA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d698mnRskKU

[enhanced_deficit]

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Donald+Trump+President+Trump+Discusses+Plan+zHCS4w t9mkIl.jpg
TRUMP MOVES HARD TO UNDO OBAMA: (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/heres-why-obama-stays-quiet-as-trump-attacks-his-legacy/index.html)
IRAN NUKES, (https://www.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-meltdown-trump-takes-aim-iran-deal-222337436.html) HEALTHCARE, (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/states-to-sue-to-block-trump-cutoff-of-obamacare-money.html) CHRISTMAS! (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/trump-values-voters-summit/index.html)

http://www.drudgereport.com/i/logo9.gif (http://www.drudgereport.com/)

Corrected:

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Donald+Trump+President+Trump+Discusses+Plan+zHCS4w t9mkIl.jpg
TRUMP MOVES HARD TO UNDO OBAMA: (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/heres-why-obama-stays-quiet-as-trump-attacks-his-legacy/index.html)
IRAN NUKES, (https://www.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-meltdown-trump-takes-aim-iran-deal-222337436.html) HEALTHCARE, (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/states-to-sue-to-block-trump-cutoff-of-obamacare-money.html) CHRISTMAS, HOLLYWOOD WEINSTEIN EXPLOITS ! (http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/politics/trump-values-voters-summit/index.html)


Michelle Obama could any minute now luanch "Save Our Girls from Obama bundler Harvey Weinstein (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?505521-quot-Bring-Back-Our-Girls-quot-Aleppo-Girl-Appeals-to-Michelle-Obama-for-Help&)" campaign with the help of hollywood experts.




It made Jimmy Kimmel cry.



He like Obama is also a compassionate guy.

http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/58579388dd08958d7f8b4633-400-300/in-january-barack-obama-wiped-tears-from-his-eyes-as-he-spoke-about-the-steps-his-administration-was-taking-to-reduce-gun-violence-in-the-us-every-time-i-think-about-those-kids-it-gets-me-mad-obama-said-referring-to-the-2012-massacre-at-sandy-hook-elementary-school.jpg
"Every Time I Think About Those Kids It Gets Me Mad" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?458980-Israel-plans-largest-WB-settlement-expansion-in-30-years-Surprising-Obama-response&p=5721609&viewfull=1#post5721609)

[donnay]

When I lived in rural Maine, I owned a shoppe and was told that my insurance, Aetna, was not allowed in the state. The only insurance that was recognized was Anthem/Blue Cross and Blue Shield. When I cut my hand and needed stitches they declined my insurance and then tried to push me on the welfare one. I declined and told them to send me the bill. When the bill finally came in, it was only $300.

The state was hoping I would just give-in and take the welfare so they could get more federal funds.

[Madison320]

The only thing that stops you from buying a policy from a company not currently operating in your state is the decision of that company not to adhere to your local government's regulations.

I understand what you are saying but I think this can get tricky. What if the state regulation was that the insurance company has to operate within the state? What if Florida said you can only buy oranges grown in Florida, otherwise you have to pay an import tax?

I'm confused about something. I'm under the impression that almost no one can buy out of state insurance, but maybe I'm wrong. Unless the states are making the regulations impossible for out of state insurance companies to conform to, why aren't people buying out of state policies? You wouldn't think the regulations are that different from state to state. It seems like something else is going on here.

[angelatc]

..because Rand Paul told him to??

Wow..

I gotta agree with Swordsmyth on the issue that you are purchasing the service in the other state. They are the ones who have the money. You get a bill, you send it to them, and they pay some part or all of your expenses. That service occurs in another state, they just send the money back to your state. The medical service occurs in the state you are in.

You literally fabricating an alternate reality to avoid the uncomfortable current reality.

You are right. You will be contracting with an agency in another state. You cannot do that now because of states' rights. The 10th Amendment says that the state has the right to regulate the products sold to the residents of the state.

This legislation erases those lines and hands the regulations to the feds. Constitutionally this is a loss. Freedom-wise, this is a loss.

[Wooden Indian]

I am ignorant on this stuff, I admit it.

Was it federally prohibited to purchase across state lines and now it is not?

Or was it up to the states to choose and now it is mandated that they allow out of state insurance?

I'm not sure how I feel yet. Thanks for helping me out here.

[angelatc]

I understand what you are saying but I think this can get tricky. What if the state regulation was that the insurance company has to operate within the state? What if Florida said you can only buy oranges grown in Florida, otherwise you have to pay an import tax?

I'm confused about something. I'm under the impression that almost no one can buy out of state insurance, but maybe I'm wrong. Unless the states are making the regulations impossible for out of state insurance companies to conform to, why aren't people buying out of state policies? You wouldn't think the regulations are that different from state to state. It seems like something else is going on here.

The constitution specifically forbids the states from taxing interstate commerce.

This is exactly what I mean when I say people who don't understand insurance shouldn't try to argue for this. The regulations are ridiculously different from state to state. And more critically, each state demands that insurers maintain certain reserve levels.

It's a financially complex product. It isn't as simple as "I send them money and then they send it to my doctor." They have to maintain a certain level of cash reserves in each state in order to guarantee that they will indeed be able to pay the bills. They're not allowed to just use the money they take in from premiums and use it to pay claims. That's a pyramid scam.

And this next part is scary to me as a numbers person - I have no idea how they're maintaining those reserves. Their investment options are limited, and interest rates are still depressed far below market value. No math I can do makes any sense.

Taking this away from the states and giving it to the Feds is probably the insurers getting ready for the inevitable crash. And instead of a couple of states being affected, millions of people across the whole country will suddenly have no insurance, and a huge stack of bills their hospital forwarded when the insurer went bankrupt. It's the next too big to fail, brought to you by John McCain who has aggressively working on this for 15 years.

[specsaregood]

You literally fabricating an alternate reality to avoid the uncomfortable current reality.

You are right. You will be contracting with an agency in another state. You cannot do that now because of states' rights. The 10th Amendment says that the state has the right to regulate the products sold to the residents of the state.

This legislation erases those lines and hands the regulations to the feds. Constitutionally this is a loss. Freedom-wise, this is a loss.

That sounds concerning; but according to Randal all those corporate and erisa policies were already doing this. And the EO simply makes it possible for independent associations to do the same thing.

[euphemia]

Here's the point, though. If insurance companies could operate a little more uniformly, it might reduce rates all around. If PretendBestHealth could operate under one set of rules, it could probably do so with less staff and fewer forms. As it is now, there are 50 different subsidiaries with 50 sets of rules. Sounds like removing obstacles might be helpful, and maybe I won't be paying for more restrictions in New York, even though I live in Tennessee.

[angelatc]

I am ignorant on this stuff, I admit it.

Was it federally prohibited to purchase across state lines and now it is not?

Or was it up to the states to choose and now it is mandated that they allow out of state insurance?

I'm not sure how I feel yet. Thanks for helping me out here.

The states have (had) the right to regulate insurers who sold insurance products to the residents of that state.
Before Obamacare, it meant that states like Illinois required well baby checks and vaccines in all policies, while Arkansas allowed policies that only kicked in when your expenses went over $10k a year. (Guess which state had cheaper insurance?)

It also means that the state government had the authority to get involved in disputes. It means that the insurer has to prove over and over and over that it has enough cash to cover the claims the state expects its insured patients to file. It meant the person who sold the policy has taken tests to confirm they understand the insurance laws in said state.

It also meant that insurance cost less in (using the example above) Arkansas than Illinois. Partly because the mandated coverages were lessened in Arkansas, although Obamacare already erased that right. But it was also partly because costs were simply less in Arkansas. Taxes are lower, demand is lower, etc....

Allowing someone in Chicago to buy a policy at the rates the Arkansas residents paid will only serve to drive the prices in Arkansas up.

[angelatc]

Here's the point, though. If insurance companies could operate a little more uniformly, it might reduce rates all around. If PretendBestHealth could operate under one set of rules, it could probably do so with less staff and fewer forms. As it is now, there are 50 different subsidiaries with 50 sets of rules. Sounds like removing obstacles might be helpful, and maybe I won't be paying for more restrictions in New York, even though I live in Tennessee.

That's possible, but I bear in mind that's exactly what they said when they erased the banking lines between states. It would lessen the administrative burdens and consumers would see lower costs. I believed it then. Instead we got a massive amount of industry consolidation which created those now legendary too big to fail behemoths. I feel like this is that same scenario being played out. It's just another power grab by the Fed.

And here's the bigger point. If it's better for the Feds to run it then amend the constitution. I'm more irritated about that than I am the insurance thing. If they bring back the cheap catastrophic coverage only policies, then I'm happier than I am now.

[angelatc]

That sounds concerning; but according to Randal all those corporate and erisa policies were already doing this. And the EO simply makes it possible for independent associations to do the same thing.

I trust Rand's judgement, and I've never been a political purist. I don't think it's the end of the world - I just think it's another constitutional paper cut.

[Madison320]

The constitution specifically forbids the states from taxing interstate commerce.


Isn't it the same as a tax by the states making it complicated and expensive for out of state insurance companies? The states could do the same thing with any out of state product. Florida could require orange growers to undergo intensive training, only offered in Florida. That would serve as a tax on California orange growers.



Taking this away from the states and giving it to the Feds is probably the insurers getting ready for the inevitable crash. And instead of a couple of states being affected, millions of people across the whole country will suddenly have no insurance, and a huge stack of bills their hospital forwarded when the insurer went bankrupt. It's the next too big to fail, brought to you by John McCain who has aggressively working on this for 15 years.

Just because the Federal govt denies states the right to tax goods across state lines doesn't necessarily mean it's run by the Feds.

I'll concede that we'd be FAR better off if the Fed were totally out of it, even if we couldn't shop across state lines. That would mean no Medicare or Obamacare or all the other millions of federal regs driving up the cost of healthcare. And much lower Federal tax rates.

Also remember that the ultimate regulator is the free market. The states shouldn't be checking to see if insurance companies have reserves. That reputation should be earned over time in the free market.

[euphemia]

Truck drivers pay gas taxes in every state they drive.

[angelatc]

Isn't it the same as a tax by the states making it complicated and expensive for out of state insurance companies? The states could do the same thing with any out of state product. Florida could require orange growers to undergo intensive training, only offered in Florida. That would serve as a tax on California orange growers.

There are already certain plants that can't be sold in certain states. California regulates safety and emission standards for automobiles that can be sold within its boundaries. Some states allow 18 year olds to buy cigarettes but they can't legally buy them on the internet and have them delivered into their home.

Auto insurance varies from state to state. But if I go to Ohio and try to buy car insurance because it's cheaper there, they won't let me because I live in Michigan. If I lie and say I live in Ohio, they won't be obligated to pay because I purchased the policy fraudulently. The reason ours costs more is because we have a particular potentially expensive mandatory benefit - unlimited lifetime medical for accident-related injuries.

There is a push to reform our auto insurance. We have 49 other states we can look at to see what works.




I'll concede that we'd be FAR better off if the Fed were totally out of it, even if we couldn't shop across state lines. That would mean no Medicare or Obamacare or all the other millions of federal regs driving up the cost of healthcare. And much lower Federal tax rates.

Also remember that the ultimate regulator is the free market. The states shouldn't be checking to see if insurance companies have reserves. That reputation should be earned over time in the free market.

What the state should and shouldn't do is a different conversation than what the constitution allows them to do.

Across state lines means the insurers won't have to hire 50+ sets of lobbyists.

[Swordsmyth]

angelatc

Try refuting post #52, I will repeat it:


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by angelatc http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6538764#post6538764)

Maybe not morally but legally it does indeed have the right (or it did, until Trump erased another constitutional line) to regulate goods and services sold within its boundaries.

I'll type this again because I'm apparently having an insomniac night - each state currently regulates insurers operating within its boundaries. Those regulations include training, licensing, coverages and reserves. The only thing that stops you from buying a policy from a company not currently operating in your state is the decision of that company not to adhere to your local government's regulations.

They are not operating within my states boundaries, I am purchasing a service that takes place in another state.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by angelatc http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6538764#post6538764)

Taking the right of the states to write those regulations is not a win for freedom when it means only the federal government will be allowed to write those rules now. This is a loss for local, smaller government.




They can still regulate insurance companies in their state, and the feds already regulate anything they feel like whether they should or not so this doesn't change that, if they stopped the state/s with the best regulations (in the opinion of the customers) would end up deciding what the rules should be.
.







http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by angelatc http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6538764#post6538764)

It's intrastate commerce. You're buying the policy from your basement in your home state, and you're using a system of medical providers in your home state.




The cashing and cutting of checks and all the calculations involved in the business takes place in the other state, I am engaging in interstate commerce when I buy their services.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by angelatc http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=6538764#post6538764)

Whether they should do it is a different issue than whether they have the right to do it. I actually have a cite for my position, which is obviously that the Tenth Amendment clearly gives all rights not specifically delegated to the Fedgov to the states or the people.



And that does not include the regulation of interstate commerce.

[nobody's_hero]

You literally fabricating an alternate reality to avoid the uncomfortable current reality.

You are right. You will be contracting with an agency in another state. You cannot do that now because of states' rights. The 10th Amendment says that the state has the right to regulate the products sold to the residents of the state.

This legislation erases those lines and hands the regulations to the feds. Constitutionally this is a loss. Freedom-wise, this is a loss.

I think you're misinterpreting it pretty badly. The Feds already have the power to regulate interstate commerce. The original intent was to prevent states from having trade wars with each other. Of course, we know how awful Washington is at guessing original intent. I'm quite surprised they got it right with this one. (well, Rand and Trump did, the rest of them are probably hopeless, and Trump probably wouldn't have thought of it if not for that gnat Rand Paul who keeps flying into Trumps ear, lol)

I don't see this as being any different than buying cigarettes on the other side of a state border. People should be free to do that. If the state with exorbitant cigarette taxes has a problem with it, they can go eat a bag of dicks for being so stupid with their taxes.

[enhanced_deficit]

This was in news in recently but not being talked about now, there could be additional repercussions of this Trump move:


How Repealing Obamacare Will Hit the LGBT Community Extra-Hard
A repeal of the Affordable Care Act would mean the removal of vital protections for LGBT Americans

Jan 29, 2017
You’re probably familiar with some of the things the ACA does, like protecting people with pre-existing conditions and keeping young people on their parents’ health plans. But it does some particularly important things for the ***** community. That’s because LGBTs are less likely than straight people to be insured, and less likely to have insurance through their spouse. And even when ***** people are insured, insurance companies are more likely to discriminate against them. So to fix that, the ACA set up a system in the Office of Civil Rights to make sure LGBTs get equal access to coverage. And sure enough, in just the first year since the ACA was enacted, the number of uninsured LGBTs decreased by 24%.

So now LGBTs are more likely to have health coverage, and less likely to have coverage denied. That’s a big deal, because there are a lot of health issues that disproportionately affect ***** people. Of course, HIV is the big one, and the ACA provides for free HIV tests as a preventative measure. But it also supports health care like smoking cessation, which ***** people are more likely to need. And screening for depression, which is of heightened concern for LGBTs. HPV, hepatitis, eating disorders, even breast cancer are more prevalent among certain ***** populations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_and_the_LGBT_community). And the ACA helps people deal with all of those things so you don’t have to declare bankruptcy just because you got sick.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-obamacare-repeal-will-hit-the-lgbt-community-extra_us_588b6c21e4b0020b224b43d7

[angelatc]

angelatc

[QUOTE]Try refuting post #52, I will repeat it:


They are not operating within my states boundaries, I am purchasing a service that takes place in another state.

No, the service (medical care) takes place in your home state. Your state currently has laws regulating the insurers who sell insurance to residents in your state. They also regulate payments to the providers in your state.




The cashing and cutting of checks and all the calculations involved in the business takes place in the other state, I am engaging in interstate commerce when I buy their services. If that were true, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation, now would we?

[angelatc]

This was in news in recently but not being talked about now, there could be additional repercussions of this Trump move:


How Repealing Obamacare Will Hit the LGBT Community Extra-Hard
A repeal of the Affordable Care Act would mean the removal of vital protections for LGBT Americans

Jan 29, 2017
You’re probably familiar with some of the things the ACA does, like protecting people with pre-existing conditions and keeping young people on their parents’ health plans. But it does some particularly important things for the ***** community. That’s because LGBTs are less likely than straight people to be insured, and less likely to have insurance through their spouse. And even when ***** people are insured, insurance companies are more likely to discriminate against them. So to fix that, the ACA set up a system in the Office of Civil Rights to make sure LGBTs get equal access to coverage. And sure enough, in just the first year since the ACA was enacted, the number of uninsured LGBTs decreased by 24%.
extra_us_588b6c21e4b0020b224b43d7[/URL]

Do you think part of that might be related to gay marriage though?

[Swordsmyth]

No, the service (medical care) takes place in your home state. Your state currently has laws regulating the insurers who sell insurance to residents in your state. They also regulate payments to the providers in your state.

The medical care is not the same service as the insurance, the insurance is being done in the other state.




If that were true, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation, now would we?

I am right so that proves I am right?

Whether it is interstate commerce or not is the question we are debating, you can't claim "The science is settled".

[angelatc]

The medical care is not the same service as the insurance, the insurance is being done in the other state.





I am right so that proves I am right?

Whether it is interstate commerce or not is the question we are debating, you can't claim "The science is settled".

It isn't science. It's law. (http://www.insurancecompact.org/documents/compact_statute.pdf) The law allows the states to regulate insurers who sell policies to the residents of their state. If it didn't, the FedGov wouldn't be trying to erase those boundaries. IF you were right, insurers woule already be crossing state lines, so we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Swordsmyth]

It isn't science. It's law. The law allows the states to regulate insurers who sell policies to the residents of their state. If it didn't, the FedGov wouldn't be trying to erase those boundaries. IF you were right, insurers woule already be crossing state lines, so we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Because you imagine that the law and the constitution are always followed?
The states have been violating the constitution and now something is finally being done about it.

[angelatc]

The states have been violating the constitution and now something is finally being done about it.

Oh FFS.


If they were violating the Constitution, SCOTUS would be doing something, not the legislature. Congress can't write constitutional law without amending the Constitution.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh FFS.


If they were violating the Constitution, SCOTUS would be doing something, not the legislature. Congress can't write constitutional law without amending the Constitution.

I thought we were discussing the executive branch? (Trump's EO) Trump doesn't need the courts or an amendment to enforce what is already in the constitution.
And congress does not need to amend the constitution to enforce what is already in it.

[angelatc]

I thought we were discussing the executive branch? (Trump's EO) Trump doesn't need the courts or an amendment to enforce what is already in the constitution.
And congress does not need to amend the constitution to enforce what is already in it.

Here's a SCOTUS decision that indicates I'm more right than you. In before "SCOTUS IS WRONG TOO."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_v._Virginia


Paul v. Virginia, 75 US 168 (1869), held that a corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Of greater consequence, the Court further held that "issuing a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce," effectively removing the business of insurance beyond the United States Congress's legislative reach.

So now you're arguing against the 10th AMendment and 150 years of legal decisions. Maybe SCOTUS was wrong. But as it stands, their rulings are considered the determination of what's constitutional.

At this point, we should be amending the constitution.

(I hate that I'm arguing an entirely bullshit point on Ron Paul Forums in 2017.)

[Swordsmyth]

Here's a SCOTUS decision that indicates I'm more right than you. In before "SCOTUS IS WRONG TOO."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_v._Virginia



So now you're arguing against the 10th AMendment and 150 years of legal decisions. Maybe SCOTUS was wrong. But as it stands, their rulings are considered the determination of what's constitutional.

At this point, we should be amending the constitution.

(I hate that I'm arguing an entirely bull$#@! point on Ron Paul Forums in 2017.)

The Dred Scott decision was wrong too, it's time to enforce the constitution and let them sue over it, then we can get that idiotic decision overturned.

[specsaregood]

While we are citing court cases, here are 2 that Randal is citing in his media interviews on the right to associate:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_v._Alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_v._United_States_Jaycees


I think there was another one, but haven't found the interview he referenced it in yet.

[angelatc]

And because I am not a lawyer, a little more Googling brought me to the McCarran–Ferguson Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act#Significance_to_U.S. _health_care_reform_in_the_21st_century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act#Significance_to_U.S. _health_care_reform_in_the_21st_century

Apparently it overturned at least a portion of Paul-v-Virginia giving Congress "the right" to enforce anti-trust actions against insurers in the states.

According to Wiki:


One aspect of Republican proposals for healthcare reform in the United States is allowing interstate competition for health insurance, requiring modification of the McCarran–Ferguson Act.[21] In February 2010, the House of Representatives voted 406-19 to repeal the McCarran–Ferguson Act with regard to health insurance.[22]

I don't understand why we are cheering Donald Trump when he uses the Executive Order to overwrite law right after we spent 8 solid years bitching because Obama did the same damned thing.

[angelatc]

In before "SCOTUS IS WRONG TOO."



The Dred Scott decision was wrong too, it's time to enforce the constitution and let them sue over it, then we can get that idiotic decision overturned.

Nailed it.

[dude58677]

I agree that the changes are good, but they are microscopic. Overall people are going to be worse off, just not quite as worse off.

Until they remove the pre-existing condition mandate, they haven't done squat. The pre-existing condition mandate is the core of Obamacare.

He did that the first but the fake news media made people forget.

[specsaregood]

I don't understand why we are cheering Donald Trump when he uses the Executive Order to overwrite law right after we spent 8 solid years bitching because Obama did the same damned thing.

I'm on the fence as far as that is concerned, but for the time being I'm going to side with Randal who has obviously researched it more than myself and feels that it does not overwrite law. He clearly says that in a number of interviews that, that he doesn't think the law being cited forbids these associations and in fact all restrictions were created in the administrative/executive branch and not congress.

[Swordsmyth]

And because I am not a lawyer, a little more Googling brought me to the McCarran–Ferguson Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act#Significance_to_U.S. _health_care_reform_in_the_21st_century)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act#Significance_to_U.S. _health_care_reform_in_the_21st_century

Apparently it overturned at least a portion of Paul-v-Virginia giving Congress "the right" to enforce anti-trust actions against insurers in the states.

According to Wiki:



I don't understand why we are cheering Donald Trump when he uses the Executive Order to overwrite law right after we spent 8 solid years bitching because Obama did the same damned thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act#Significance_to_U.S. _health_care_reform_in_the_21st_century

The McCarran–Ferguson Act does not itself regulate insurance, nor does it mandate that states regulate insurance. It provides that "Acts of Congress" which do not expressly purport to regulate the "business of insurance" will not preempt state laws or regulations that regulate the "business of insurance."[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act#cite_note-dic-1)
Specifically with respect to federal antitrust laws it exempts the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, with the proviso that cases of boycott (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott), coercion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion), and intimidation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation) remain prohibited regardless of state regulation. By contrast, most other federal laws will not apply to insurance whether the states regulate in that area or not.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%93Ferguson_Act#cite_note-2)


What it does not and can not do is give the states the power to regulate interstate commerce, as I said before they can regulate any insurance companies in their state.

[nobody's_hero]

It isn't science. It's law. (http://www.insurancecompact.org/documents/compact_statute.pdf) The law allows the states to regulate insurers who sell policies to the residents of their state. If it didn't, the FedGov wouldn't be trying to erase those boundaries. IF you were right, insurers woule already be crossing state lines, so we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Pick something other than health insurance. Amazon, for example. I order something online and it gets delivered from a warehouse in Texas to me here in Georgia. It's a fairly simple transaction, no one gets up in arms about it. The fed.gov doesn't become a leviathan because I bought something, and the state of Georgia doesn't become weaker. The can of worms remains sealed. The cat stays in the bag. It's a simple transaction.

So why does free market economics suddenly not apply when people are talking about health insurance? Interstate commerce already exists. It's only health insurance that we've put in a bubble and tried to shield from competition.

[Madison320]

There are already certain plants that can't be sold in certain states. California regulates safety and emission standards for automobiles that can be sold within its boundaries. Some states allow 18 year olds to buy cigarettes but they can't legally buy them on the internet and have them delivered into their home.

Auto insurance varies from state to state. But if I go to Ohio and try to buy car insurance because it's cheaper there, they won't let me because I live in Michigan. If I lie and say I live in Ohio, they won't be obligated to pay because I purchased the policy fraudulently. The reason ours costs more is because we have a particular potentially expensive mandatory benefit - unlimited lifetime medical for accident-related injuries.


Can you buy a policy in Ohio as long as it conforms to Michigan's requirements? I think you'd be violating the commerce clause if the state requirements were tricked up to make it more expensive for out of state businesses to conform. That would be an import tax. I agree that states should be able to do whatever stupid crap they want, as long as they keep it stupid equally, in state and out of state.

Anyway I don't think letting insurers cross state lines will make much difference in the cost of insurance. There are tons of much bigger problems driving up costs like Medicare, thousands of regulations, doctor licensing, forcing doctors to treat patients, FDA, DEA, malpractice, etc, etc.

[AuH20]

And the skullduggery begins! Scumbags want their illicit funds!

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/states-ask-us-court-to-order-trump-to-continue-healthcare-payments/ar-AAtGYws?li=AA4ZnC&ocid=spartanntp


In a court filing, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asked a federal judge in northern California to issue a ruling by Thursday that would force the Trump administration to continue making the payments. Becerra is leading a coalition of 19 Democratic attorneys general that have sued over the decision. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; editing by Grant McCool)

[angelatc]

Pick something other than health insurance. Amazon, for example. I order something online and it gets delivered from a warehouse in Texas to me here in Georgia. It's a fairly simple transaction, no one gets up in arms about it. The fed.gov doesn't become a leviathan because I bought something, and the state of Georgia doesn't become weaker. The can of worms remains sealed. The cat stays in the bag. It's a simple transaction.

So why does free market economics suddenly not apply when people are talking about health insurance? Interstate commerce already exists. It's only health insurance that we've put in a bubble and tried to shield from competition.

There are a myriad of products aside from insurance that some people can't buy in some states though, because the state regulates it. Alcohol plants tobacco wood firearms animals drugs.....if you shop on-line certainly you've seen the "No shipping to.....<insert states here>" disclaimer.

I am not saying free markets are not best.

[Swordsmyth]

There are a myriad of products aside from insurance that some people can't buy in some states though, because the state regulates it. Alcohol plants tobacco wood firearms animals drugs.....if you shop on-line certainly you've seen the "No shipping to.....<insert states here>" disclaimer.

I am not saying free markets are not best.

But the insurance service does not enter the state, it takes place in the other state and then they send or receive money.

[Working Poor]

Oh FFS.


If they were violating the Constitution, SCOTUS would be doing something, not the legislature. Congress can't write constitutional law without amending the Constitution.

If we are still talking about ACA then to me it seems unconstitutional to force me to buy this BS. I won't use it and don't want it. I want nothing from insurance companies they make me so angry I put them right up there with monsanto as far as causing harm to humanity. I ought to be free to not purchase what I do not want. Just like I ought to be able to purchase what I want as long as there is no harm to others. It seem like in these times the more something can harm you the more mandatory and abundant it is. I just can't believe that there are people who think they need this BSSSSSS.