Let's support health care competition across state lines

[low preference guy]

Why aren't we supporting health care competition across states lines?

There is a bill, H.R. 3217, which will allow health care providers to sell their services across state lines. This is a free market solution to health care, which will increase competition, drive costs downs, and improve quality.

The bill is cosponsored by Ron Paul.

Why aren't we supporting this, like we did with HR 1207?

Passing this would be huge, because it will show that government intervention is not necessary to improve health care.

[Chester Copperpot]

okay sounds good to me

[heavenlyboy34]

Why aren't we supporting health care competition across states lines?

There is a bill, H.R. 3217, which will allow health care providers to sell their services across state lines. This is a free market solution to health care, which will increase competition, drive costs downs, and improve quality.

The bill is cosponsored by Ron Paul.

Why aren't we supporting this, like we did with HR 1207?

Passing this would be huge, because it will show that government intervention is not necessary to improve health care.

Because I haven't read the text, and I'm always suspicious of the gov'ment.

[angelatc]

Why aren't we supporting health care competition across states lines?
.

Because it infringes on state's rights.

Because allowing the banks to do business across state lines led to a contraction in providers and an escalation of fees.

[Chester Copperpot]

Because it infringes on state's rights.

Because allowing the banks to do business across state lines led to a contraction in providers and an escalation of fees.

but this is an area where the federal govt is supposed to infringe on the states.. keep the states from monopolizing....


In the text of HR3217 they even put a specification of constitionality in the bill so people know where its authorized.. I like that..

heres the text

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-3217

[Acala]

This is a drop in the bucket. Health insurance costs a fortune because health care costs a fortune. Health care costs a fortune because the supply is restricted at every turn (by government) and the demand is hyper-stimulated (by government).

A REAL solution to the health care problem requires government to get OUT of health care at every level.

[angelatc]

but this is an area where the federal govt is supposed to infringe on the states.. keep the states from monopolizing....


In the text of HR3217 they even put a specification of constitionality in the bill so people know where its authorized.. I like that..

heres the text

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h111-3217

Yeah, but it's the Commerce Clause, one of the most misused sections of the document. It's a liberal, self-serving interpretation. That's the very clause that enabled the Fed to regulate everything they're not supposed to.

It isn't a monopoly when there are several firms competing. The problem lies in the fact that every state has a loooong list of things that policies must cover. If the people of California want their policies to cover vaccinations and Viagra, then they should have the right. Likewise, if the people of Iowa want to pay for those things out of pocket and only carry major medical, they should allow it.

In any event, tt's a huge mistake to take away another little bit of the local government and expect that the fed gov will give us anything better.

[Dunedain]

This is a drop in the bucket. Health insurance costs a fortune because health care costs a fortune. Health care costs a fortune because the supply is restricted at every turn (by government) and the demand is hyper-stimulated (by government).

A REAL solution to the health care problem requires government to get OUT of health care at every level.

The only thing government can do to help is let us keep more of our own money for healthcare. They're called HSAs.

[Dunedain]

Because it infringes on state's rights.

Because allowing the banks to do business across state lines led to a contraction in providers and an escalation of fees.

Do you believe selling other goods or services across state lines infringes on states rights?

[Aratus]

i'm into things free market! in light of what ron paul has just cosigned, lets make it so! the eventual bill
sen. mitch mcconnell lets sail thru the Senate maybe just MIGHT have olympia snow's idea in it or worse...

[angelatc]

Do you believe selling other goods or services across state lines infringes on states rights?

So, you think that all goods should be equally available in each and every state? The DEA, the FDA, the CPA....they all thank you.

Uh, there's not really much of an argument that this wouldn't be taking away a right of the states. They clearly already have the right to regulate the insurers that operate in their borders.

This is a gross distortion of the original intent of the interstate commerce clause, and just another sleazy power grab. I can't believe that more people don't see it.

50 states testing 50 different plans is a far better alternative than allowing the federal government to make the calls.

[angelatc]

i'm into things free market! in light of what ron paul has just cosigned, lets make it so! the eventual bill
sen. mitch mcconnell lets sail thru the Senate maybe just MIGHT have olympia snow's idea in it or worse...

You're mistaking "free market" with "more federal regulation."

Again, look what happened when they did this exact same thing to the banking industry. Did banking costs go down? No. Did interest rise as they competed for our savings? No. Did interest rates fall because they were eagerly trying to compete for our borrowing business? Not really.

Did the small banks get swallowed by the big banks? Yes.

[low preference guy]

You're mistaking "free market" with "more federal regulation."

Again, look what happened when they did this exact same thing to the banking industry. Did banking costs go down? No. Did interest rise as they competed for our savings? No. Did interest rates fall because they were eagerly trying to compete for our borrowing business? Not really.

Did the small banks get swallowed by the big banks? Yes.

The banking case is different. The government insured the losses, but deregulated profitable but risky practices. The result was of course excessive risk taking. Once you guarantee the losses, you have to regulate them.

The insurance market is different. There is no FDIC equivalent for health care companies. That's why capitalism can work there. Because losses are not insured. If they are to some degree, such government insurance must be repealed so the free market can work.

[Acala]

The only thing government can do to help is let us keep more of our own money for healthcare. They're called HSAs.

You think the ONLY thing government can do in response to the health care mess is let us pay for health care with untaxed money?

I suggest you study the way supply and demand creates prices and then look at how government interference restricts supply and stimulates demand.

[Brian Defferding]

Normally I'm a federalist on most issues, but this is one where I think the federal government needs to push for full interstate competition. One of the many reasons why health care is expensive is due to how each state's laws govern health care. It really does stunt competition, or at least deters it by a significant degree. Of course, the HMO Act needs to be either abolished, or citizens need to see the same tax benefits that companies do when they provide health care. Making health care tax deductible would help too.

I mean, I suppose we all could work within our state to repeal mandated minimum services for insurance, and various malpractice laws and insurance laws in our state, but how do we think that is going to fair? That's quite a big effort to execute. It will take all fifty states to cooperate.