Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 94

Thread: Trump to Terminate Sketchy ACA Subsidies

  1. #61
    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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    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.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.

  5. #64
    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.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Wooden Indian View Post
    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.
    Last edited by angelatc; 10-14-2017 at 10:47 AM.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by euphemia View Post
    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.
    Last edited by angelatc; 10-14-2017 at 10:55 AM.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    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.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.

  11. #69
    Truck drivers pay gas taxes in every state they drive.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    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.

  13. #71
    @angelatc

    Try refuting post #52, I will repeat it:

    Originally Posted by angelatc

    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.

    Originally Posted by angelatc

    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.
    .





    Originally Posted by angelatc

    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.

    Originally Posted by angelatc

    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 10-14-2017 at 01:15 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    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. 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...b0020b224b43d7

  17. #74
    [QUOTE=Swordsmyth;6538904]@angelatc

    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?

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by enhanced_deficit View Post
    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?

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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".
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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. 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.
    Last edited by angelatc; 10-14-2017 at 02:30 PM.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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 bull$#@! point on Ron Paul Forums in 2017.)
    Last edited by angelatc; 10-14-2017 at 02:40 PM.

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #83
    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/Robert...States_Jaycees


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

  28. #84
    And because I am not a lawyer, a little more Googling brought me to the McCarran–Ferguson Act

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarr...e_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.

  29. #85
    In before "SCOTUS IS WRONG TOO."



    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    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.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    And because I am not a lawyer, a little more Googling brought me to the McCarran–Ferguson Act

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarr...e_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/McCarr...e_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]
    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, coercion, and 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]


    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 10-14-2017 at 08:09 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

    We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me

    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm
    I part ways with "libertarianism" when it transitions from ideology grounded in logic into self-defeating autism for the sake of ideological purity.

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Trump administration to terminate Obama's climate plan
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-09-2017, 09:11 PM
  2. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 05-08-2017, 04:09 PM
  3. There Is Just One Sentence In The Bill To Terminate The EPA
    By tommyrp12 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 03-07-2017, 01:11 PM
  4. Sketchy Push-Polling linked to Huckabee Campaign
    By DrJimiJon in forum Bad Media Reporting on Ron Paul
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-09-2008, 05:19 PM
  5. Sketchy Audience
    By ronpaulfan in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-21-2007, 11:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •