allowing unrestricted competition across state lines

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

...allowing unrestricted competition across state lines would lead to a race to the bottom. The states with the weakest regulations — for example, those that allow insurance companies to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence — would set the standards for the nation as a whole. The result would be to afflict the afflicted, to make the lives of Americans with pre-existing conditions even harder.

Don’t take my word for it. Look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House G.O.P. plan. That analysis is discreetly worded, with the budget office declaring somewhat obscurely that while the number of uninsured Americans wouldn’t change much, “the pool of people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on average, than under current law.” But here’s the translation: While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American health care system would become even more brutal than it is now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html

[ThomWV]

1. The state with the least coverage, least payout, least price, will end up being the most popular

Just like Wal Mart, the race to the bottom is the race to find the lowest quality product that a gullible public is still willing to pay for, although the purchased item offers little to no utility.

[COLGATE4]

2. Exactly. Look at what happened with credit cards. To be able to

take advantage of lax regulation and lax usury laws almost all are located in N. Dakota. Same thing will happen with Insurers.

[Jkid]

6. One good reason for federal legislation to deal with these varied State laws.

Federal legislation will force states that have weak laws in that category to update their laws to meet or exceed them or simply enforce the new federal law passed.

[cbdo2007]

3. And everyone else's premiums would go up.....Obama should have explained

that to them yesterday when they were complaining that premiums would go up under his plan.

He needs to fire back about that sh*t rather than just take it. Their plans are just as sh*tty as his!!!

[Juche]

4. Yup, which is why Obama wants federal regulation before they have state to state competition

Boehner wrote the concept of regulation off as 'whining', or something like that on MTP.

Another issue is that insurance companies can just lobby a small state in financial strain to pass very anti-consumer laws in exchange for setting up shop there. That is what credit card companies did in south dakota. Told them if they pass laws against consumer protection, they'd all set up shop there and bring jobs.

I don't understand how anyone who pays attention (and who isn't rich) could vote republican. I'm not saying they should all vote democratic, but who'd vote for this? The GOP proposal is to give private insurance companies even more power to deny and rescind coverage to people who need it. Who makes 40k a year and has a family (and pays attention to the issues), and still votes for that?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Under proper circumstances, competition would certainly help.

Companies whom provide insurance to out of state customers should still have to meet minimum guidelines for the state the insurance customer resides in. There should be a federally set minimum level of coverage and state whom wish to impose a higher standard should be allowed to do so. If a company in a "federal minimum" state sells a policy to a resident in a "higher standard" state, the policy should be forced to maintain that higher minimum level of coverage for the consumer. The source of the company would not matter... only the residence of the buyer. Such interstate competition would certainly be helpful.

For example, I have a CHL permit which permits me to carry a loaded concealed firearm.
When I travel to another state where my CHL is valid, I must abide by THEIR laws.
In Texas for example, my firearm cannot be seen through my clothing or be in plain/partial view whatsoever by penalty of law.
In a Virginian restaurant/bar, the firearm MUST be plainly or partially visible and not completely concealed.
In Ohio, I cannot carry ANYWHERE where alcohol is served (and no state allows the consumption of alcohol while carrying).
These may not be issues in my home state but I must abide THEIR stricter standards when I'm in THEIR state.

The solution to your topic is simple: Policies must meet the minimum standards of the policy-holder's resident state.
Then the states have the power to set minimum standards for their residents. Otherwise, set a Federal minimum as well.
:shrug:

[abluelady]

7. And I Have a Question

Certain states require coverage of procedures that other states don't. Who is going to monitor the outcomes when the buyers haven't read the fine print and come to realize that their insurance doesn't meet State standards? I bet there are not enough buttons on a phone to press when trying to fix the problem.

[dkf]

8. This allows crappy insurance to get crappier.

Frankly I don't trust a republican when it comes to providing fairness. They are perfectly fine seeing people get ripped off.