Why would allowing individuals the ability to buy insurance out of state be good for them?

[LiberalFighter]

Aren't most insurance companies registered in most states?

Wouldn't the insurance company still base the rate on the locality of the insured?

How would the premiums be reduced?

[frazzled]

1. Because it would be crappy cheap insurance from the most unregulated state

That's the idea ... all the insurance companies would move to Alabama, or wherever they are, and bilk people from other states out of their money for little to no coverage.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Then to avert that it should be required that insurance companies

operating outside the insured's state be regulated by the federal government.

Tag that to their amendment and see what they do.

[sandnsea]

2. If we regulated a minimum policy in every state

Then it would bring everybody up to decent insurance which would be good.

Of course that's not what the Repubs have in mind.

[housewolf]

4. Increased competiton and larger markets

No, most insurance companies are not registered in all/most states. Some of the big ones are but there are dozens and dozens of insurance companiesm many registered in only small areas. Many areas of the country have access to only 1, 2 or maybe 3 different insurers, and they can offer as limited a list of choices and options as they want. And if they deny someone, there's nowhere else they can go.

So the purpose of eliminating the state boundaries is to open up competition and give consumers more choice. That's the benefit on the consumer side. On the insurer's side, it open the market of potential customers to them.

The downside is that each state currently regulate the insurers who can sell in their states. I'm not sure how the states and their insurance regulators would be affected if all insurance companies could sell in all states.

[KT2000]

12. the insurance companies

would base themselves in the states with the least regulation. They could then sell their insurance in all states and not need to follow the state regulations where their customers are located. It would essentially turn into an unregulated industry.
You can also be sure that states would compete with each other to draw those company headquarters to their states by eliminating those bothersome regs.

[DrToast]

14. Except there are federal regulations that they must meet

That's how it's set up in the health care bill.

[KT2000]

15. Oh - OK

I need to look that up because the state where I live (Washington) has good insurance regulations and usually good commissioners that actively enforce the regs.

Thanks for info

[DrToast]

17. You were right to be worried about that

The Republican plan was to let them sell across state line and be allowed to do whatever the hell the least regulated state would let them.

[wryter2000]

5. It wouldn't

The agrument is it would increase competition. (It's my understanding that in some states one or two companies have almost a monopoly.)

The problem is, they're all in collusion. They're never going to compete with each other when they can keep all their prices at the same high level.

[JamesA1102]

6. We let the banks cross state lines. How did that turn out?

There are two reasons this is a bad idea.

1. All insurance companies would migrate to the state with the least regulations and consumer protections.

2. The big insurance companies could then buy up all the small ones and before you know it there will be about a handful of insurance companies that are 'too big to fail'.

[DrToast]

11. How has letting the states regulate insurance companies worked out so far?

[JamesA1102]

19. Depends on what state you live in. nt

[tosh]

16. And...

If a customer or a provider has a complaint, who do they call?

To me it seems contrary to their (repugs') "smaller government" meme.

I guess they want it to go totally unregulated. Yeah, that ought to work.:shrug:

[doc03]

7. deleted

[doc03]

8. Why do Democrats oppose that, wouldn't that promote

competition and lower premiums?

[DrToast]

13. Democrats don't oppose that. It's part of the health care bill

[doc03]

20. The Republicans have two main talking points

they want tort reform and insurance companies to be able to sell across state lines. If it is in the bill why haven't I ever heard a Democrat call them out on the issue?

[jmm]

9. I use to work for a MA based company that only offered RI insurance because it was cheaper.

Yeah, BC/BS is everywhere but I would've had to travel over an hour to see anybody in my network despite living on the same street as a hospital and a few health clinics. The one time I used it I lost my voice and essentially was forced to go to an emergency room for something that could've been treated there.

[stray cat]

10. Many companies have virtual monopolies within a state - more competition less insurance control

[sohndrsmith]

18. I don't know. But it seems rather medieval for someone to lose

coverage if they spend the summer in another state (or something). It seems some policies/companies have coverage when out of state, but that hasn't been my experience. Maybe I'm wrong, but if my child is covered by "Health Insurance of (State)", their copays don't apply when with me for the summer. Luckily, we haven't had any serious ER events, illnesses or injuries.

One of my kids is supposed to travel with a particular medication (the copay for which is $25 in state), but when the ex refuses to let my kid bring it along, my cost for getting it here is several hundred dollars. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me...

Are there insurance plans that cover one's health needs out of state without incurring extra cost? If that were the case, seems as though the "across state lines" would be a moot point, no?