State Regulated Vs. Federally Regulated

[scagnt83]

While Im normally a big advocate of states rights. I am not when it comes to health insurance. Its a different animal than other lines.

Healthcare is vital to the future success of this nation. And currently, as a result of our system, health insurance is the best way to receive quality healthcare. There are already many disparities between the states when it comes to regulations, which produce varying plan structures from state to state. Which in turn makes it an even more confusing product for the consumer and agent. Which in turn works against our industry and our nation, on many levels.

If we plan to keep health insurance as the most efficient means of receiving healthcare, it should be standardized on a national level, not a state level (imo). This should help foster increased choices and competition (imo).

Unfortunately the ones who are currently in power at the federal level feel that insurance regulation should consist of mandates that make the insurance companies the ward of a socialistic state.

So discounting current power holding ideology; in a perfect world, should HI be regulated on a federal level or a state level?

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

If we plan to keep health insurance as the most efficient means of receiving healthcare, it should be standardized on a national level, not a state level (imo). This should help foster increased choices and competition (imo).

Exactly backwards. The answer isn't "more regulation and rigidity", it's less.

History has shown us that "standardized on a national level" equals less choice, less competition, poorer quality and higher cost.

Open up the market so folks can buy across state lines. Then you'll see many more choices - and big increases in competition.

 

[scagnt83]

I never said it should be more rigid and more regulated. I feel that it should have less regulation.

Im not a fan of GI or SI even on group policies. Speaking of group policies, im not a fan of employer sponsored health insurance either. Another example of heavy government regulation.

I guess I should have stated "loose/light regulation, but at a federal level"

And with federal regulation "buying across state lines" would be a mute point. It would open up the market the same way.

Even with state regulation and the ability to buy across state lines, id bet the majority of people would pick similar coverage types; then once they start gravitating to certain states other states will follow suit with similar regs and policy types. Then it will eventually be close to a national standard anyway.... just longer to get there and more bureaucracy mixed in...

 

[moonlightandmargaritas]

And with federal regulation "buying across state lines" would be a mute point.

I'm assuming you mean it would be a "moot" point.

Then it will eventually be close to a national standard anyway.... just longer to get there and more bureaucracy mixed in...

Exactly the reason NOT to do it. Thanks for making my point so eloquently!

 

[djs]

Can someone please explain how buying across state lines solves anything? Which states rules apply? For instance, I'm in California, if I go to Arizona and buy a car, bring it home, it has to meet California smog rules.

If I go to Arizona and buy a health policy, will it have to meet California health insurance rules?

Will there be any 'in-network' doctors for me to go to?

If California requires something to be covered, but Arizona doesn't (which is why the policy was cheaper), do I have a right to claim it should be covered?

This is one of those things that sounds MUCH better than it really is.

Dan

 

[scagnt83]

I'm assuming you mean it would be a "moot" point.



Exactly the reason NOT to do it. Thanks for making my point so eloquently!

Yes I did mean moot. Thanks.
The auto correct on my phone sucks; it likes to correct words incorrectly for me...lol


And Im not sure you understood my oh so eloquent point...
If buying across state lines eventually yields the same results as national standards, but creates more bureaucracy in the process how is that a good thing??
Are you saying your a fan of increased bureaucracy through the states? Theres just as much waste, corruption, and incompetence at the state level as there is at the national level.... if not more.

Buying across state lines is just going around your elbow to get to your ass in my opinion. Why take longer and create more effort to get to the same point????
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Can someone please explain how buying across state lines solves anything? Which states rules apply? For instance, I'm in California, if I go to Arizona and buy a car, bring it home, it has to meet California smog rules.

If I go to Arizona and buy a health policy, will it have to meet California health insurance rules?

Will there be any 'in-network' doctors for me to go to?

If California requires something to be covered, but Arizona doesn't (which is why the policy was cheaper), do I have a right to claim it should be covered?

This is one of those things that sounds MUCH better than it really is.

Dan

Exactly!! Its going to create a cluster fu#k is what it will do.

Even if you can buy across state lines there will still have to be national standards to solve those problems and more.
What about comp??? Some states have limits imposed. What do you get for selling a policy in Massachusetts, NC, or Maine??
Its basically charity work from what I hear... if an agent even takes the time to do it.

 

[IAC.Ryan]

Will there be any 'in-network' doctors for me to go to?

Depends on the "Wrap" Network. (Network that kicks in once you leave your home state) PHCS/Multiplan, GW/Cigna, First Health most likely have providers throughout CA.

If California requires something to be covered, but Arizona doesn't (which is why the policy was cheaper), do I have a right to claim it should be covered?

Depends on how the plan is filed. (Cert or Policy, Assoc or not) For example, on association plans - the plan only has to follow the state mandates in the state that the association is domiciled - so in that case, no you couldn't try to force their hand to fill California's ridiculous mandates.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Even if you can buy across state lines there will still have to be national standards to solve those problems and more.

National Standards are exactly what we don't need. We're not a "one size fits all" country. There is not a set of "standards" that can be uniformly accepted from state line to state line let alone coast to coast - this is why different mandates exist in the first place.

But the important fact remains - The Federal Government does not have Constitutional authority to regulate health insurance on a national level.

 

[scagnt83]

"National Standards are exactly what we don't need. We're not a "one size fits all" country. There is not a set of "standards" that can be uniformly accepted from state line to state line let alone coast to coast - this is why different mandates exist in the first place.

But the important fact remains - The Federal Government does not have Constitutional authority to regulate health insurance on a national level."


Yes, but the different mandates will make buying across state lines a very messy and confusing thing.
Even the proposals by congress that include buying across state lines have standards that all plans will have to meet if they are to be approved by the state. So it will be regulated to some extent at the federal level anyway.

Even with federal regulations as opposed to state, there is nothing that says insurers cant tailor policies to different regions of the country. Health insurers want to leave it at the state level because its easier and cheaper for lobbyist to woo state officials as opposed to federal officials. But even they have stated that there would be some need (to an extent) for national standards if consumers can buy across state lines.


And the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to do a lot of stuff that they have done. Its never stopped them before...... just look at the personal income tax; its unapportioned, which contradicts what was set forth in the constitution.
Some say the 16th amendment changed this, but multiple court rulings by state courts have disagreed with this. There are plenty more examples, thats just one.
The constitution was flushed down the toilet by congress a long time ago. Mandatory health insurance would technically be unconstitutional.