Insurance "across state borders" - Democratic Underground

SHRED

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 10:14 AM
Original message

Insurance "across state borders"

My understanding is that health insurance companies are immune from anti-trust laws and that this in turn has resulted in a monopolized market.

Shouldn't we be asking conservatives how does opening State lines reverse this and magically produce "competition"?

---

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Oregone

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 10:21 AM
Response to Original message

1. It doesn't. It allows all insurance companies to move to the least regulated state...

and still preserve their customer bases.

Its a bad idea and will totally fuck health care in the US. Just observe how most credit card companies are now in Delaware

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TxRider

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #1

5. Dunno if I buy that argument.

State regulators routinely regulate business doing business in their state who are based elsewhere.

No matter where you base your insurance company, you'll still have to deal with my states regulation to sell in my state.

Kinda like the auto companies that can only sell cars in Cali that pass Cali regulation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ashling

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #1

6. However, by moving across state lines

they open themselves up to federal regulation of interstate commerce, removing a further constitutional challenge on that front. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FarCenter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 10:35 AM
Response to Original message

2. If state regulationis kept, at least enforce federal anti-trust laws

Each state would be a separate market, with state regulation.

Federal anti-trust laws would require breaking up intra-state health insurance monopolies.

Anti-trust laws should also apply to hospital groups, diagnostic labs, doctors associations, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapfog_1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 10:36 AM
Response to Original message

3. It's a way to avoid state insurance regulators. - n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ashling

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #3

8. Thus opening themselves up to more intensive

federal regulation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapfog_1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #8

11. Because those federal regulators did SUCH a good job with the

banking and financial industry.

:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapfog_1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #8

12. delete - dup

Edited on Sat Sep-12-09 11:58 AM by lapfog_1

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Joanne98

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 10:45 AM
Response to Original message

4. Good point. Somebody needs to beat a conservatives face in until they answer

that question.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Critters2

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 11:44 AM
Response to Original message

7. Insurance companies can already sell across state lines.

My employer provides insurance through a PA branch of BCBS.

What they want is deregulation. Cuz that's worked so well in the financial industry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ashling

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #7

9. Agressive federal regulation needs to be part of any bill

emphasis on "agressive." However, the other part to this is a strong public option which can aggressively compete with the privates as a counterbalance to the inevitability that they will try to control the regulators, which is inevitable. That we we have a possibilty of getting the privates by ...well, the privates.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #9

10. Or maybe by the pirates by the privates.

You trying to say?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ashling

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #10

14. That's not what I was trying to say

but I like it better
:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FarCenter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #7

15. Employers can shop for insurance in any state they operate in

Individuals can only buy from the companies in their state.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ThisThreadIsSatire

(697 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 12:01 PM
Response to Original message

13. It's so easy fighting them when they're in the same state you are...

not to mention, for a lot less than it costs to insure one family for a year, a company can incorporate in all 50 states...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FarCenter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Sep-12-09 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #13

16. But they have to pay off politicians in all 50 states

The legal costs of incorporation in each state are less than the costs of lobbying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu Apr 18th 2024, 08:00 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.