Allowing health insurers to sell across state lines is a BAD idea

It sounds like a GOOD idea, but history shows us it's not. The history of the credit card industry, of course.

When we were sold on the idea a national bank could set the interest rates on its credit card products based on the state the bank was located in, we probably were told (I wasn't watching at the time, sorry) this would be good for consumers as credit card issuers would compete for customers based on interest rates. Instead, all the issuers moved to South Dakota--the state with the HIGHEST interest rate cap in the nation. In fact, I'm not sure they have one; with the emergence of the 80-percent credit card I'm pretty sure you're allowed to charge interest rates in SD that would make a mobster blush. The Mafia has it all wrong: instead of running all these illegal rackets, they'd be far better off financially to close down the drugs, prostitution and illegal loansharking and just start issuing credit cards. Okay, Rapid City doesn't quite have the panache of Vegas or Atlantic City, but their lawyer bills would be lower at any rate. And by undercutting the non-Mafia banks' rates by as little as two percent they'd have all the business they could handle.

Now we're talking healthcare. If health insurance companies were allowed to charge one rate for every policy no matter the state it was issued in, what would prevent all the healthcare issuers from heading to West Virginia, where coal mining makes healthcare a very expensive proposition? WV has the highest health insurance rates in the nation. No health insurance company's stockholders would tolerate not moving the company's base of operations to Wheeling or Charleston--there's too much profit at stake.

Without serious federal regulation and removing the anti-trust exemption it will be a disaster.

they have NO consumer protections. You know if the Republicans want it there is a really bad thing behind it for the public.

The entire game is about profit and the insurance companies would definitely use these exploits to gain. As long as there is a monopoly and no competition, the rates will stay high, that's where the problem is.

there's a catch somewhere.

I used to feel that way about initiatives in Oregon. There is a certain right-wing fundie in Oregon named Bill Sizemore, and his name as a petitioner or sponsor of an initiative was a clear warning sign to any thinking person.

There were even times when an initiative sounded harmless on the surface, but because Bill Sizemore was the sponsor, I knew there had to be something wrong with it somewhere.

I'd ask an attorney to explain it to me, and suddenly the booby traps hidden in the fine print would become clear. And there were ALWAYS booby traps.

They would also insist upon the state of their residency to have the fewest consumer protections.
Even if the Feds set up minimum protections - they will still be minimum.

which is what Obama has said in almost every speech. It's a very bad idea and he knows it. It would be helpful if about 500 blogs would repeat his words and build the argument against it, instead of attacking Obama.

And Obama knows it. It's just more of his good cop / bad cop posturing.

We need the freakin' public option, or better yet, Medicare for all. :(

As long as we have Repukes as the de facto Kings of the World and lobbyists write legislation, any "federal standards" we may wind up with will definitely be written to the benefit of the insurance companies.

K&R! :kick:

and if republicans support it then that should be a major red flag to anyone who is not a multi-millionaire. In this day and age you can bet that if the republicans support something then it will most likely produce very bad results for about 90% of the population.

:yourock: :fistbump: :applause:

knr