Trump preparing executive order to let Americans purchase health insurance across state lines
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
It's too bad no one listened to Rand Paul early enough in this fiasco.
This_person
Well-Known Member
People did, and shut down a lot of the government because of it. The correct people didn't, and they lost the House, Senate, and White House in the process.
But, I had problems with the executive branch legislating through EO in the previous administration, and I have it now as well. If this law is so ambiguous as to be manipulatable through EO at presidential whim (it seemed in the Obama years, and maybe it is starting again in the Trump years), then why can't Trump just EO-repeal it? Simply defund the requirements through budget processes, and EO out all the regulations and legalities of it, and it is gone, right?
We do not have a king, regardless of who wants to wear the crown or what they want to do.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Gotta say, I don't like anything major put into action by EO.
For one, because Presidents have been abusing this power for a while now to bypass Congress, and for another, it's undone easily by another President.
However, this is long overdue. I may be mistaken, but I think my federal BC/BS *is* purchased across state lines.
Why shouldn't everyone be able to do this?
so a 1945 Era Protection Act ... are there any 'Local' Health Insurance Companies' left
No I am NOT talking the 20 - 50 versions or Blue Cross or Atena
OH and I could see NANNY States like NY and CaliFU strongly objecting to this .. they have some of the tightly regulated insurance markets in the country
Last edited:
Editorial: Why selling health insurance across state lines won’t work
Here’s what they don’t tell you:
Most health insurance companies aren’t interested. Consumers won’t benefit. And hospitals and doctors don’t see it as a solution, either.
Selling insurance across state lines is already legal. It’s a provision in the Affordable Care Act.
Several states, including Georgia, Maine and Wyoming have passed laws allowing companies from other states to come in and compete for patients. The Georgia experiment is particularly noteworthy, given that it was highly praised by Republicans when it passed the Legislature in 2011.
[clip]
There’s the rub.
An insurance company located in another state — say, Mississippi — offering insurance in California would need to make network deals with doctors and hospitals throughout the state. That’s expensive and immensely complex.
It’s not just that the market is different from Mississippi. The health care market in Northern California is vastly different from the Central Valley and Southern California markets.
To sell insurance in multiple states, companies would need to make major up front investments knowing that they would absorb big losses for several years.
They also know hospitals and other providers won’t be interested in making deals with companies offering minimum coverage to customers, since that shifts the risk of medical care costs to patients or providers — or taxpayers. Insurance premiums might drop over time, but medical costs would skyrocket — or sick people would just die, as many cancer survivors say they’d have done without the Affordable Care Act.
As to consumers — Californians would need to be wary of buying insurance from firms based in states with weak consumer protections. California has some of the toughest protections for patients in the nation, and it can still be difficult to hold insurers to their promises. Good luck trying to convince a company in some far-flung state that it can’t, say, arbitrarily refuse to pay for treatment a patient was led to believe would be covered.
Here’s what they don’t tell you:
Most health insurance companies aren’t interested. Consumers won’t benefit. And hospitals and doctors don’t see it as a solution, either.
Selling insurance across state lines is already legal. It’s a provision in the Affordable Care Act.
Several states, including Georgia, Maine and Wyoming have passed laws allowing companies from other states to come in and compete for patients. The Georgia experiment is particularly noteworthy, given that it was highly praised by Republicans when it passed the Legislature in 2011.
[clip]
There’s the rub.
An insurance company located in another state — say, Mississippi — offering insurance in California would need to make network deals with doctors and hospitals throughout the state. That’s expensive and immensely complex.
It’s not just that the market is different from Mississippi. The health care market in Northern California is vastly different from the Central Valley and Southern California markets.
To sell insurance in multiple states, companies would need to make major up front investments knowing that they would absorb big losses for several years.
They also know hospitals and other providers won’t be interested in making deals with companies offering minimum coverage to customers, since that shifts the risk of medical care costs to patients or providers — or taxpayers. Insurance premiums might drop over time, but medical costs would skyrocket — or sick people would just die, as many cancer survivors say they’d have done without the Affordable Care Act.
As to consumers — Californians would need to be wary of buying insurance from firms based in states with weak consumer protections. California has some of the toughest protections for patients in the nation, and it can still be difficult to hold insurers to their promises. Good luck trying to convince a company in some far-flung state that it can’t, say, arbitrarily refuse to pay for treatment a patient was led to believe would be covered.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
Isn't that enough? Those are two pretty big players.
I *think* fed BC/BS is North Carolina - at least, that's how the billing seems to appear.
But I am flabbergasted that something as ancient as 1945 - when people were still thinking about what health plans were - continues to protect across state lines.
And I hate what it "wants" to do - regulate what can and can't - or must or must not - be covered by insurance.
well I mean BC having to have 50 separate 'companies' to sell policies in all 50 states
my last employer was 'self insured' and payed Aetna to manage the benefits ...
I do think however California and NY Employees still a had different benefits then the other 90% of us ...
and the guys in Montreal and Mexico I don't know what they got.