Why don’t they open up state lines so we can purchase “health insurance” across state lines?

oh gee!!! If the Federal Government did that, you’d be complaining about how it is a state’s issue and so forth right??

Because then a solution might be found that didn’t involve more power for them, assuming you mean “those in the federal government” when you say, “they.”

There is NO restriction on Health-care Insurance companies to register in as many states as they want. They just want to avoid scrutiny of State regulators.

because that’s bad for insurance companies and right now they have us by the balls. but I totally agree that they need to open up the state lines.

How would it make a greater pool? Almost all the health insurance companies are just resellers or subsidiaries of larger health insurance companies.

They already sell across state lines through this. It wouldn’t give any more options.

Look at all the states that offer Aetna, and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The idea has never been to give people a choice on insurance providers. Remember that Obama said his goal is to have a single payer system in place by his first term and all private insurance companies to be gone in 10-15 years.

Because that might empower the states and private business thus, removing power from the federal government. Obama refuses to give power to anyone but himself.

Because the in-state insurance companies, such as Blue Cross, lobby hard and heavy (and with a lot of $$$$) to prevent such competition. They are making a lot of money because they’ve gotten the state governments to mandate some gold-plated full-coverage minimum insurance.

I would suggest that you look at the credit card companies. 46 major companies all moved their home offices to New Jersey, the state with the most lenient banking regulations. If they could only offer credit cards in the state where the bank is physically, they would be required to follow that state’s regulations–to the benefit of the cardholders.

The same thing is true with health insurance. The companies are currently regulated by the laws of the state where they are located. If allowed to sell *across* state lines, all the companies would locate their head offices to the state with the most lenient regulations for insurance companies.

The only possible beneficiaries for this would be young and very healthy people. The rest of us, and those of us with children, would be at the mercy of the lax regulations and requirements.

Great idea. That will allow existing companies to grow bigger and bigger, squeezing out the smaller guys and you will end up with these huge national oligopolies or monopolies and there’ll be even LESS competition. I can’t believe people who aren’t representatives of the insurance industry actually buy this suggestion.

The real answer to health care is the Libertarian view:

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.”

Any company can enter any state as long as it agrees to abide by its laws.
Of course that’s not considering the exemption to anti-trust laws, after all, the insurance companies have decided that one on their own.
In that case 48 states have three to four insurers, and the other two have 90% divided into two insurers.

Some states have very poor protections for their citizens, others ask for more, and have more regulations as to what must be covered.
Like mammograms, and reconstructive breast surgery following radical mastectomies, and no drive by deliveries.
Others are more or less arranged for the protection of the company and not the consumer. Its obvious why a company would go to a state with little interest in consumer protection, but its not the best way to make sure the citizen is healthy or cared for.
I live in one of the most heavily regulated states, and its very expensive here, but my insurance comes from Texas, the companies get around it by calling it a discount plan, and stating its NOT insurance. It just works like insurance, but if I have a problem with them I can’t take my case to the state insurance board, because they are not insurance.
Fun isn’t it?

By the way, its not really a liberal or conservative issue, its simply a question of if we want to let the buyer beware or regulate them so we can all get what we are paying for.

I recently answered this in detail at:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/state-denial

To shorthand it, Republicans argue (based only on insurance industry “research”) that state benefit mandates, like requiring payment for diabetic management (even for type 1 kids) are the main reason why insurance costs are so different between states. That turns out not to be true. The Republicans who point to the Congressional Budget Office when they fight Obama’s plan, ignore the CBO’s finding that at best some Americans might save as much as 5%, but 1 million would lose their current insurance and be forced to use Medicaid if insurance was sold across state lines.

It also helps to think about this fact, insurance in another state may be cheaper because the overall cost of doing business – rent, wages, electrical power, is lower there, while the doctor you will be seeing has to base his/her fees on the cost of doing business in your state, which may be higher. Medicare reimbursement rates to doctors are based on their location for that reason. That’s a plain economic fact that the republican proposal chooses to ignore – but it sure sounds good, don’t it?