Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so, let see, is there a new rule on here that only liberals can answer a question? Of course liberals favor one thing and conservatives the other. that is what makes us different..
Nita
I guess you haven't seen the other threads that ask for opinions from Libertarians or Conservatives.
Thanks for trying to stir up a controversy when they're really isn't one.
Anyone is free to comment if they want but I primarily want to hear from liberals.
Of course as you can see, there is no secret code that blocks you from posting in this thread because you aren't a liberal.
I need to start sticking to my ignore list and not look at some of the idiotic posts some people on my ignore list post.
I guess you haven't seen the other threads that ask for opinions from Libertarians or Conservatives.
Thanks for trying to stir up a controversy when they're really isn't one.
Anyone is free to comment if they want but I primarily want to hear from liberals.
Of course as you can see, there is no secret code that blocks you from posting in this thread because you aren't a liberal.
I need to start sticking to my ignore list and not look at some of the idiotic posts some people on my ignore list post.
Bad idea, even when I don't agree with someone there's still a chance I might learn something from them.
Allowing insurers to sell insurance across state lines would not work as advertised. While it may help the young and healthy, it will have a devastating impact on the insurance market for everyone else (and none of us will be young and healthy forever).
premiums would rise for many people,
benefits would be less-generous,
more Americans would likely become uninsured over time.
This policy approach fails to provide the incentives necessary to transition insurers to a 21st Century business model that values care coordination and high value care over underwriting and marketing. Without substantial additional reforms, the proposal to sell insurance across state lines will not work for most Americans.
You can read the whole report on the link above the quote
Across State Lines Explained: Why Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines is Not the Answer
What does it mean to allow insurers to sell coverage "across state lines?"
Insurers could sell their products to Americans in any state. The insurer would have to follow the rules and regulations in the state where it is based or "domiciled" - not the rules of the state where the consumer or policyholder lives. Allowing the state laws chosen by the insurer rather than the laws of the state where the consumer lives to govern health insurance regulation is what makes this policy so controversial. How would selling insurance across state lines impact the following?
Premiums? Health insurance premiums may decrease for many young, healthy individuals. Yet, premiums would like go up for many other Americans, especially those people with health conditions or individuals who prefer comprehensive insurance policies. Benefit Mandates? Most benefit mandates would be eliminated by an across state lines proposal. In fact, selling health insurance across state lines would eliminate any guarantee that important benefit mandates like maternity care would be included in insurance packages in the future. Consumers would get little in exchange - overwhelming evidence shows that benefit mandates per se are not why health insurance costs so much. Access to Coverage? Many people would find it more difficult to access health insurance if health insurance were sold across state lines. This is because there would be fewer guaranteed issue policies and because insurers would have an increased incentive to deny people coverage and charge people more based on their health history.
How would eliminating the tax preference impact the effects of across state lines? Eliminating the employer tax exclusion would exacerbate the consequences of an across state lines marketplace. Fewer employers would offer coverage and millions of Americans would have to find coverage in the virtually unregulated individual insurance market. Individuals transitioning from the employer-sponsored system to the new market would face higher premiums based on their health history and insurance policies that lack many benefits regularly covered by employer-sponsored insurance.
Would high risk pools mitigate the consequences of selling insurance across state lines?
High risk pools that are not exceptionally well funded do not make an across state lines health insurance marketplace work for all Americans. This is because across state lines proposals encourage insurers to underwrite aggressively, which would lead to millions of people being denied coverage and facing higher premiums based on their health history.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
I am actually for a full blown national health system like every other first world nation has. The "public option" is a compromise. By the time this thing gets done, it won't be worth the paper it is written on. Might as well stick with the status quo.
a) I would like my premiums to actually go toward the medicine and the neccesary administrative stuff that is obviously going to be needed. Medicaid has a 5% admin overhead vs. 30% in a private insurance company. Sorry, I don't want to pay some overbloated CEO's $14M plus salary a year, I dont want to pay for the companies to buy the politicians out from under us.
B) Perhaps if private entities had to compete with the government option they'd reconsider paying CEO's the ridiculous and obscene salaries they do. They would have to lower their premiums to compete and perhaps cut out a portion of their "lobbying" budget.. etc.
I'm all for the public option .. as is 65% of Americans.
Lets see, the company that insures my husband and I can pay a "tax" on our Cadillac plan (we do have up to 1000 dollars a year in dental coverage and that makes our plan a Cadillac plan according to the definition), or they can pay a fine of $2000 per year. I would guess that our insurance will be canceled and our company will be paying the tax, and if we expect to have any insurance at all, we will have to enroll under the public option.
1. That means that we don't get a choice.
2. That means that most Americans will be herded into the public option, unless American companies act differently than they have in the past. I think that we can expect most companies to choose whatever option is the cheapest for them. That will not necessarily mean that it will be the best or the cheapest or the best coverage for the employee.
3. The public option will be no cheaper than paying for insurance through a group plan through your employer, in fact it will cost you more. First you will pay a premium based on the deductibles and services that you need. Second you will pay a large portion of your income tax to support those who can not afford their premiums, and to pay for governmental inefficiency. Income tax for everyone who makes over 50,000 per year will go up and the FED will still have enormous deficits. Folks how do you propose to pay for this? We, my husband and I, can't afford to pay higher taxes!! Can you?
Do remember what happens when you "assume". Perhaps your present employer will simply revise their plan. That is IMO, the most likely scenario.
Quote:
Yes, I am a fiscal conservative. I do have some ideas to propose.
1. Open up health insurance competition by making companies able to sell their policies across state lines.
I agree with PurpleLove08 about this, plus I will reiterate what I have said all along about this proposal. The only way it will save the consumer money is to allow companies to sell stripped down policies that don't conform to state insurance regulations. When people go to use their insurance, they will find this, that, and the other not covered. Sort of like Medicare Advantage policies are now.
Quote:
2. Fix the fraud and waste in Medicare BEFORE the FED takes on another program. Use that money, but only after it is recovered, real money, not proposed money, to help fund the new programs.
I'm sorry, but there will never be an end to waste and fraud as long as there are crooks willing and able to game the system. The same type of thing goes on in private insurance; you just don't hear about it all the time. Why do you think ins. companies have insurance investigators? My uncle uncovered an arson fraud when working for an ins. company.
Quote:
3. Let each state open up an uninsured pool, just like drivers can get car insurance through a pool, and have insurance companies take blocks of subscribers at a set price for a set insurance policy. Allow employers to deduct for this insurance and pay it directly to the state along with other payroll taxes so anyone who is working can be sure that their premium is paid pre-tax and that their insurance premium is always paid.
Why should employers, who are supposed to be providing insurance under our present system (not that I agree with that) get to deduct for something the state provides?
Quote:
4. Anyone who is not working, or who has an income below a certain level, fixed by each state, should be enrolled in Medicaid if they fit into one of the following categories.
A. a minor whose parent with custody has low income or other inability to provide healthcare
B. a senior with low income
C. a disabled person, must currently be trying to collect social security disability and be qualified for SSI
D. a homeless person, must not be required to have an address to qualify
Except for the homeless, this is not much different than what is now happening.
Quote:
These ideas would keep health care in control of the state governments and thus prevent the enormous waste that a FED run program would cause. Most under served Americans would fit into one or more of my special classes and would then be covered by their state at an expense and level that each state would decide.
As state before, how does allowing ins. to be sold across state lines keep health care in control of state governments. Who said state govts should control it anyway? Who thinks state govt is less waste-prone than the feds?
Quote:
Any other conservatives out there with more good ideas?
Liberals, what do you think? Still want to see the FED spend the US into bankruptcy?
Sure, that's my enitre goal in life. (Sarcasm note! )
I am actually for a full blown national health system like every other first world nation has. The "public option" is a compromise. By the time this thing gets done, it won't be worth the paper it is written on. Might as well stick with the status quo.
As much as I would hate to go along with it, I think we're better off.
I'd rather wait and elect more people who are for a single-payer system or who favor strongly regulating the health insurance companies.
I think the public option is doomed. I think a lot of the sickest people who are currently deemed "uninsurable" or who can't afford private health insurance will be drawn to the public option.
I was watching Bill Moyers last night and one guy suggested lowering the eligibility age for Medicare to 55. It would help with jobs because a lot of older people are clinging to their jobs because of health insurance benefits. This would help young people get jobs and would help with getting them health insurance. This would also decrease the burden on businesses because they wouldn't have to keep dishing out all this money on their older workers' health care issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
why I disagree with the whole "selling across state lines" idea
)
