Many Republicans have proposed permitting the sale of health insurance across state lines as a part of their plan for replacing Obamacare. They argue this would create more competition and choice of in the marketplace.
But actually implementing it is a problem for those who espouse conservative principles of a smaller federal government that gives more power to the states to govern.
The individual states currently have the authority to regulate the sale of insurance within their own state. Some states are stricter about their insurance regulation, others, no so much. But it is up to the states to set those regulations, not the federal government.
In order to permit the sale of health insurance across state lines, it would require an Act of Congress to take away from the states the power to regulate the sale of insurance within their own borders. This is contrary to the conservative principle opposing the expansion of federal power over the states.
Is this really a conservative position, or has it been a Republican talking point for so long, no one really considered what it would entail to implement it? Do they even care?
Without knowing much more about it, I’d suspect it’s to allow shitty policies from upstanding states like Mississippi to be sold in the civilized world. Thereby “opening the market” to the poorest tier, of course, and all under the invisible hand of the free market, may peace and blessings be upon it.
The nightmares of regulating and overseeing it mean a lot of people will get eaten by the cracks, but no one will care because they’re just poor scum.
It would flood the states with so many out-of-state policies that it would be impossible for any state regulatory body to investigate and/or keep control of the situation.
In order for this to be enacted, the federal government would have to take away the authority of the states to regulate insurance, so there would no longer be any regulatory body over insurance.
Why would this be required? Remember, the idea is to allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, not require it to be. If a state decide to not allow out of state insurance companies to seek insurance in-state, that’s on them.
And, of course, the constitution explicitly gives the feds the authority to regulate interstate commerce, so it’ wouldn’t be an expansion of power at all. That power already exists.
Not sure why an insurance company would seek insurance anywhere, but currently, insurance companies may not sell policies in states where they do not comply with state regulations. Republicans want to change this.
States currently have the authority to regulate the sale of insurance within their borders. Republicans want to take away that authority so that insurance companies can sell policies that do not conform to current state regulations.
I don’t think this conclusion holds. The idea of selling insurance in a jurisdiction where a company is not domiciled is not predicated on their being no regulatory body at all - it simply means that the existing regulatory body can’t disqualify sales based on whether or not the company is domiciled in that state. All other regulation can exist along side.
Do you have any actual proposal to evaluate your claims against?
Many insurance companies sell insurance in states they are not domiciled in. That is not at issue. But they offer different policies in states that have different regulations. Republicans want to allow insurance companies to sell policies from states with weak regulation, in states with strong regulations where they are not now in compliance.
Maybe there are parallels to companies incorporating in Delaware? All insurance companies would move to a state of choice and be governed under that state’s rules. I’m not sure what happens in cases of misbehavior by the company.
I see the appeal of being able to buy a product I want from a willing seller, although I’m not sure how things would actually play out.
Again - do you have a cite that lists the specifics? Your assertion that it is a necessary condition that there be no regulatory body at all isn’t supported.
Why would there be a regulatory body, if their regulations don’t apply to policies from out of state? Insurance companies would avoid issuing insurance in states with strict regulation. What are the state regulators going to do with their time when that happens?
The contemporary conservative solutions to problems facing the US are just an attempt to mold the nation to fit their ideology. In their ideology, most government regulation is bad. Letting health insurance companies compete across state lines means that all insurance companies will relocate to the 1-2 states with the weakest regulations and consumer protections. Insurance prices will drop, but that is because insurance will have a million ways to deny coverage and care when you get sick. It is hard enough paying $600/month for insurance that will probably let you go bankrupt if you get actually sick, but paying $400/month for insurance that is guaranteed to deny coverage when you get sick will be even less motivating to pay for.
Also conservatives generally only care about ‘states rights’ when that is code for persecuting minorities at the state level w/o the federal government getting involved to protect said minorities. Conservatives love big government when that government is expanding regulations regarding abortion providers. One of the things they’ve done on the state level since coming to power is passing more and more regulations about abortion providers to make it too expensive, bureaucratic and cumbersome for an entity to provide abortions.
You have to look past the issues and find the motivations for the issues. Much of it is just code, doublespeak and an attempt to push ideology. Suffice it to say, the conservative ‘solution’ is not a solution at all. It will speed the death spiral of health insurance by making insurance so useless people refuse to pay for it.
Wesley, you don’t make a habit of this so I’ll just point out that sweeping negative generalizations of other groups of people - perhaps people against whom you’re debating - is frowned upon.
But like I said, the constitution allows the feds to regulate interstate commerce, so this does not create a new power for the feds-- it’s already there.
I know you think you’ve found some “gotcha” for conservatives, but this is just spin. The feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce. Period. There is no expansion of power since that power is already there.
Still no cite? Almost all of what you’ve posited seem like hypotheticals, but I suspect even a candidate position would be light on specifics. addressing your points individually -
I think this is assuming things not necessarily apparent. Why would regulations not apply to policies from out of state? I don’t see how any of your assumptions follow from your hypothetical that you’ve created.
Why would it have to be that states wouldn’t be able to regulate business within their borders? Credit card companies are often domiciled in Delaware for favorable business reasons, but that doesn’t mean that California doesn’t have consumer protections around card usage. I’m not sure how you conclude that states with strict regulation would face a dearth of available policies.
This implies that there would be no regulation within a state. Why do you think that is? Permission to sell across state lines is not immunity from state and local laws. This isn’t how the sale of any other product works, why would this be the case with health insurance?