Hooray for the spirit of McCarran-Ferguson in this movement to shrink the DC Swamp! Insurance consumers will benefit from lower costs and easier access to insurance products.
No, after the Southeastern Underwriters decision, the Feds intervened to prevent collusive and antitrust actions. McCarran-Ferguson reversed that, to a degree. It provides an exemption from Federal regulation to the extent states properly do their job of regulation to avoid abusive collusion that impacts consumers favorably or unfavorably.
Funny how the same people who are against federal regulation of insurance, want to make health insurance into interstate commerce, which the Constitution states, would be regulated by the federal government.
Im still not convinced that selling across state lines would do anything to reduce costs. interstate. No Wi carrier is going into IL and charging WI rates. No Il carrier would come Inot Wi and charge Il rates.
The theory is that it would reduce barriers of entry and expenses of filing in multiple states, which would increase competition. This should then spur innovation and increase efficiency in order to reduce costs, as competition usually does.
While I agree with that approach, my position is that doing so would make health insurance interstate commerce. The Constitution states that interstate commerce is to be regulated by the Federal government. That is something I oppose.
I do understand the theory. I’m not convinced it would work it would translate to lowering premiums. Lowering premiums start with lowering the underlying factors. This was completely ignored with the PPACA. I was recently informed that a hospital in IL was charging a new mother for “Skin Time” which was holding her own child. I got an EOB over the week end. One page of explanation and 4 pages of other stuff printed on both sides. 2 of them pages were for Language Assistance printed in foreign languages. Why not have a check box somewhere in the “web Site” asking what language they want it printed in instead of two pages printed both sides? .
I agree that underlying costs are the driving factor in premiums. If there was more competition, insurance companies may become more active in helping find ways to reduce those expenses in order to offer lower premiums and increase market share, while remaining profitable..
It may be a long shot, but it could happen.
June 8, 2018 at 9:45 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Craig,
I was referring to those who advocate allowing health insurance companies to sell the exact same policy across state lines in order to increase competition.
Hooray for the spirit of McCarran-Ferguson in this movement to shrink the DC Swamp! Insurance consumers will benefit from lower costs and easier access to insurance products.
I agree that domestic insurance regulation needs to be left to the states.
Get rid of it.
Correct FFA. Should be left to the states to govern insurance.
Insurance has always been regulated by the States – stop the power grab by the feds!
No, after the Southeastern Underwriters decision, the Feds intervened to prevent collusive and antitrust actions. McCarran-Ferguson reversed that, to a degree. It provides an exemption from Federal regulation to the extent states properly do their job of regulation to avoid abusive collusion that impacts consumers favorably or unfavorably.
Funny how the same people who are against federal regulation of insurance, want to make health insurance into interstate commerce, which the Constitution states, would be regulated by the federal government.
“Regulated by the Federal government” isn’t advocating for national health insurance. Neither is it an endorsement for Obamacare. It is the opposite.
Try not embarrassing yourself in writing.
Im still not convinced that selling across state lines would do anything to reduce costs. interstate. No Wi carrier is going into IL and charging WI rates. No Il carrier would come Inot Wi and charge Il rates.
FFA,
The theory is that it would reduce barriers of entry and expenses of filing in multiple states, which would increase competition. This should then spur innovation and increase efficiency in order to reduce costs, as competition usually does.
While I agree with that approach, my position is that doing so would make health insurance interstate commerce. The Constitution states that interstate commerce is to be regulated by the Federal government. That is something I oppose.
I do understand the theory. I’m not convinced it would work it would translate to lowering premiums. Lowering premiums start with lowering the underlying factors. This was completely ignored with the PPACA. I was recently informed that a hospital in IL was charging a new mother for “Skin Time” which was holding her own child. I got an EOB over the week end. One page of explanation and 4 pages of other stuff printed on both sides. 2 of them pages were for Language Assistance printed in foreign languages. Why not have a check box somewhere in the “web Site” asking what language they want it printed in instead of two pages printed both sides? .
I agree that underlying costs are the driving factor in premiums. If there was more competition, insurance companies may become more active in helping find ways to reduce those expenses in order to offer lower premiums and increase market share, while remaining profitable..
It may be a long shot, but it could happen.
Craig,
I was referring to those who advocate allowing health insurance companies to sell the exact same policy across state lines in order to increase competition.
Got it?