Seriously, why do you fear Universal Healthcare as a solution for US?

See post #8 above.

 

The waiting lines are for serious care such as surgeries, not so much for minor things. I also know Canadians who have told me there are waiting times, so that really depends on who you talk to.

 

What the hell are you talking about?

In just about every state, you will find Anthem, Cigna, Aetna, Humana, and United Health...and a couple of more I can't remember. They already operate in multiple states. And as has been pointed out to you, the ACA actually allows this. What most Republicans are referring to is the individual state regulations, which goes to sh0w you the hypocrisy of the GOP. They want to eliminate the ability of states being able to regulate insurance carriers. I thought the GOP was for states' right??? Yet now they want to federalized insurance? Flip-flopping HYPOCRITES!!!

 

Provide a link about what you are talking about, because as I haven't a clue.

 

Selling health insurance across state lines is a not about infringing on state rights, it is about removing a federal barrier against competition. States are free to regulate health insurance as they please.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/w...e-clinics-surge-as-public-system-falters.html

 

And as I and another poster told you, the ACA already allows that. What competition is there going to be if the major players are there already? What most conservatives believe when they refer to this issue is being able to pay health insurance premiums in Wyoming, when you live in New York. That's not going to happen.

 

One article....from 2006???

 

They're not there already in all the states, that is the problem.

How many articles did you want? Also, you asked for a link on my saying Canada had an illegal private-sector care system set up. That is what I provided.

 

Instead of greedy insurance companies and pharmaceutical execs who hire armies of lobbyists to buy and sell Congressmen and Senators like produce...I guess that works for you.

 

Sorry, slow reader.

 

And like I said, the ACA allows it. So why do you think they haven't jumped on it?

 

The ACA does not allow that. If it did, then the restriction wouldn't still be in place. In addition, the Democrats want the restriction to remain in place because with the ability to compete across state lines, health insurance companies could all set up shop in the states with the most lenient regulations, which they do not want. The ACA also involve a tremendous amount of centralized government control and bureaucracy.

 

More government control will result in fewer medical services available to the public.

As the heavy hand of government strangles the healthcare industry, more doctors are just walking away from their practices. Mine did two years ago.

 

Actually no it doesn't. The law itself says that states can enter into compacts but the Obama administration never even consulted the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, let alone developed the regulations related to allowing that to occur. The reason they haven't jumped on it is is because the states cannot yet enter into the compacts that would be necessary for the insurance companies to move without those regulations.

 

Why Allowing Health Insurance Sales Across State Lines Won’t Help

The effort to replace Obamacare faces increasing challenges, the more it is subjected to the harsh light of scrutiny. A good example is the proposal, apparently central to the Republican replacement plans, to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines.

This idea has been put forward as an elixir to all sorts of health sector problems. In his joint address to Congress, President Donald Trump argued that allowing people to buy health insurance in other states would “create a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring costs way down and provide far better care. So important.”

The American Academy of Actuaries is less optimistic: “The ability to lower premiums by allowing cross-state sales of insurance is limited,” the organization says, “because a key driver of health insurance premiums is local costs of health care.” When the idea was floated last year at an industry conference, the “audience literally laughed,” one health care consultant noted.

Why do careful students of health care view cross-state sales of insurance skeptically?

One reason is that it is already allowed –- and yet basically doesn’t happen. States possess the authority to sanction sales across their borders, and to define the conditions for such sales. In addition to this generic state authority, Section 1333 of Obamacare authorizes “health care choice compacts” across states. As of last month, five states had passed legislation allowing insurance plans that cross state lines: Rhode Island, Wyoming, Georgia, Kentucky and Maine. Georgia’s law has been in effect since 2011, yet no insurer has yet offered an out-of-state policy there — or in any of the other four states. If this is the key to bringing costs down, why doesn’t anyone want to do it?

Proponents of cross-state sales argue that the Obamacare provision is too limited, and that other authorities aren’t broad enough for the idea to succeed.

As things stand, the federal government does not force state A to allow sales of insurance products from an insurer in state B, even if the consumer protection laws and health insurance regulations in state B are much different. State regulations govern items as varied as the generosity of coverage to appeal processes for denied services. A federal law that forced state A to accept state B’s less restrictive regulations could engender a race to the bottom in such standards across states, and also create an adverse selection problem for insurers in state A — which presumably would still have to meet A’s regulations, and therefore would attract mainly the less healthy beneficiaries in that state.

If an insurer from state B would instead have to meet state A’s regulations, then it’s not clear what the federal law would accomplish.
​

Read the rest at the website. Date of the article is March 7, 2017.

 

"The American Academy of Actuaries is less optimistic: “The ability to lower premiums by allowing cross-state sales of insurance is limited,” the organization says, “because a key driver of health insurance premiums is local costs of health care.” When the idea was floated last year at an industry conference, the “audience literally laughed,” one health care consultant noted."

 

I'm getting to the point where I'm feeling I'm repeating myself.

I'm almost tempted to say that unless you're a licensed insurance professional, or work in the healthcare industry in some capacity, your opinion is more than likely influenced by nothing more than your political biases and internet preferences, and therefore irrelevant to a logical discussion on this topic.

 

I have consistently said that selling across state lines won't make a bit of difference, but that is not the real problem. If Deckel Insurance wants to sell in ten states, it has to have those ten states agree as to what the rules will be related to my policies or else I will have to have 10 different sets of policies, find 10 different networks of providers, etc. As is, while the ACA authorizes it, it never went any further in codifying what it would take to actually be allowed to do it. The reason you have health insurance companies selling in mulitple state now is because they set up subsidiaries for each state.

 

And yet, it requires millions of dollars to negotiate with providers and create networks.

The company OSCAR has taken the challenge, and they are doing ok, but not gaining anymore traction than anyone else because they are still beholden to the strangle hold that providers demand.

In other words, unless you are able to make your plans attractive because you have the most providers, you are just swimming upstream.

 

Oscar Health is only in like 30 markets, has very narrow networks, and has really low reimbursement rates compared to other insurance providers from what I have read.

 

And you are expecting WHAT?

 

The Role of Federal Law. Until March 2010 there was no federal law that, in general, either allowed for or prohibited cross-border purchasing of health insurance – only state laws regulate health insurance policies that are “fully insured” – and sold throughout the small employer and individual insurance market in all 50 states. The federal reform law Section 1333 provision enacted in March 2010 (see above) took full effect in January 2016.

Can states go further? The idea of states allowing free-market sales across state lines, outside of federal regulation is an untested proposition. This was especially true during the transition period prior to the effective dates of the federal reforms spelled out in section 1333 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Another ACA provision, known as Section 1332, titled "Waivers for State Innovation" separately allows states to seek broader innovations or alternatives.

On a separate interstate topic, as of December 2016, at least eight states have enacted "Interstate Health Compacts", sometimes termed "Freedom Health Compacts" which propose and authorize broader interstate health markets outside of the scope of federal law. See the separate NCSL report at, www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/states-pursue-health-compacts.aspx.

State Insurance Commissioners Statement: Allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines will start a “race to the bottom by allowing companies to choose their regulator,” says the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC). Some GOP lawmakers are advocating including a provision in their planned health reform package that would allow policies to be sold across state lines. However, the NAIC says mandated benefits in certain states aren’t the reason insurance is more expensive in some states than in others. Approving legislation that would allow cross-border insurance sales would reduce the options available to consumers and restrict the ability of insurance regulators to help consumers, the group says. “While those individuals in pristine health may be able to find cheaper policies, everyone else would face steep premium hikes if they can find coverage at all,” the group said. Read the full statement (12/19/16) at NAIC.

OUT-OF-STATE HEALTH INSURANCE - ALLOWING PURCHASES

 

People to be informed. Companies like Oscar operate much like medicaid and medicare do in the sense that providers are either not going to participate or limit the number of patients they see with those policies when the alternative is having time for more patients with better paying insurance for them. Having insurance that is either more expensive when you use it than you can reasonably pay or doesn't have extensive networks is as good as having no insurance.

 

Which is why we continue "tweaking" Obamacare to make it work, or just go hog wild on a true single payer system and stop pretending we can make a for-profit system deliver what we want it to do.