Reply With Quote
ok, nothing but an obvious hypothetical
the Repug point that "insurance across state lines" is restricted, horribly "regulated", when 6 states have OKed it, and not one insurance company has responded. So the Repug talking point is disproven, a lie.
What I'm saying is that the claim that state's having full authority to decide whether to allow cross-state sales would be irrelevant in the face of a federal law requiring them to allow such sales.
ok, nothing but an obvious hypothetical
the Repug point that "insurance across state lines" is restricted, horribly "regulated", when 6 states have OKed it, and not one insurance company has responded. So the Repug talking point is disproven, a lie.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-08-2012 at 11:14 AM.
lol 6 states
Is there a problem with cross-state selling other than it being a repug talking point?
If the Repugs are for it, then the companies would gain, and clients would be screwed. Apart from that cer ude, it's just non-stop Repug anti-govt bull .
How would companies gain? Why would clients be screwed?
Seems to me like its a good idea.
That is correct.
This is a case where almost all statutory authority for insurance regulation resides with the states. Any change to that would have a LOT of state governments very upset.
Call it a "truce" between layers of government.
They aren't. State law governs in all cases of who sells what insurance and how within any given state, as the article in the OP notes.
The irony of a so-called republican calling on the federal government to regulate the states is duly noted btw
as well as the fact that, when left to their own devices, the states balk and prevent a free market from coming about
Tort reform has brought down malpractice insurance premiums in Texas.
What it has not done, is limit the increases in the costs of health care. The reason for this is that malpractice premiums for most specialties, aren't all that significant.
"Texas also has one of the highest rates of medical liability cases that get filed."
Link?
Texas has a ueber conservative governor, and an ueber conservative Republican super majority in its legislature. If it were a priority, it would have happened.
That private insurers are somehow more efficient at providing health insurance than governments is a myth, in my opinion.
I have yet to see anyone show that (cost+profits) < (cost+government inefficiency)
Insurance is risk pooling.
Hordes of smaller insurers = exceedingly inefficient + poor risk pooling
More risks pooled = more predictability
The only thing that a private insurer has over governmental insurer is returns from invested reserves to offset some amount of premiums, which government programs doesn't do. These days though, the returns on the kinds of investments insurance companies are allowed to make is low, and will continue to be low for the forseeable future.
I haven't found much per capita, or by a rate. But I did find this...http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?ind=436&cat=8
Texas is #5 in paid claims for 2011. Not exactly earthshaking numbers either. New York has about 3x as many and in the overall scheme of things, a pretty insignificant number.
Information asymmetry.
Shopping for health insurance is mind-numbingly complex, and the market is opaque to most people.
In such an environment, advantage naturally accrues to the negotiating side with the best information. That isn't your average joe, who can barely sift through a cell phone contract, let alone the byzantine complexity of a health insurance policy. , I'm an insurance expert, and I have problems figuring out my health plan sometimes.
Oddly enough though, I have access to some first-hand data about medmal insurance in Texas. I will talk to the actuary I am working with and get the skinny.
That all may well be true (I have some issues with it, namely, a large amount of employers shop and purchase policies using insurance specialists, but whatevs), I still don't see how increasing the number of insurance companies competing within any given state increases a policy's complexity. There's a gap in between an increase in providers and an increase in a policy's complexity.
(downloads state populations to excel, uses your link for the paid claims, sorts, filters, does a quick claims/population formula)
Sorted by ratio, smallest to largest. Texas is #11 on a per capita basis.
Minnesota 0.000916768%
Alabama 0.000978608%
Wisconsin 0.000980432%
Hawaii 0.001382009%
Alaska 0.001383666%
North Carolina 0.001470527%
Wyoming 0.001584066%
North Dakota 0.001608347%
Iowa 0.001698065%
Idaho 0.001703486%
Texas 0.001733225%
Ohio 0.001827639%
Virginia 0.001914383%
Colorado 0.001954358%
Arkansas 0.001974146%
Washington 0.001976563%
Oregon 0.002066191%
Georgia 0.002078407%
Delaware 0.002094506%
Vermont 0.002234883%
South Dakota 0.002305596%
Nevada 0.002350071%
California 0.002358596%
Maine 0.002409297%
South Carolina 0.002436298%
Nebraska 0.002442147%
Illinois 0.002447694%
Mississippi 0.002484462%
Kentucky 0.002517533%
Tennessee 0.002561158%
Indiana 0.002562559%
Missouri 0.002645288%
Arizona 0.002792131%
Massachusetts 0.003218199%
Michigan 0.003310994%
Oklahoma 0.003323216%
Connecticut 0.003658493%
Utah 0.003691580%
New Hampshire 0.003793068%
Florida 0.003977428%
New Mexico 0.004034148%
Maryland 0.004272266%
Rhode Island 0.004280407%
Kansas 0.004423179%
Montana 0.004608300%
New Jersey 0.004863309%
Pennsylvania 0.006019045%
Louisiana 0.006710623%
New York 0.007084439%
West Virginia 0.008461951%
It does not increase a policy's complexity. It simply increases the amounts of options available. Which is good for an efficient market. (economic "efficient", meaning information is equally known to all concerned)
The problem is that health insurance by its complexity does not lend itself to "efficient" markets. Individuals rarely have the desire and/or capacity to do enough research to be able to adequately evaluate the products they are offered. (edit) The insurance company, however, does, and has every motivation to maximize profits This is not always compatible with inexpensive coverage, to put it mildly.(/edit)
What complexity does, is drive up costs, by removing the negative feedback of free markets that forces companies to offer products cheaply.
Not all free markets are created equal.
"insurance specialists" = agents, paid commissions by... insurance companies?
Conflict of interest. Insurance agents have a profit motive to steer people to whatever makes them the most commission, that assumes that they are appointed by more than one type of health insurer. (agents are limited to selling only for companies that have appointed them, if any given company has not appointed any given agent, you will not be able to shop from that insurer if you go to that agent)
One can get professional actuaries and other sorts though, if you have the resources to do so, which large companies do. Small insurers aren't going to pay hundreds of dollars an hour for such advice, and individuals certainly won't.
Nice.
...and vanishingly small. Lends credence to the "Tort Reform aint all that" school.
Typical ideologue stupidity. It's not like we are talking about Euclidean iden ies here.
Texas also has one of the strictest insurance commissions in the country. It's an interesting juxtaposition. I have said before that one thing that I hope to see is similar oversight of underwriting as you see for P&C gets implemented for health insurers.
when was the last the the Repugs did anything for Human-Americans and the environment?
Repugs' priority is enriching, protecting the 1% and corps, and ing everything and everybody else. Try to prove otherwise, for our entertainment.
If spurstalk could contract STDs, you'd be AIDS
It works in Europe
How does Texas have one of the strictest insurance commissions? (not sure what that means)
"Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
LOL. Uh yeah, us "losers" who would pay for it for your free riding ass."
taxpayers pay for the uninsured health care already.
and "free riding assholes" are those employees who get tax-free benefit (aka income) from employers (tax deductible) health insurance.
If employees had to pay their full after-tax health insurance (as do self-employed people), we would have had, by popular pressure, a hardcore public insurance option decades ago.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
