5 ms·

The only thing I liked about Obama care was the pre-existing conditions clause. I think we should keep this and open insurance companies up across state lines.

by scott_c 10y ago

The only thing I liked about Obama care was the pre-existing conditions clause. I think we should keep this and open insurance companies up across state lines. This should bring competition and reduce our overall rates. We also need to be able to have plans where we can specifically choose what kind of care we need (IE: women, men, children, etc). I run my own business and my costs went up 100% this year for a higher deductible and less coverage. If this happens again, I may not be able to afford it.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pLFBbqArowjIwxH 10y ago
> I think we should keep this and open insurance companies up across state lines. This should bring competition and reduce our overall rates. As I understand it, this is the first step toward removing all regulation on the healthcare industry. Some pro-big-business-controlled state legislature will slowly start removing regulations to lure insurance companies. They'll move to that state, and then they'll be able to sell their product from that state to the rest of the country.
- jbarciauskas 10y ago
  This is right. There's no other reason to allow selling across state lines, and very little evidence there is a lack of competition that needs addressing in this way. The biggest issue facing the ACA is literally no one wants to offer insurance in a lot of rural counties. Selling across state lines would do nothing to address that or any other real issue with our healthcare system.
wahern 10y ago
The only thing I liked about Obama care was the pre-existing conditions clause. You can't separate that clause from the mandate and minimum coverage clauses. All three were designed to keep costs from inflating on the one hand, and coverage becoming useless on the other. It's sort of like saying you like your lunch, but have a problem with having to pay for it. We can quibble about rates for men vs women, but unless you were matured to adulthood in a lab, it's hard to argue that men as a class do not benefit from improved and cheaper access to reproductive healthcare for women. (Also, better reproductive health means fewer criminals, if only because they're born healthier and with fewer mental handicaps.) Opening up insurance across states would be nice theoretically, but you must realize that it's a states' rights issue for a large segment of the GOP, and a cause for concern among Democrats. It would necessarily limit and perhaps destroy the ability for states to meaningfully regulate insurance within their own borders. Unchecked, it would also mean a race to the bottom in terms of regulatory oversight as every provider would only sell insurance from states with the least restrictive regulations. What state do you live in? Coverage in states like California and many other states that haven't fought tooth-and-nail has been fairly stable as far I know. The Kaiser HMO rate at my company actually decreased slightly for 2017, with no change in coverage. And California not only has a rigorous regulatory framework, it even maintains a weird tax on hospital income to pay for uninsured coverage. Also, you don't need a federal law to support an inter-state insurance scheme. States could voluntarily permit policies to be sold from other states. For example, states in different regions could elect to normalize their regulatory schemes and open up their markets to each other. There's plenty of precedent for this. It doesn't require Congressional approval; just coordination among state legislatures like is so often done for other regulatory frameworks.
- scott_c 10y ago
  "but unless you were matured to adulthood in a lab, it's hard to argue that men as a class do not benefit from improved and cheaper access to reproductive healthcare for women." There are plenty of single men that should not be forced to pay for women's reproductive healthcare. "What state do you live in? " http://time.com/money/4535394/obamacare-plan-premium-price-increases-2017-states/ http://time.com/money/4535394/obamacare-plan-premium-price-i... 8 states rose by at least 30%. "States could voluntarily permit policies to be sold from other states. For example, states in different regions could elect to normalize their regulatory schemes and open up their markets to each other. There's plenty of precedent for this. It doesn't require Congressional approval; just coordination among state legislatures like is so often done for other regulatory frameworks." Great, but Obamacare in its current form needs to go.
  - 75j 10y ago
    > There are plenty of single men that should not be forced to pay for women's reproductive healthcare. I have to say this attitude makes me viscerally angry. Men have a much higher incidence of heart disease, so maybe women should not be forced to pay for that? Men engage in lots of unhealthy, risky behaviors, but I've never heard a woman make a statement analogous to yours. It's like saying "Well I'm not handicapped, so why the hell should I have to pay for special accommodations for those people?". If you accept that socialized healthcare is a good idea, then it seems to follow fairly obviously that we're all unique and will have individualized healthcare needs.
    - wahern 10y ago
      Let's be honest here: it's about children. The only difference between men and women that would substantially effect insurance coverage rates are prenatal care and birth. But few men are willing to come out and plainly state that they aren't interested in subsidizing prenatal care. When you say it aloud it just sounds so obviously wrong, whether or not you're asexual, homosexual, or infertile. And it's especially hypocritical for the anti-abortion set. It's like the argument that childless property taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize public schools. People just rely on vague handwaving about fairness and risk allocation. And, FWIW, it's also like arguing that taxes paid by pacifists shouldn't support the military. Even most liberals understand that it's a ridiculous assertion as a practical matter.
toodlebunions 10y ago
There is nothing preventing insurance companies from selling across state lines right now.
scarface74 10y ago
"I think we should keep this and open insurance companies up across state lines. This should bring competition and reduce our overall rates." No insurance company wants to compete for high risk people. It won't help. Besides, most of the big insurance companies already have plans in most states.

by scott_c 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pLFBbqArowjIwxH 10y ago

> I think we should keep this and open insurance companies up across state lines. This should bring competition and reduce our overall rates. As I understand it, this is the first step toward removing all regulation on the healthcare industry. Some pro-big-business-controlled state legislature will slowly start removing regulations to lure insurance companies. They'll move to that state, and then they'll be able to sell their product from that state to the rest of the country.

jbarciauskas 10y ago
This is right. There's no other reason to allow selling across state lines, and very little evidence there is a lack of competition that needs addressing in this way. The biggest issue facing the ACA is literally no one wants to offer insurance in a lot of rural counties. Selling across state lines would do nothing to address that or any other real issue with our healthcare system.

wahern 10y ago

The only thing I liked about Obama care was the pre-existing conditions clause. You can't separate that clause from the mandate and minimum coverage clauses. All three were designed to keep costs from inflating on the one hand, and coverage becoming useless on the other. It's sort of like saying you like your lunch, but have a problem with having to pay for it. We can quibble about rates for men vs women, but unless you were matured to adulthood in a lab, it's hard to argue that men as a class do not benefit from improved and cheaper access to reproductive healthcare for women. (Also, better reproductive health means fewer criminals, if only because they're born healthier and with fewer mental handicaps.) Opening up insurance across states would be nice theoretically, but you must realize that it's a states' rights issue for a large segment of the GOP, and a cause for concern among Democrats. It would necessarily limit and perhaps destroy the ability for states to meaningfully regulate insurance within their own borders. Unchecked, it would also mean a race to the bottom in terms of regulatory oversight as every provider would only sell insurance from states with the least restrictive regulations. What state do you live in? Coverage in states like California and many other states that haven't fought tooth-and-nail has been fairly stable as far I know. The Kaiser HMO rate at my company actually decreased slightly for 2017, with no change in coverage. And California not only has a rigorous regulatory framework, it even maintains a weird tax on hospital income to pay for uninsured coverage. Also, you don't need a federal law to support an inter-state insurance scheme. States could voluntarily permit policies to be sold from other states. For example, states in different regions could elect to normalize their regulatory schemes and open up their markets to each other. There's plenty of precedent for this. It doesn't require Congressional approval; just coordination among state legislatures like is so often done for other regulatory frameworks.

scott_c 10y ago
"but unless you were matured to adulthood in a lab, it's hard to argue that men as a class do not benefit from improved and cheaper access to reproductive healthcare for women." There are plenty of single men that should not be forced to pay for women's reproductive healthcare. "What state do you live in? " http://time.com/money/4535394/obamacare-plan-premium-price-increases-2017-states/ http://time.com/money/4535394/obamacare-plan-premium-price-i... 8 states rose by at least 30%. "States could voluntarily permit policies to be sold from other states. For example, states in different regions could elect to normalize their regulatory schemes and open up their markets to each other. There's plenty of precedent for this. It doesn't require Congressional approval; just coordination among state legislatures like is so often done for other regulatory frameworks." Great, but Obamacare in its current form needs to go.
- 75j 10y ago
  > There are plenty of single men that should not be forced to pay for women's reproductive healthcare. I have to say this attitude makes me viscerally angry. Men have a much higher incidence of heart disease, so maybe women should not be forced to pay for that? Men engage in lots of unhealthy, risky behaviors, but I've never heard a woman make a statement analogous to yours. It's like saying "Well I'm not handicapped, so why the hell should I have to pay for special accommodations for those people?". If you accept that socialized healthcare is a good idea, then it seems to follow fairly obviously that we're all unique and will have individualized healthcare needs.
  - wahern 10y ago
    Let's be honest here: it's about children. The only difference between men and women that would substantially effect insurance coverage rates are prenatal care and birth. But few men are willing to come out and plainly state that they aren't interested in subsidizing prenatal care. When you say it aloud it just sounds so obviously wrong, whether or not you're asexual, homosexual, or infertile. And it's especially hypocritical for the anti-abortion set. It's like the argument that childless property taxpayers shouldn't have to subsidize public schools. People just rely on vague handwaving about fairness and risk allocation. And, FWIW, it's also like arguing that taxes paid by pacifists shouldn't support the military. Even most liberals understand that it's a ridiculous assertion as a practical matter.

toodlebunions 10y ago

There is nothing preventing insurance companies from selling across state lines right now.

scarface74 10y ago

"I think we should keep this and open insurance companies up across state lines. This should bring competition and reduce our overall rates." No insurance company wants to compete for high risk people. It won't help. Besides, most of the big insurance companies already have plans in most states.