8 ms·

> 1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines. Why can't health insurance companies sell across state lines right now?

by xur17 7y ago

gwright 7y ago
A bit of googling leads to: > Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945) Basically this is Congress using its interstate commerce power, in this case to prohibit certain types of commerce.
- js2 7y ago
  No, it's the opposite of that. The act is congress abdicating its power under the commerce clause wrt insurance so that each state can regulate insurance as it sees fit.
  - gwright 7y ago
    I wasn't trying to take a position on what Congress should or shouldn't have done. Just pointing out that it was the Commerce Clause powers that enabled Congress to pass the referenced law. I find your choice of "abdicate" confusing. There is no Constitutional obligation that Congress act in a particular manner on this issue so that word choice just seems out of place to me. It suggests "not doing something" as opposed to "doing the wrong thing". I think you are advocating that Congress take affirmative action to enable interstate insurance transactions and to preempt state regulations in this area. That seems reasonable to me.
    - js2 7y ago
      > it was the Commerce Clause powers that enabled Congress to pass the referenced law No, I don't think so. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate insurance. McCarran-Ferguson is Congress explicitly delegating insurance regulation to the states. Delegating regulation to the states is not a power derived from the Congress clause. IANAL and I'm not sure exactly what the legal theory underpinning McCarran-Ferguson is. I believe it's probably an implied power. > that word choice just seems out of place Maybe abdicate isn't the best word choice, but what I was trying to impart is that when the SCOTUS decided that insurance does indeed fall under the purview of Federal law by way of the Commerce Clause, that Congress had to explicitly say that "Federal law does NOT apply to insurance." That's a sort of abdication to me: SCOTUS: Hey Congress, it's your job to regulate insurance per the Commerce Clause. That means things like the Sherman Act apply to insurance too. Congress: Oh, we don't want that. Let's pass McCarran-Ferguson to exempt insurance from Federal law so that the states can regulate it as they see fit.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Why can't health insurance companies sell across state lines right now? Every state has unique requirements and Congress has never superseded them with a national health law.
- wahern 7y ago
  1) Every state also has unique requirements for car insurance. 2) Federal law has in fact controlled many aspects of health insurance plans, particularly employer-sponsored health plans, for decades. The elephant in the room is ERISA, passed 1974, but of course there's also Obamacare.
  - hermitdev 7y ago
    Federal law has set a minimum for car insurance, I think, might be per state (I think you have to have a minimum of liability). Many states have requirements that exceed the Federal min. They don't contradict it, but require extra, which so far has been held to be fine. I don't know the full history about why you cant buy health insurance across state lines, but I think it's a blend of different state's regulations and not wanting to be beholden to interstate commerce clause regulations (ironically, the provision that was used to justify the ACA mandatory insured or penalty as a tax ruling.) I never have nor will understood how the interstate commerce clause was used to justify the ACA "tax". The mandate is effectively compelling intrastate commerce (I know of know interstate medical insurance available) under the guise of regulation interstate commerce. This seems to fly against the letter and intent of the constitution in regards to interstate commerce.
    - js2 7y ago
      It was not justified via the commerce clause, but rather via congress's taxing powers: The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Indepen...
fucking_tragedy 7y ago
Companies can offer the same plans in different states, but don't. Insurance plans are regionalized because each state has their own regulations and the markets are different. The "across state lines" argument is a red herring. Even if you could use a plan from another state, it isn't like a doctor in New York is going to accept some HMO from Indiana.
- neuronexmachina 7y ago
  Yup. This has a decent overview of the "sell across state lines" red herring: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/selling-insurance-across-state-lines/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/selling-insurance-across-s...
Spooky23 7y ago
States with more people and costs usually have more coverage requirements. You don’t want insurance to be like banking where banks domicile in “friendly” places like Delaware and South Dakota. Health insurance is awful enough. Republicans want this so that high cost, low benefit plans can be hocked to less sophisticated people. The more right wing folks also like shared responsibility pools where the members are the insurers, and the organizers take overhead. Obamacare put most of these out of business.
- thanatropism 7y ago
  Are Republicans basically evil?
  - vadym909 7y ago
    No- They just favor business owners and the above average earners more and are highly distrustful of those not working or not making enough money. Extreme capitalists!
    - toastal 7y ago
      Sounds pretty evil to me. This is where you get the idea of 'corporations are people' to give more rights and them some to businesses to defend against your average person.
      - barry-cotter 7y ago
        The legal basis of Citizens United was that individuals don’t lose rights by coming together as an organisation. So the NYT has free speech rights because its owners have free speech rights. And if a propaganda film like Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine can be sold by a film studio a group of people can come together, whether as a for profit or not for profit corporation to produce their very own propaganda films, of whatever political valence, or tv ads or books, etc. The US has by far the strongest free speech protections of any nation. It’s not really that surprising that the Supreme Court ruled that forming a corporation doesn’t annual free speech rights.

> 1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines. Why can't health insurance companies sell across state lines right now?

by xur17 7y ago

> 1. Deregulate the health insurance market so you can sell across state lines. Why can't health insurance companies sell across state lines right now?

gwright 7y ago

A bit of googling leads to: > Insurance firms in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945) Basically this is Congress using its interstate commerce power, in this case to prohibit certain types of commerce.

js2 7y ago
No, it's the opposite of that. The act is congress abdicating its power under the commerce clause wrt insurance so that each state can regulate insurance as it sees fit.
- gwright 7y ago
  I wasn't trying to take a position on what Congress should or shouldn't have done. Just pointing out that it was the Commerce Clause powers that enabled Congress to pass the referenced law. I find your choice of "abdicate" confusing. There is no Constitutional obligation that Congress act in a particular manner on this issue so that word choice just seems out of place to me. It suggests "not doing something" as opposed to "doing the wrong thing". I think you are advocating that Congress take affirmative action to enable interstate insurance transactions and to preempt state regulations in this area. That seems reasonable to me.
  - js2 7y ago
    > it was the Commerce Clause powers that enabled Congress to pass the referenced law No, I don't think so. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate insurance. McCarran-Ferguson is Congress explicitly delegating insurance regulation to the states. Delegating regulation to the states is not a power derived from the Congress clause. IANAL and I'm not sure exactly what the legal theory underpinning McCarran-Ferguson is. I believe it's probably an implied power. > that word choice just seems out of place Maybe abdicate isn't the best word choice, but what I was trying to impart is that when the SCOTUS decided that insurance does indeed fall under the purview of Federal law by way of the Commerce Clause, that Congress had to explicitly say that "Federal law does NOT apply to insurance." That's a sort of abdication to me: SCOTUS: Hey Congress, it's your job to regulate insurance per the Commerce Clause. That means things like the Sherman Act apply to insurance too. Congress: Oh, we don't want that. Let's pass McCarran-Ferguson to exempt insurance from Federal law so that the states can regulate it as they see fit.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> Why can't health insurance companies sell across state lines right now? Every state has unique requirements and Congress has never superseded them with a national health law.

wahern 7y ago
1) Every state also has unique requirements for car insurance. 2) Federal law has in fact controlled many aspects of health insurance plans, particularly employer-sponsored health plans, for decades. The elephant in the room is ERISA, passed 1974, but of course there's also Obamacare.
- hermitdev 7y ago
  Federal law has set a minimum for car insurance, I think, might be per state (I think you have to have a minimum of liability). Many states have requirements that exceed the Federal min. They don't contradict it, but require extra, which so far has been held to be fine. I don't know the full history about why you cant buy health insurance across state lines, but I think it's a blend of different state's regulations and not wanting to be beholden to interstate commerce clause regulations (ironically, the provision that was used to justify the ACA mandatory insured or penalty as a tax ruling.) I never have nor will understood how the interstate commerce clause was used to justify the ACA "tax". The mandate is effectively compelling intrastate commerce (I know of know interstate medical insurance available) under the guise of regulation interstate commerce. This seems to fly against the letter and intent of the constitution in regards to interstate commerce.
  - js2 7y ago
    It was not justified via the commerce clause, but rather via congress's taxing powers: The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Federation_of_Indepen...

fucking_tragedy 7y ago

Companies can offer the same plans in different states, but don't. Insurance plans are regionalized because each state has their own regulations and the markets are different. The "across state lines" argument is a red herring. Even if you could use a plan from another state, it isn't like a doctor in New York is going to accept some HMO from Indiana.

neuronexmachina 7y ago
Yup. This has a decent overview of the "sell across state lines" red herring: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/selling-insurance-across-state-lines/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/selling-insurance-across-s...

Spooky23 7y ago

States with more people and costs usually have more coverage requirements. You don’t want insurance to be like banking where banks domicile in “friendly” places like Delaware and South Dakota. Health insurance is awful enough. Republicans want this so that high cost, low benefit plans can be hocked to less sophisticated people. The more right wing folks also like shared responsibility pools where the members are the insurers, and the organizers take overhead. Obamacare put most of these out of business.

thanatropism 7y ago
Are Republicans basically evil?
- vadym909 7y ago
  No- They just favor business owners and the above average earners more and are highly distrustful of those not working or not making enough money. Extreme capitalists!
  - toastal 7y ago
    Sounds pretty evil to me. This is where you get the idea of 'corporations are people' to give more rights and them some to businesses to defend against your average person.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      The legal basis of Citizens United was that individuals don’t lose rights by coming together as an organisation. So the NYT has free speech rights because its owners have free speech rights. And if a propaganda film like Fahrenheit 9/11 or Bowling for Columbine can be sold by a film studio a group of people can come together, whether as a for profit or not for profit corporation to produce their very own propaganda films, of whatever political valence, or tv ads or books, etc. The US has by far the strongest free speech protections of any nation. It’s not really that surprising that the Supreme Court ruled that forming a corporation doesn’t annual free speech rights.