4 ms·

Suggestion 1 has been looked at. They've found it doesn't work.

• cheez 7y ago
  It's not so much "doesn't work" as "people in the insurance business have reasons why they would take advantage to the detriment of consumers"
  • mrguyorama 7y ago
    That's a pretty good definition of "doesn't work" in the context of lifesaving medical care
    • cheez 7y ago
      The solution then isn't to keep them in gold coins...
• _tb1_ 7y ago
  Other sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=insurance+%22across+state+lines%22+lower+costs https://www.google.com/search?q=insurance+%22across+state+li...
• buzzerbetrayed 7y ago
  Who are “they”? And why should we trust them?
  • objektif 7y ago
    Who is Aetna, BCBS and why should I trust them?
  • _tb1_ 7y ago
    Well, it's a common talking point. Have you looked into it? It's an honest question, who has the onus of responsibility for research? OP or me?
    • flattone 7y ago
      re onus, everyone. And the further reduced the tone of ambitiously taking any questions (especially on HN) the more you sound like somebody who migrated from 4chan to mess with us
      • _tb1_ 7y ago
        Doesn't OP have the responsibility to at least admit that his main suggestion is extremely common and well researched, and to explain what gives him special insight or authority?
    • vidarh 7y ago
      The thing that feels bizarre whenever this comes up is the US willingness to pretend the many dozen cheaper systems that provide universal coverage doesn't exist. The US spends more tax money on Medicare and Medicaid alone than what some countries spend per capita on providing universal healthcare.. Maybe copy one of the systems proven to work. They come in many flavours, many of which do include private insurers and healthcare providers that do just fine.
      • mrguyorama 7y ago
        But then republicans would have a harder time preaching "free market fixes all" as holy doctrine.
  • _tb1_ 7y ago
    Here is one source: https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/selling-insurance-across-state-lines/ https://www.factcheck.org/2017/07/selling-insurance-across-s... Why should we trust them vs a random HN commenter?
    • manfredo 7y ago
      Many fact checking sites are actually heavily opinionated. To the point where even demonstrably true facts are labeled as "half-true" due to opinionated objections. Frequently, the veneer of calling oneself a "fact-checking" site lets them get away with some pretty significant bending of the truth. It looks like this article isn't much different. It doesn't actually refute the claim that less regulation would result in lower healthcare premiums: > In states with unregulated markets, “you could create a situation where you are selling very low-priced policies to healthy people without much [insurance] protection whatsoever,” Blumberg, who was a health policy adviser to President Bill Clinton’s administration, said in a phone interview. “But that ignores the fact that … what you’re doing is driving up the premiums to impossible levels” in states that want to have insurance regulations. So removal of regulations would actually make healthcare premiums cheaper in the de-regulated areas. Potentially this makes the insurance more expensive in places that do have regulations, but it's actually agreeing with the claim that deregulation can make insurance cheaper. > It’s a “risk-segmentation strategy,” she said, where eventually the healthy people are pulled into one set of plans and those with health problems are left in another. Premiums would go up so much in states with regulated plans that it would become impossible for them to sustain those regulations. > Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms, said that the lion’s share of a premium is the money a plan has to pay for medical claims, as well as utilization. Selling insurance across state lines wouldn’t change the price of medical services — as Antos said — but if insurance companies could deny coverage or charge more for health conditions, a carrier could “push down on utilization by screening out sick people” and then, “they can charge a lower premium.” Again, the article does admit that premiums would likely go down with less regulation. It looks like your article isn't actually disproving the claim that insurance premiums would go down with less regulation. In fact it repeatedly does say that premiums would indeed go down, but that it would result in other changes like different coverage from what people are used to, and potentially making it harder for unhealthy people to get insurance.