33 Million Americans Still Don’t Have Health Insurance

[channonc 466]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Some states might be ok with that. But what about states that wish to have very tight regulation? Does California or Vermont for instance want to have the same standards for insurance as Mississippi or Louisiana? I get what you're saying in principle, but you'd end up with a lot of squalling if you lowered the standards from what some people enjoy in certain states.

Of course, but we have a lot of arguments anyway over ACA. I get it, under my idea, some states would see regulation go up, some would see it go down. I think there could be a compromise. Anything having to do with Medicare is regulated by the feds now and not the states. Instead of just conceding and expanding medicare to all, couldn't we explore this option first?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Some states might be ok with that. But what about states that wish to have very tight regulation? Does California or Vermont for instance want to have the same standards for insurance as Mississippi or Louisiana? I get what you're saying in principle, but you'd end up with a lot of squalling if you lowered the standards from what some people enjoy in certain states.

Of course, but we have a lot of arguments anyway over ACA. I get it, under my idea, some states would see regulation go up, some would see it go down. I think there could be a compromise. Anything having to do with Medicare is regulated by the feds now and not the states. Instead of just conceding and expanding medicare to all, couldn't we explore this option first?

Sorry but, I think you have gone "over my head". Can you provide a little more detail about how medicare actually works and how what you propose would change it? TIA.

[channonc 466]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Some states might be ok with that. But what about states that wish to have very tight regulation? Does California or Vermont for instance want to have the same standards for insurance as Mississippi or Louisiana? I get what you're saying in principle, but you'd end up with a lot of squalling if you lowered the standards from what some people enjoy in certain states.

Of course, but we have a lot of arguments anyway over ACA. I get it, under my idea, some states would see regulation go up, some would see it go down. I think there could be a compromise. Anything having to do with Medicare is regulated by the feds now and not the states. Instead of just conceding and expanding medicare to all, couldn't we explore this option first?

Sorry but, I think you have gone "over my head". Can you provide a little more detail about how medicare actually works and how what you propose would change it? TIA.

Sorry, I realized that I was not very clear. I'm proposing no changes to medicare. I am merely pointing out that the requirements, coverage and regulation of medicare is all done by the Federal Government, not by the states. I'm asking why we can't explore the regulatory side of that with health insurers. Why not just have a national exchange, and have the federal government set the regulatory standards and not allow the states to regulate insurance companies? ACA already sets minimum coverage standards. Why not just have the Feds take on the regulatory role? As I pointed out above, yes, this would mean in some states the standards will lower, but in others the standards would come up. Can't we compromise on what those standards should be? Throw them all on one exchange and then disconnect employers completely from health insurance.

I'm no expert, just merely brainstorming on some other ideas.

[autigeremt 7,289]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Some states might be ok with that. But what about states that wish to have very tight regulation? Does California or Vermont for instance want to have the same standards for insurance as Mississippi or Louisiana? I get what you're saying in principle, but you'd end up with a lot of squalling if you lowered the standards from what some people enjoy in certain states.

Of course, but we have a lot of arguments anyway over ACA. I get it, under my idea, some states would see regulation go up, some would see it go down. I think there could be a compromise. Anything having to do with Medicare is regulated by the feds now and not the states. Instead of just conceding and expanding medicare to all, couldn't we explore this option first?

Sorry but, I think you have gone "over my head". Can you provide a little more detail about how medicare actually works and how what you propose would change it? TIA.

Sorry, I realized that I was not very clear. I'm proposing no changes to medicare. I am merely pointing out that the requirements, coverage and regulation of medicare is all done by the Federal Government, not by the states. I'm asking why we can't explore the regulatory side of that with health insurers. Why not just have a national exchange, and have the federal government set the regulatory standards and not allow the states to regulate insurance companies? ACA already sets minimum coverage standards. Why not just have the Feds take on the regulatory role? As I pointed out above, yes, this would mean in some states the standards will lower, but in others the standards would come up. Can't we compromise on what those standards should be? Throw them all on one exchange and then disconnect employers completely from health insurance.

I'm no expert, just merely brainstorming on some other ideas.

I'm sure the Supreme Court would have to rule on that idea. The EPA is a federal regulatory agency that sets the minimum for states to abide by, but the states have the right to have their own regulatory agencies to enforce their own set of standards as long as the state law, at minimum, meets with federal law. I guess the same thing can be done with insurance but there's going to be challenge there for sure.

I think we need more access to basic medicine which my proposal would achieve. It would also shift some of the burden away from the ER back to clinics.

[DKW 86 7,977]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Personally, i think this will be the crux of why we go to single payer. We cross all state borders with one simplified plan that works for everyone: Medicare on steroids.

[channonc 466]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Personally, i think this will be the crux of why we go to single payer. We cross all state borders with one simplified plan that works for everyone: Medicare on steroids.

Sigh... slowly but surely I know I will come around and be aboard the single payer train.

[MDM4AU 338]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Personally, i think this will be the crux of why we go to single payer. We cross all state borders with one simplified plan that works for everyone: Medicare on steroids.

Even Medicare isn't the same across the board nowadays. Yes, there is Medicare A&B. A is "free" and covers hospital. B costs about $105 and covers physicians. But a majority of people are now on Medicare supplements and Advantage plans that provide drug coverage and other services. With the Advantage plans, the carrier basically takes over admin of claims and the government pays the carrier (BCBS, Viva, Healthspring, etc) a set amount per member to admin claims. If they can do it for less than the set fee, they make money. If not they lose. Each carrier can design a number of plans with various levels of coverage as long as a min standard is met. So, premiums, plans and networks can differ from state to state and even county to county.

[autigeremt 7,289]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Personally, i think this will be the crux of why we go to single payer. We cross all state borders with one simplified plan that works for everyone: Medicare on steroids.

Sigh... slowly but surely I know I will come around and be aboard the single payer train.

Not I. To me single payer is the lazy way out and a total sellout of individual liberties. I'd like to have a choice left.

[cooltigger21 0]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Personally, i think this will be the crux of why we go to single payer. We cross all state borders with one simplified plan that works for everyone: Medicare on steroids.

Sigh... slowly but surely I know I will come around and be aboard the single payer train.

Not I. To me single payer is the lazy way out and a total sellout of individual liberties. I'd like to have a choice left.

Single payer will be the VA on Steroids.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Interesting article on selling across state lines.

http://www.governing...-insurance.html

But why can't an option be to get rid of state regulation of insurance all together. The federal government already sets minimum standards, why not have the health insurance market completely regulated at the federal level? This way you could open up the market. The federal agency could have regional offices that coordinate audits and consumer complaints.

Personally, i think this will be the crux of why we go to single payer. We cross all state borders with one simplified plan that works for everyone: Medicare on steroids.

Sigh... slowly but surely I know I will come around and be aboard the single payer train.

Not I. To me single payer is the lazy way out and a total sellout of individual liberties. I'd like to have a choice left.

Single payer will be the VA on Steroids.

What basis do you have for this comment? The VA is an entirely different system.

Do you have any ideas on how healthcare costs should be controlled or, do you believe no effort should be made to control them?