Monday, February 15, 2010

Health Care Updates

1. "Yes, the Uninsured Can Get Care" (WSJ)

"Lack of insurance doesn't have to mean going without needed health care. If you're uninsured and seeking stop-gap care until you find coverage, you can triage your way to better health by understanding the tradeoffs of several care options. A retail clinic or urgent-care center may be a suitable fit, depending on the severity of your medical need and personal preferences."

2. "Let Health Insurance Cross State Lines" (NYTimes)

"Arizona Representative John Shadegg, who sponsored legislation to allow insurance sales across state lines in 2005 and has championed the idea ever since, likes to illustrate the lack of competition by pointing to how different the market is for automobile insurance.

“If you turn on the television station at night,” he said, “you see Allstate and Geico and Progressive and State Farm pounding each other’s heads in. ‘Drop your policy and come get a policy from us, and we’ll do two things — we’ll save you money and give you better service.’ You never see that kind of advertisement for you and I to go out and buy health insurance.”

Other experts, like Stephen T. Parente, academic director of the Medical Industry Leadership Institute at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management, note that many insurers already operate across state lines in administering policies for large employers, and could easily do the same in the individual market.

Mr. Parente said his research had found that millions of uninsured people who now find coverage unaffordable in their home state might buy cheaper policies if they were available from other states. The competition would force insurers to provide better, cheaper service and might force low-performing companies out of business, while states with the most efficient regulatory framework could become regional “powerhouses” where insurers prefer to operate."

7 Comments:

At 2/15/2010 9:50 AM, Blogger W.E. Heasley said...

Mark:

Try this:
http://thelastembassy.blogspot.com/2010/02/socialized-medicine-scheme-and-selling.html

 
At 2/15/2010 10:00 AM, Blogger Marko said...

So who is fighting against this, and why? Is it insurance companies? If so, funny how it is the Democrat party that is in the pocket of the same big business they are always vilifying.

If that is not the reason, I would like to hear one demoncrat explain why they are against this. Just one reason, haven't heard one yet.

 
At 2/15/2010 10:08 AM, Blogger sethstorm said...


while states with the most efficient regulatory framework could become regional “powerhouses” where insurers prefer to operate."


That sounds a lot like the screwiness that goes on with South Dakota & Delaware. No thank you, but people of legal fiction(read: business) should not be made impervious to all avenues of legal remedy. They should be as vulnerable and assailable as persons of actual flesh and blood, not less. It's bad enough to see usury get away with it.

 
At 2/15/2010 10:29 AM, Blogger Marko said...

Seth, in what way are corporations registered in DE "impervious to all avenues of legal remedy?" Corporations prefer DE because it is predictable and its laws are comprehensive.

Regulation of interstate commerce is constitutionally the prerogative of the federal government, and best left there (one of the few things that the federal government is actually supposed to be doing). Congress made a mistake when they made this exception to the dormant commerce clause and allowed states to regulate interstate commerce. This is similar to the intra state protectionism that was happening before the constitution was enacted, with similar, predictable results (toxic monopolies).

 
At 2/15/2010 11:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That sounds a lot like the screwiness that goes on with South Dakota & Delaware. No thank you, but people of legal fiction(read: business) should not be made impervious to all avenues of legal remedy. They should be as vulnerable and assailable as persons of actual flesh and blood, not less. It's bad enough to see usury get away with it.

Obviously, there is a demand for retail mental health clinics as well.

 
At 2/15/2010 1:29 PM, Blogger Jet Beagle said...

marko: "So who is fighting against this, and why?"

As I understand it, three factors account for the state-to-state variation in health insurance rates: mandates for treatments; guaranteed issue; and community rating. My guess is that the specialists and manufacturers who benefit from treatments are fighting interstate insurance sales. The Council for Affordable Health Insurance reports that 10 states provide for:

"mandate-lite policies, which allow some individuals
to purchase a policy with fewer mandates more tailored to their needs and financial situation."

 
At 2/15/2010 4:13 PM, Blogger randian said...

@sethstorm: Ah, the old "race to the bottom" fallacy.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home