Republicare

[BrownArmy]

definitely is in there...

Where?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Where?

Have to pass it to find out.

 

[BrownArmy]

Have to pass it to find out.

He'll never answer, but I'm the snowflake.

 

[Catatonic]

Have to pass it to find out.

Where have I heard that before?

 

[newfie]

Then it is not in either the House not Senate plan, correct? It's in step 4 which will never happen?

Pretty dumb of them. For it to work and not screw people over, would have to happen immediately I would think. Otherwise members of congress are stuck telling constituents, "I know it sucks now, but in three years after you reelect me...."

its the path they have to take in todays world of obstructionist politics.

 

[MAKAVELI]

i'm in complete agreement with a wide open across the state lines competitive insurance market .

I don't think it matters what I think on this subject. Obama created a plan that would implode and drag us into single payer. I support the efforts to fight that but I think the cement shoes are already cast and pulling us down.

with that in mind I think the only thing schumer and Pelosi was worried about was protecting Obama's legacy and fighting any efforts to fix it.

script and plans for this defense of Obamacare was written months ago and it did not matter what the republicans came up with.

Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Is Unlikely to Lower Costs or Improve Choice
The Theory Behind Policies to Allow the Sale of Insurance “Across State Lines”
Health insurance has traditionally been regulated by states, which, until the ACA established a set of essential health benefits and other minimum consumer protections, meant that there was significant state variation in the rules governing insurance companies and the health plans that they sell. Some states have had numerous requirements mandating coverage of certain benefits, such as autism treatment, diabetes screening, or mammograms, while others have taken a hands-off approach to benefit design. Similarly, before the ACA prohibited charging women or people with preexisting conditions more for their coverage, some states limited insurers’ flexibility in setting premiums based on characteristics of enrollees while others did not.

The concept of selling insurance across state lines, which dates back to the 1990s, was borne out of frustration with the variation in state regulation. Proponents contend that if an insurance company were allowed to operate by the rules of just one state but sell plans in multiple states, they could lower the price of their plans, giving consumers new and more affordable choices.

When Theory Collides with Reality
While the frustration with the costs of our current health care system is well-founded, proposals to allow cross-state sales will do nothing to encourage greater competition or address the underlying drivers of health care costs. Just like politics, health insurance is local. Today’s health plans essentially provide enrollees with access to a local network of doctors and hospitals at a discounted price. According to many insurance experts, the primary barrier for an insurer looking to enter a new market is not the state’s regulations, it’s the cost of building up a provider network at discounted prices.

To date, six states have enacted laws to allow cross-state sales: Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wyoming. Yet none of these states has had a single new insurer enter its market because of its law. When asked about their laws, state officials and insurance industry experts in those states agreed that establishing a competitive provider network is the primary barrier to new market entrants. They also observed that the sheer complexity of how insurance products are developed, priced, and regulated makes it difficult to establish a single cross-state framework for consumer protection.

At the same time, there is a significant risk that if the ACA’s insurance reforms are repealed, and Congress enacts legislation to mandate cross-state sales, it could lead to adverse selection in many states. Without a federal minimum standard of protections, some multistate insurers with national or regional networks could take advantage of the exemption from a state’s standards for benefit design, premium rating, and other consumer protections. This would enable them to attract younger and healthier enrollees than local insurers who must comply with their state’s laws. This, in turn, could threaten the long-term viability of local insurers, increase premiums, and reduce consumers’ choices.

Looking Ahead
Across-state-lines legislation pending in Congress would effectively force states to allow interstate sales. However, if President Trump wishes to fulfill his campaign promise to encourage health insurance to be sold across state lines, he need look no further than current law and his own HHS Secretary. He is likely to find—as six states have already found—that cross-state sales will do nothing to improve consumers’ choices or lower premiums.

To learn more, see our explainer Essential Facts About Health Reform Alternatives: Allowing Insurance Sales Across State Lines

 

[BrownArmy]

Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Is Unlikely to Lower Costs or Improve Choice
The Theory Behind Policies to Allow the Sale of Insurance “Across State Lines”...

I'm telling you, facts won't work with this crowd, although I appreciate the effort.

 

[wkmac]

You work for UPS and you want a carbon tax? And I'll save the interstellar stuff for the tinfoil hat crowd.

You might have to give one of those hats to UPS itself. Careful in assuming what UPS might be for and against. Cap and Trade is really more business than it is environment. UPS also has a large "Sustainability" section within the Engineering function devoted among other things to being green and yes, even reducing the UPS carbon footprint.

UPS carbon neutral

 

[BrownArmy]

its the path they have to take in todays world of obstructionist politics.

What in the current plan allows insurance companies to sell across state lines?

You said it was mosdef in there...

Where?

 

[Catatonic]

What in the current plan allows insurance companies to sell across state lines?

You said it was mosdef in there...

Where?

That's in Step 4.

 

[BrownArmy]

That's in Step 4.

Not in step 1?

There is no step 2, 3, or 4.

How high are you right now?

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

This is step 2 of the 4 step plan as laid out by Ryan.
I believe the 'across state lines' comes in step 4.

What step is "switch to a single payer system"?

 

[Catatonic]

What step is "switch to a single payer system"?

Step 13

 

[newfie]

Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Is Unlikely to Lower Costs or Improve Choice
The Theory Behind Policies to Allow the Sale of Insurance “Across State Lines”
Health insurance has traditionally been regulated by states, which, until the ACA established a set of essential health benefits and other minimum consumer protections, meant that there was significant state variation in the rules governing insurance companies and the health plans that they sell. Some states have had numerous requirements mandating coverage of certain benefits, such as autism treatment, diabetes screening, or mammograms, while others have taken a hands-off approach to benefit design. Similarly, before the ACA prohibited charging women or people with preexisting conditions more for their coverage, some states limited insurers’ flexibility in setting premiums based on characteristics of enrollees while others did not.

The concept of selling insurance across state lines, which dates back to the 1990s, was borne out of frustration with the variation in state regulation. Proponents contend that if an insurance company were allowed to operate by the rules of just one state but sell plans in multiple states, they could lower the price of their plans, giving consumers new and more affordable choices.

When Theory Collides with Reality
While the frustration with the costs of our current health care system is well-founded, proposals to allow cross-state sales will do nothing to encourage greater competition or address the underlying drivers of health care costs. Just like politics, health insurance is local. Today’s health plans essentially provide enrollees with access to a local network of doctors and hospitals at a discounted price. According to many insurance experts, the primary barrier for an insurer looking to enter a new market is not the state’s regulations, it’s the cost of building up a provider network at discounted prices.

To date, six states have enacted laws to allow cross-state sales: Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wyoming. Yet none of these states has had a single new insurer enter its market because of its law. When asked about their laws, state officials and insurance industry experts in those states agreed that establishing a competitive provider network is the primary barrier to new market entrants. They also observed that the sheer complexity of how insurance products are developed, priced, and regulated makes it difficult to establish a single cross-state framework for consumer protection.

At the same time, there is a significant risk that if the ACA’s insurance reforms are repealed, and Congress enacts legislation to mandate cross-state sales, it could lead to adverse selection in many states. Without a federal minimum standard of protections, some multistate insurers with national or regional networks could take advantage of the exemption from a state’s standards for benefit design, premium rating, and other consumer protections. This would enable them to attract younger and healthier enrollees than local insurers who must comply with their state’s laws. This, in turn, could threaten the long-term viability of local insurers, increase premiums, and reduce consumers’ choices.

Looking Ahead
Across-state-lines legislation pending in Congress would effectively force states to allow interstate sales. However, if President Trump wishes to fulfill his campaign promise to encourage health insurance to be sold across state lines, he need look no further than current law and his own HHS Secretary. He is likely to find—as six states have already found—that cross-state sales will do nothing to improve consumers’ choices or lower premiums.

To learn more, see our explainer Essential Facts About Health Reform Alternatives: Allowing Insurance Sales Across State Lines

I saw this before but did not use it , a lot of it is outdated. It also attempts to disagree with the foundation of an open and competitive market which we know always provides a competitive product at a competitive price.

 

[It will be fine]

its the path they have to take in todays world of obstructionist politics.

So the only part of the new republican bill that you like isn't actually in the bill.

You claim the ACA was designed as a poison pill to destroy 1/6th of the country's economy, because that's what Obama wanted his legacy to be, economic ruin.

It doesn't sound like you've really studied up on the subject much. The Republicare bill is designed for tax cuts. It is fiscally irresponsible. It still provides subsidies, it just makes them tax credits. It removes the taxes to pay for those subsidies. So to help balance the budget the plan is slash Medicaid and kick poor people off their insurance.

It basically breaks every Trump campaign promise about healthcare.

 

[MAKAVELI]

I saw this before but did not use it , a lot of it is outdated. It also attempts to disagree with the foundation of an open and competitive market which we know always provides a competitive product at a competitive price.

There is nothing prohibiting Insurance companies from doing it now.
Selling health insurance across state lines – it’s already legal under Obamacare | Jamie Dupree - PBP

 

[newfie]

So the only part of the new republican bill that you like isn't actually in the bill.

You claim the ACA was designed as a poison pill to destroy 1/6th of the country's economy, because that's what Obama wanted his legacy to be, economic ruin.

It doesn't sound like you've really studied up on the subject much. The Republicare bill is designed for tax cuts. It is fiscally irresponsible. It still provides subsidies, it just makes them tax credits. It removes the taxes to pay for those subsidies. So to help balance the budget the plan is slash Medicaid and kick poor people off their insurance.

It basically breaks every Trump campaign promise about healthcare.

Obamacare broke every Obama promise and now we as a country are stuck with the consequences. Adding your political spin to the discussion will not help fix it.

 

[newfie]

There is nothing prohibiting Insurance companies from doing it now.
Selling health insurance across state lines – it’s already legal under Obamacare | Jamie Dupree - PBP

Obamacare prevents the open market competition we need.

 

[MAKAVELI]

Obamacare prevents the open market competition we need.

How so?

 

[newfie]

How so?

its a heavy regulating stifling piece of legislation that chokes the free market. the information is out there you choose not to expose yourself to it.

A Free Market Healthcare Revolution: Why And How

The end of Obamacare: Fixing healthcare the free-market way