Posted on 08/22/2009 11:10:21 AM PDT by Rick_Michael
WASHINGTON –Several studies show that in lots of places, one or two companies dominate the market. Critics say monopolistic conditions drive up premiums paid by employers and individuals.
For Democrats, the answer is a public plan that would compete with private insurers.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Yes, we need interstate competition, but it seems that both parties are against that concept.
More. AP. Agitprop.
The correct way to spur competition among insurance providers is to allow Americans to buy insuramce across state lines. Insurers would be forced to lower rates in order to compete with other nationwide insurers. Like those price wars at gasoline stations across the country a while back. Similar situation.
“Yes, we need interstate competition, but it seems that both parties are against that concept.”
Stuck between a rock and a hard place, Republican business cultists and Democrat economic fascists.
but Obama’s town hall strategery blew the cover for the Senate Republicans on board with the Democrats and insurance companies. It appears the frontman, Senator Grassley, has gone under the desk for cover.
Nah, too freedom friendly, we can't allow it.
Around 2005 we had the The Health Care Choice Act.
“On July 20, 2005, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 24 to 23 (24 Republicans in favor, 21 Democrats and 2 Republicans opposed) ordered H.R.2355 reported favorably out of committee, which it was on February 16, 2006, and subsequently died with no further action in the full House. S.1015 died in committee.”
Just a feign by republicans? To some extent I think both sides may be bought by their respective interests.
“Yes, we need interstate competition, but it seems that both parties are against that concept.”
Any idea why? Seems ridiculous - you can get auto insurance, home insurance, across state lines but not medical?
Another popular misconception. It is not that the firms involved would NOT compete, they are not even ALLOWED to suit up and get out on the field.
There is no trouble finding competition for practically any other type of insurnce, but the barriers and mandates are set so high for health insurance companies, they have little incentive to compete.
As others have suggested, eliminating these artificial restrictions about not selling policies across state lines, but insisting that the pool be contained only to within one locality or other limitations to membership, ends the likelihood of much serious competition ever being encouraged.
The “public option” will do absolutely ZILCH for fostering any competition, it would act muchmore like a bulldozer, in just demolishing any existing commercial structure.
“Public Option” is just a giant HMO.
It seems to me we do have interstate competition now. All the major carriers sell policies in all the states. They are however each tailored to individual states insurance laws, which in themselves stifle competition. There are just too many state and federal mandates in health insurance.
I would not say it is to some extent, but rather to "extreme extent."
Some folks dont’ need prenatal care, psychs, acupuncture, etc....
May I ask how you come to that conclusion?
If Americans currently hate their HMO I bet that will be nothing compared to how much Americans will hate their government run HMO if Obamacare passes.
Yes, lobbyists exert great influence to members of both parties.
Now I wonder if the INTERSTATE COMPETITION BAN has anything to do with that??? Funny. AP doesn’t mention it!!
The article doesn’t say anything about how interstate competition is illegal. So instead of suggesting that the ban be repealed, the article instead suggests that we should adopt even bigger government. This article is an excellent example of media bias.
The weird thing about today’s media is that they avoid common sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.