Posted on 02/11/2016 11:39:32 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
No. That would be in conflict with getting government out of the health care system (at least where private insurance is concerned).
So where it the benefit for me? Say I pay $125 a month for my health insurance. I do my investigating and find a company that does business in South Dakota that offers the same coverage for $110 a month. So I go to them and say I want to buy a policy and they say "No thanks". How has the law made my insurance situation better?
Hard to take Anti-Life Ann seriously after she agreed with Christie’s abhorrent position: https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/696174520986660865
Yes, Cruz did misstate his position.
Trump has stated he’d go with an expanded free market approach, including interstate competition, for all but the current Medicare/Medicai-type situations.
The interviewer was cross-talking over Trump in that interview, interjecting new questions on top of the ones that Trump was in the process of answering.
Also, while you are correct that Blue Cross, Aetna, etc can have presences in many of the states, I don't believe businesses are able to pool across state lines. This is one of the suggestions made by the NFIB as noted here:
Another suggestion by the NFIB is to allow small businesses and inviduals to 'pool risks and purchase insurance across state lines.' Presently, large businesses, labor unions, and governments generally 'self-insure.' This allows them to pool their risks across state lines, thus developing 'larger, more stable risk pools, thereby lowering costs and reducing uncertainty.'
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/22460-nfib-offers-alternatives-to-obamacare
I think a mistake people make is that they look at this strictly from the consumer standpoint, and buying across state lines sounds attractive. But suppose you could buy across state lines and nobody came? If an insurance company does business in other states but not in mine then why would they sell to me? Their premium is based on what the insurance conditions are like in the states they are in, but not mine. They can set their premiums with an expectation of making a profit because they know the risks in their market and, more importantly, they can forecast their costs because they have established their network of providers and negotiated prices for the services they will expect to pay out on. I’m a completely unknown risk for them and they have no network in Missouri so if I make a claim then my medical provider will charge them literally whatever they want for the services. So the prices they charge for their premiums in their current states go out the window and they would have to figure a whole new pricing structure for this sole policy holder in KC. Given all that why would they want to go through the time and expense to do that? Why wouldn’t they just say, “Thanks but no thanks” to my business?
Cruz is Cruz. Situation normal.
No, Ann, Ted is telling the truth.
“But for the most it’s going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.”
Hmmm...sounds like 0bamacare.
Shades of difference, no more.
To quote the old saying, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference.”
And Torricelli and Olbermann.
What you would have to expect is that a number of profit seeking insurance companies would be competing for each market and pricing in to the equation higher risk pools.
I suppose if you have areas, let's pick on the Appalachia's and some of coal country, where poverty is real high, you could possibly end up with areas where no insurance company would do business.
Would this then be an appropriate use of medicare in a limited capacity?
His bright idea seems to be to expand it.
Capitalism would dictate that companies will do whatever is in their best interest. And if that means turning down customers from other states then they'll do that.
What you would have to expect is that a number of profit seeking insurance companies would be competing for each market and pricing in to the equation higher risk pools.
Only if there is a reasonable expectation that they are going to make money doing so. Given the not inconsiderable costs of setting up business in a new state then why would smaller companies go to that expense for small customers? And let's be clear, this will be insurance companies fighting for individuals and small businesses. Mid and large sized companies self-insure. So we may find that even though companies or individuals can buy across state lines they may find few opportunities to buy from.
Would this then be an appropriate use of medicare in a limited capacity?
Medicare is set up to deal with people over 65. Open that up to a wider population and just like with any health insurance company you throw their pricing structure off. Would that mean you have to raise premiums on the elderly, and will they sit still for it? Do you charge the poor the same nominal premium you charge the retired? Does that mean Medicare taxes will have to go up?
CruZ gave the best plan on healthcare and his answers are more in depth. He is right when he says socialized medicine leads to rationing. He also supports selling insurance across state lines and repealing every word of ObamaCare.
Now as far as insurance companies making much more money, I’m not sure of that. If they’re making so much money, why are they dropping out of the state exchanges?
Yes, Trumps word are full of innuendo and doublespeak, like a good salesman to think of it. I think he’s snookering a lot of people.
Trump loves single-payer healthcare but doesn’t think the time is right for it in America. Something else needs to be implemented since the time isn’t right for it.
A couple of years from now may be a terrific time for it. Terrific! A couple of years from now may be the time for the best single-payer system ever.
Don’t insult good salesmen. Good salesmen are very honest.
I know that; but Trump had some nonsensical answer when aked the question during the last debate. His explanation was that conservatism was using and saving financil assets; or words to that effect.
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.