Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
I don't disagree with this. While we're at it, though, I suggest that we go all the way. Eliminate state - level regulations on health insurers as well, and allow health insurance to be sold across state lines. State mandates for health insurance can be a significant driver of health insurance costs. For example, in Illinois and other states, group health plans are required to carry a rider the covers fertility treatments. Why in the world should an entire group be required to pay extra premium for coverage that most of the members of the group will never use?
If we eliminate the anti-trust exemption and reduce or eliminate state regs, and allow insurance to be sold across state lines, it would open up the whole market to significant competition. I'd suggest at that point you might see prices impacted in favor of the consumer, and more freedom to innovate insurance product design.
|
So if we allow sale across statelines what will prevent, oh say Aetna, from establishing themselves in a state with little or no regulation and thus be free to screw people more than they currently do? I pick on Aetna because in my last employment they administered the health insurance. I retired at 73 so every time I submitted a claim after I reached 65 (Hell I was 69 when I started there.
) some clerk would send it back saying that I should submit it to Medicare as they were my prime insurer. Then I would have to point them to the place in company litereature where it said they were prime for all employees regardless of age. They were not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
The voters in Illinois should have the fertility rites removed if that is how they feel.