Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander
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. |
Rob, what would prevent that is exclusive federal regulation of health insurance similar to the exclusive federal regulation of joint employer/union health and welfare funds. Under that scheme, the trust funds have delivered high quality coverage at lower prices than insurance. BTW, one feature of the joint funds is universal coverage. Employers make hourly contributions for all employees, regardless of age. Universal coverage is, of course, one of the major components of the new health care reform package.
To the extent that Whell agrees with the elimination of the anti-trust exemptions in the healthcare industry, and with a comprehensive exclusive federal federal regulatory program, I would agree with him on sale of insurance across state lines. The exclusive federal regulation would eliminate the incentive to go shopping for the best state regulations. It would also obliterate any argument that the exercise of federal regulation does not arise under the commerce clause.
Regard,
D-Ray