Repeal of Obamacare

[iris lily]

I remember when someone here from Mass., the state that requires insurance with mandated minimum coverage, complaining that the policy he/she had was declared
inadequate by her state. That's a whole 'nother level of problems that I had not thought about and that has to be considered in this environment of forced insurance buying.

I am interested in the Mass. experiment and am happy to sit back and watch what is going on in that state as a mini-prelude for any nationally mandated coverage.

[freein05]

I remember when someone here from Mass., the state that requires insurance with mandated minimum coverage, complaining that the policy he/she had was declared
inadequate by her state. That's a whole 'nother level of problems that I had not thought about and that has to be considered in this environment of forced insurance buying.

I am interested in the Mass. experiment and am happy to sit back and watch what is going on in that state as a mini-prelude for any nationally mandated coverage.

Good point. I too would like to see an unbiased study of Mass. health care law. But with the way politics are the study would be torn apart by both sides.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Good point. I too would like to see an unbiased study of Mass. health care law. But with the way politics are the study would be torn apart by both sides.

I very much respect Massachusetts for going through with this and being the guinea pig if you will - but I'm afraid I agree that the study would be torn apart by both sides.....A very sad shame for both parties as this is supposed to be about getting the uncovered covered and broadening the insurance pool so the expenses for the unhealthy are made up for by the healthy. Not about nasty politics.....Rob

[Never Again]

I remember when someone here from Mass., the state that requires insurance with mandated minimum coverage, complaining that the policy he/she had was declared
inadequate by her state. That's a whole 'nother level of problems that I had not thought about and that has to be considered in this environment of forced insurance buying.

I am interested in the Mass. experiment and am happy to sit back and watch what is going on in that state as a mini-prelude for any nationally mandated coverage.

I am from Mass and self employed so I pay my own health insurance 100%...all that I can tell you is that my premiums have skyrocketed after RomneyCare was introduced...up almost 40% last year alone.

[Gregg]

Never Again: sorry to hear about your rise in premiums. We were all hoping for a brighter report. Was there any change to your coverage along with the higher costs under "RomneyCare"? It's starting to look like there is no magic bullet (although everyone probably knew that already).

[Never Again]

Never Again: sorry to hear about your rise in premiums. We were all hoping for a brighter report. Was there any change to your coverage along with the higher costs under "RomneyCare"? It's starting to look like there is no magic bullet (although everyone probably knew that already).

No changes in coverage, I did turn 50 which added a little bit but nowhere near 40%. And this was on top of 20% to 25% increases in each of the previous years. Everyone that I know, employers and self employed, got hit with big increases for 2010.

[jp1]

I'm not sure why it would require a federal insurance commissioner to regulate the individual states when state insurance commissioners are already tasked with the responsibility of regulating those insurance products sold within their states.

If any given state is not doing an adequate job of regulating the quality of products sold it seems to me that the caveat emptor doctrine would apply and, theoretically, prevent widescale abuse.

The problem though is that in this case (someone out of state buying an insurance product sold in that state) the product is NOT being sold in that state. Someone outside that state doesn't have much pull when it comes time to complain about the bogus product.

And the ramifications of letting insurance companies sell product in a state they are not domiciled in would extend far beyond health insurance. Two main examples would be workers comp insurance and personal auto insurance. If it were decided, either by federal law or federal court decisions, that states can't enforce coverage requirements for health insurance policies it would quickly lead to eliminating their abililty to enforce coverage requirements for these and other coverages as well. Soon everyone would be able to buy their auto insurance, and businesses their workers comp insurance, from a carrier in the state with the lowest coverage requirements. Soon every worker in NY, a state with relatively robust workers comp laws, would likely be only protected by a plan that pays a very low weekly lost wage benefit because their employer wanted to save money by buying their workers' comp policy from a company in a state like Texas whose law provides its workers with very little protection in the event of an on the job accident.

[bae]

The problem though is that in this case (someone out of state buying an insurance product sold in that state) the product is NOT being sold in that state. Someone outside that state doesn't have much pull when it comes time to complain about the bogus product.

And the ramifications of letting insurance companies sell product in a state they are not domiciled in would extend far beyond health insurance.

Odd though. I can successfully order books, food, clothing, automobiles, building materials, musical instruments, chemicals, appliances, and hundreds of other goods from vendors in other states, and somehow it works out. I can enter into contracts with residents of other states, and buy shares of stock in companies in other states, and work for companies that are in other states, and engage in, well, almost unlimited commerce with other states.

But somehow insurance won't work?

[jp1]

Odd though. I can successfully order books, food, clothing, automobiles, building materials, musical instruments, chemicals, appliances, and hundreds of other goods from vendors in other states, and somehow it works out. I can enter into contracts with residents of other states, and buy shares of stock in companies in other states, and work for companies that are in other states, and engage in, well, almost unlimited commerce with other states.

But somehow insurance won't work?

Most of the items you list are physical goods. Insurance is a promise to pay in the event of certain circumstances, which is a MUCH more complicated product to purchase. Yes, a sophisticated consumer can and will take the time to compare different products. However, insurance companies don't make it easy. This is one of the reason that the medicare buy-up policies are all required to be one of an identical set of choices. The chaos and deceiving by the insurance companies would make it impossible for consumers to figure out which one was truly right for them because they wouldn't be able to tell what was truly covered versus what was covered in theory but which would likely be denied by an obscure exclusion somewhere else in the policy.

And getting back to one of my original concerns. Individuals don't buy their own workers comp policy. They depend on their employer to buy it. Currently their employer has to buy a policy that meets their state's requirements in terms of what's covered, how much is paid, etc. If employers were no longer required to meet their state's worker's comp laws, which would be an inevitable consequence of allowing individuals to buy health insurance across state lines, employers would all buy the cheapest policy they could find, and employees would have no choice but to live with whatever that policy paid if they got injured on the job. Puerto Rico workers comp law only requires coverage for lost wages up to $133/week. I'd hate to be out of work due to a workplace injury and have to manage my bills on that. For a person who lives in/around NYC it'd be tough enough to manage with the $460/week that NY law requires, but at $133 many people would be homeless in no time.

[creaker]

No changes in coverage, I did turn 50 which added a little bit but nowhere near 40%. And this was on top of 20% to 25% increases in each of the previous years. Everyone that I know, employers and self employed, got hit with big increases for 2010.

One of the reasons for increases was the job market - a lot of healthy people dropped out of insurance pools due to the recession.