- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: TRUMP to back RAND Healthcare Bill
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:54 pm to bonhoeffer45
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:54 pm to bonhoeffer45
What are the five states?
1
Posted on 9/27/17 at 6:54 pm to bonhoeffer45
It doesn't do them any good to peddle Obamacare and all of its forced coverages across state lines. They are pulling out of states that they currently operate in.
That's not even close to what republicans are proposing. Try harder.
That's not even close to what republicans are proposing. Try harder.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:04 pm to roadGator
quote:
What are the five states?
Maine, Georgia, Kentucky, Rhode island, Wyoming.
And apparently you can add Oklahoma as a sixth. Just re-checked my resource and apparently they passed a bill in May allowing it as well.
The only counter-point I have come across about why it would be different if mandated federally, is that it would slightly reduce some barriers like needing to apply for licenses in both states, or allow insurers to avoid dispute resolutions in the operating states, but building up a local network is still the overwhelming barrier to entry for insurers. At best I could see a market emerge where small compacts selectively invite outsiders based on good health, which would leave people unable to find a way into those pacts stuck in an even sicker and expensive individual private insurance market.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:08 pm to BamaCoaster
quote:If he does this, I'll take a rental jacket for the time being, and continue to rent it though the tax policy debate and vote.
TRUMP to back RAND Healthcare Bill
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:10 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:The issue here is that with such a small sample, with states that are largely suggest geographically, demographically, and economically, it's hard to really draw any inferences from this.
Maine, Georgia, Kentucky, Rhode island, Wyoming.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:10 pm to buckeye_vol
I was wondering how you would react to this. There seems to be a lot of smoke here, even though this "news" is not really new news. Old news. Hopefully not fake news.
I have no issue with Trump hopping around. So long as he eventually lands in an acceptable spot. Actually, I'm fairly certain I predicted this back when many thought he couldn't win.
Instinct. I think Mr. Trump talked about that,
I have no issue with Trump hopping around. So long as he eventually lands in an acceptable spot. Actually, I'm fairly certain I predicted this back when many thought he couldn't win.
Instinct. I think Mr. Trump talked about that,
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:12 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Not since ACA and that's why our insurance went from 400 a mounth to 1600 a month with higher deductibles and less coverage.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:18 pm to BamaCoaster
Need soomething done im down
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:19 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
The issue here is that with such a small sample, with states that are largely suggest geographically, demographically, and economically, it's hard to really draw any inferences from this.
I mean sensible economists on the left and the right predicted this to be the result. It is just really difficult and expensive to build a network from the ground up in the individual market somewhere.
If we mandated nationwide indemnity insurance, things would be different. But markets have organized around PPO's and the like, and building networks in local areas is expensive and can put you at an increased risk level in your stable marketplaces and open you up for losses.
But if this doesn't get sued to the heavens by states, you might have your larger sample size to look at. Looking at it from the problems I see in the system, I don't even see a best case scenario where this fixes things.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 7:20 pm
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:19 pm to BamaCoaster
My pants are sticky now. frick
Ill take it tho.
Ill take it tho.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:23 pm to BamaCoaster
quote:
Insurance Commissioner
What has that MF ever done for us? My health insurance, car insurance and homeowners keep going up with less coverage.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:25 pm to fatboydave
Absolutely. The insurance commissioners should have complete control over private market places!
It's the only conservative American thing to do!
It's the only conservative American thing to do!
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:42 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Absolutely. The insurance commissioners should have complete control over private market places!
It's the only conservative American thing to do!
The reason we have regulators for insurers is because the early years of insurance were really ugly.
Insurers would set up shop, take consumers money, often engage in speculative investments, keep inadequate reserves, maintain shady payout practices to minimize losses. I think in the first 5 years there was something like 75 life insurance companies that went belly up. While many of the operators ran off with their pockets full and lower level employees and customers in pretty ugly shape. Confidence plummeted. This was actually a market space where regulation was necessary to save the market from itself. It was a classic market failure scenario.
Now, some of it was because it was simply the infancy of the market. Sound statistics and market profiles were not well established, so creating risk forecasts much harder to do. But a lot of it was just allowing a space for excess and profiteering to go without consequence, paid for at the consumer and societies expense. Without intervention consumer confidence probably would of led to the market never really establishing itself adequately.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 7:44 pm
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:44 pm to bonhoeffer45
Did you read the post I responded to?
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:45 pm to BamaCoaster
4 times is a charm right guys.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:47 pm to asurob1
It is such a great plan. This time they mean it.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:48 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:
Did you read the post I responded to?
I did, but I got the impression of sarcasm.
Either way, I was really just wanting to explain at large, that one of the underlying issues in Rand's plan is the desire to take states ability to regulate their markets away from them. Which is a double edged sword.
For one it kinda goes against his states rights motto, but secondly, it suggests an end game being sought where insurers shop around for the home base they can operate in with the lowest regulations and scrutiny. That seems obviously problematic.
This post was edited on 9/27/17 at 7:48 pm
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:48 pm to Iowa Golfer
Lmao
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:50 pm to bonhoeffer45
They already do this. If we were talking about property casualty I'd be concerned. But health insurance in its present form is barley insurance. It's becoming prepaid medical.
Posted on 9/27/17 at 7:52 pm to Iowa Golfer
quote:Yup.
It's becoming prepaid medical.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News