Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Who is opposed to letting health insurance companies compete across the entire country, and why

Who is opposed to letting health insurance companies compete across the entire country, and why?
Some argue that allowing health insurance companies to compete all over the country would reduce costs. Most conservatives seem to favor this while most liberals do not. What are the arguments for and against doing this.

Who has a vested interest in the geographical restrictions.
Other - Politics & Government - 9 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Not me! That's the way to go along with tort reform.
2 :
Competition is always good. Government control is always bad
3 :
Most insurance companies have offices in all states. Public option will make them finally have real competition.*
4 :
Competition is good, restrictions are usually not good is all. They should go for more Competition and Torte reform before they start changing all the ways we do health care.
5 :
I would love to see them compete. However, they choose not to and run a monopoly. Make a claim and see what happens.
6 :
I would want to hear more about it. Since they only are within states there is no justification for the federal government to regulate them under the constitution, and currently they are only regulated by the states. In California, they have to be subject to certain accounting rules showing funds in place and be subject to bad faith law suits, and I know California insurance is more expensive for that reason, but the state considers it a consumer protection. I think we should find out what the difficulties are. It may be a good idea, but it would take some meshing.
7 :
Competition is always good if the government is not involved. Those in many states can not get health care reform because of the different laws each have. Tort reform is another good way to lower the cost of health care but those in power do not want this.
8 :
Health insurance companies have already proven they will exploit any opportunity to place profits ahead of people. This breaks down into at least three distinct categories: 1) Selective acceptance of applicants for insurance. Obviously, most insurers just want young, healthy customers who can afford high premiums. That won't solve the problem of 47 million uninsured. 2) Denial of claims. People who do have coverage often discover that their claim is denied for some legalistic reason or other. So what were they paying for in the first place? A little plastic card? 3) Corrupting our elected officials via huge campaign contributions and outright bribery. Where's the proof? Look how fast the "blue-dog" Democrats backed off on supporting reform, once the insurance lobby mobilized, and yes, they've since been shown to have accepted money from insurance lobbyists. Giving the insurance companies more freedom to gouge the public seems contrary to the intent of reform. Forcing more people to pay premiums to these ripoffs seems even worse. If they've abused their customers in the past, why reward them with more business?
9 :
insurance is regulated by the state. many do compete across the country, they just have to get licensed in whatever state they want to compete in- which pretty much just involves paying money to the state.

Read more discussions :