"gray asphalt" <dontwrite at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nxmGm.66$D83.18 at (no spam) newsfe11.iad...

"dene" <dene at (no spam) remove.ipns.com> wrote in message
news:7ku3q7F3b0aiaU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...

"Moderate" <no_spam_ at (no spam) no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:4ae998cf$0$26492$bbae4d71 at (no spam) news.suddenlink.net...

"gray asphalt" <dontwrite at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg9Gm.10$%U3.3 at (no spam) newsfe21.iad...
Today, I got a call from a conference call company
inviting me to listen and ask questions of my Senator,
Harry Reid, about health care.

I didn't get in to ask any of the 6 questions I had but
one thing was interesting: He was evasive about allowing
individuals being allowed to buy insurance from out-of-
state providers ... he made it sound like that would be
going against state insurance controllers ability to reign
in bad practices by health insurance providers ...

but ... he has been quoted as wanting to eliminate the
exemption of health insurance providers from the exemption
from anti-trust legislation. One of Nevada's own senators,
McCannan, was apparently at least partially responsible
for the exemption, and Reid is calling for its repeal.

So, is the anti-trust exemption related to the ban on buying
insurance from out-of-state companies ... does it have anything
to do with the anti-trust exemption?

We, on this NG seem to assuming that it does.

Why do you need Federal anti-trust legislation for companies that are
not
allowed to sell across State lines?

Good question. This whole anti-trust stuff seems like a red herring.
On
paper, it's a good idea that New Jersey Life can peddle policies in
Wyoming,
but what if they come in, collect premium, and skedaddle when the claims
start rolling in? Most State laws prevent this practice.

-Greg

The point of was that apparently "across state lines"
and "anti-trust" legialation are not related.
What the McCarran-Ferguson Act really did was to give control of
anti-trust issues to the states. So there really is a relationship between
'across state lines' and McCarran-Ferguson. Since Federal anti-trust
governs activity across the states, this really is almost inevitable given
the structure of healthcare insurance in the US. If a local chain of
grocery stores was conspiring to fix prices down to drive out other
stores, and then raise prices when the competition was gone, this would be
a state issue, not a federal one.

And despite most headlines, this is an "Insurance Industry Exemption" not
a "Healthcare Insurance Industry Exemption".

dave

"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC at (no spam) ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote in message
news:-b6dnZwP0vtDZXTXnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d at (no spam) earthlink.com...


SNIP

What the McCarran-Ferguson Act really did was to give control of
anti-trust issues to the states. So there really is a relationship
between 'across state lines' and McCarran-Ferguson. Since Federal
anti-trust governs activity across the states, this really is almost
inevitable given the structure of healthcare insurance in the US. If a
local chain of grocery stores was conspiring to fix prices down to drive
out other stores, and then raise prices when the competition was gone,
this would be a state issue, not a federal one.

And despite most headlines, this is an "Insurance Industry Exemption" not
a "Healthcare Insurance Industry Exemption".

dave

Are you saying that if the govt. repealed McCarran-Ferguson
the insurance industry would be able to sell across state lines?

... that if MF were repealed that it would not be easier to start
a competitive business that offered better rates, by a private
company springing up to compete?

Senator Reid supports repealing MF but does not support
being able to buy health insurance across state lines ... How
is that possible?

Good question. This whole anti-trust stuff seems like a red herring. On
paper, it's a good idea that New Jersey Life can peddle policies in
Wyoming, but what if they come in, collect premium, and skedaddle when the
claims
start rolling in? Most State laws prevent this practice.

The point of was that apparently "across state lines"
and "anti-trust" legialation are not related.

I've read that the profit margin of health insurance companies is 3%. I
know for certain that a smaller company I represent filed a 0% profit with
the state of Oregon. It's hard for me to believe that company from a
different state will do any better.

Allowing people to buy health insurance across state line would, in
effect, eliminate mandated coverage. For example, I live in NY and all
the health insurance available to me is required by state law to
provide benefits for acupuncture. I have no choice but to pay for it
even if I don't want it. I assume that some pro-acupuncture group
donated enough money to the right bunch of politicians and got
included in the mandated coverage.

Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
bad to this.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:57:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper at (no spam) aol.com
wrote:

Allowing people to buy health insurance across state line would, in
effect, eliminate mandated coverage. For example, I live in NY and all
the health insurance available to me is required by state law to
provide benefits for acupuncture. I have no choice but to pay for it
even if I don't want it. I assume that some pro-acupuncture group
donated enough money to the right bunch of politicians and got
included in the mandated coverage.

Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
bad to this.

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:12:43 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard at (no spam) brazee.net
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:57:39 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper at (no spam) aol.com
wrote:

Allowing people to buy health insurance across state line would, in
effect, eliminate mandated coverage. For example, I live in NY and all
the health insurance available to me is required by state law to
provide benefits for acupuncture. I have no choice but to pay for it
even if I don't want it. I assume that some pro-acupuncture group
donated enough money to the right bunch of politicians and got
included in the mandated coverage.

Selective coverage is a problem with insurance. For example, old
people and bachelors don't want to pay for insurance with maternity
benefits. If insurance is split between a thousand different
populations, we only have high-risk groups paying for their needed
coverage. Risk isn't shared outside that group. There's good and
bad to this.

If you charge low risk people too much for coverage, they wont buy it
and who can blame them. Forty-three percent of the uninsured in the
US could afford to buy health insurance but don't. Most of these
people are young singles. Providing cheap coverage for the young
encourages them to be in the system.

Community ratings create a situation where low risk (young & healthy)
people are charged more than their fair share in order to pay for the
high risk (sick & old) people who are not paying their fair share.

Here's an excellent article from the WSJ on the effects of CR on
health insurance.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461482860007734.html

I'm not in this discussion so I don't care what the answer is. But I
have read the Constitution, it's only a few pages, and it says that
the federal government cannot restrict interstate commerce. So why
can't you buy out of state insurance?

You implied that we can't because the federal government can't
restrict interstate commerce.

I responded that states can, which
would seem to me to be an obvious refutation of your premise. That's
all I intended to do, I'm not being paid to answer your questions. If
I'm a dumbass it is for other reasons than not answering your
question.

I don't know whether I can buy out of state insurance or not. It's
not an issue for me, so I didn't look it up. Apparently your state
has regulations - ask your legislatures why if you're so curious.

I can go to a car dealer and get the kind of car I want. All kinds of
people want different kinds of cars. The manufacturers and dealers
can handle this. The insurance companies can't?

Apples and oranges. If an insurance company received hundreds from a pool
of insured but pays out thousands, how long can they stay in business?

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Jack Hollis wrote in article
1qnoe5l45mhb7kb9hl79ptdj0gsnmiv1b1 at (no spam) 4ax.com>:

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:41:04 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard at (no spam) brazee.net
wrote:

How do they determine "could afford to buy health insurance"? Is it
a choice between renting a small apartment and buying health insurance
and buying a house without health insurance? Or keeping a coffee
house open trying to start one's own business without health insurance
vs working for a large business with health insurance? Lots of gray
area here.

An extensive study of the uninsured was done by two researchers from
Baruch College, City University of New York for the Employment
Policies Institute.

"The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) is one of several front
groups created by Berman & Co., a Washington, DC public affairs firm
owned by Rick Berman, who lobbies for the restaurant, hotel, alcoholic
beverage and tobacco industries. While most commonly referred to as
EPI, it is registered as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization under the
name of Employment Policies Institute Foundation. In its annual
Internal Revenue Service return, EPI states that it "shares office
space with Berman & Company on a cost pass through basis." [1]

"[1] Employment Policies Institute Foundation, "Return of
Organization Exempt from Income Tax", 2005, Statement 12."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute
--
Don Kirkman
donsno2 at (no spam) charter.net

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:24:04 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper at (no spam) aol.com
wrote:

One of the findings that might surprise you is the amount of health
care that is provided to the uninsured. In Canada, the rate of
screening for cancer in women using Mammogram's and Pap Smears tests
is around the same as for uninsured American women and well below the
rate for insured American women. In the US uninsured men aged 40/64
are twice as likely to have had a PSA test than a man in Canada. This
is one reason that the cancer survival rate is higher in the US
compared to Canada. It also dispels the myth that the uninsured are
without health care.

I haven't subscribed to that myth. The big question is - how much
does it cost the rest of us to care for the uninsured now compared to
how much it will cost with universal insurance.

An extensive study of the uninsured was done by two researchers from
Baruch College, City University of New York for the Employment
Policies Institute.

"The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) is one of several front
groups created by Berman & Co., a Washington, DC public affairs firm
owned by Rick Berman, who lobbies for the restaurant, hotel, alcoholic
beverage and tobacco industries. While most commonly referred to as
EPI, it is registered as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization under the
name of Employment Policies Institute Foundation. In its annual
Internal Revenue Service return, EPI states that it "shares office
space with Berman & Company on a cost pass through basis." [1]

"[1] Employment Policies Institute Foundation, "Return of
Organization Exempt from Income Tax", 2005, Statement 12."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Employment_Policies_Institute
--
Don Kirkman
donsno2 at (no spam) charter.net

The study's authors.

Dr. June O’Neill is Wollman Distinguished Professor of Economics in
the Wasserman Department of
Economics and Finance and Director of the Center for the Study of
Business and Government, Zicklin
School of Business, Baruch College, City University of New York
(CUNY). She is also a Research Associate
of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and an American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) Adjunct
Scholar. She served as director of the Congressional Budget Office,
1995-1999, and chaired the Board of
Scientific Counsellors of the National Center for Health Statistics,
2003-2007. Among her publications is
a recent article written jointly with Dave O’Neill that compares
differences between the U.S. and Canada in
health status, health care and inequality of health outcomes.

Dr. Dave O’Neill is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for the
Study of Business and Government and
an Adjunct Professor of Economics in the Wasserman Department of
Economics and Finance, Baruch College,
CUNY. Before joining the Center Dr. O’Neill had a long career as an
economist in both the academic and
policy sectors, working at the Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric
Research and at private policy institutes
and the federal government in Washington D.C. including the U.S.
Bureau of the Census and the General
Accounting Office. He has published in the fields of labor economics,
health and welfare policy.