you literally said nothing
There was a good Black Mirror episode about it, eventually your insurance company will monitor you 24/7 but if you get enough exercise, don’t drink and pay them most of your salary, you can live a really long time.
And if you think it sounds far fetched, my apple watch has a feature to tie it’s health monitoring features to an insurance company. So they can see if you stand up every hour and get your 10k steps.
I’m going old school, I am just going to die when my tickets up instead of turning over my life and all my money to the insurance company.
1 Like
None of this answers margaret’s question.
Until we attack the costs that drive up our healthcare system, it won’t improve. One of those costs are frivolous lawsuits. Another is our nation’s growing obesity. Another is to allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. None of these fixes are an expense but they won’t happen due to greed, politics and the lack of personal responsibility.
1 Like
what prevents insurance companies from competing across state lines?
It’s my understanding that most states prohibit the sale of health insurance across state lines. Is that incorrect?
Right. Most states do prohibit it. Those that don’t prohibit it have yet to see any benefit whatsoever.
Also, the lawsuit line has been played out. I think almost every state has significant limits on medical tort. It hadn’t had any real effect either.
I wonder why commercials by drug companies spend over 50% of their airtime covering potential side effects? I wonder why those same commercials are often followed up by ads from lawyers describing the money that awaits those that have used those drugs?
They’re required to spend that time talking about side effects by the FDA. Lawyers gonna lawyer.
Most health insurance companies write policies in every state. They just have to follow each state’s insurance laws.
That’s why, before ACA, individual policies were so much more expensive in NYS than elsewhere - because NYS had guaranteed issue and community rating but they didn’t have an individual mandate or subsidies to bring costs down for people who had to buy on the individual market.
So, any insurance company that writes a policy in NYS must have guaranteed issue and use community rating. They also have laws that mandate coverage of specific things (like abortion services, birth control, etc.)
Therefore, a policy written under the laws of another state (like ones that didn’t mandate coverage for certain things, or didn’t cover those with pre-existing conditions) wouldn’t be allowed in NYS.
State laws regulate healthcare to such a great degree thatwhen two (or more) states are involved health insurance cannot effectively pay a doctor unless both are multi-licensed in multiple states.
I live in the NYC suburbs. All the PPO’s in my family health plan are local, but we have no problem seeing a doctor in Connecticut, Northern NJ, etc. who accepts our plan.
That said, PA has much cheaper healthcare and much cheaper insurance. A resident of say . . . . Edison NJ, who works in NYC would be a LOT better off buying a Pennsylvania plan and seeing a Pennsylvania doctor.
For decades that was not legally possible, NY or NJ plans were his only legal options. I don’t think it has changed.
This is one of the core contradictions of the mainstream conservative position on healthcare.
The desire to have their states regulate healthcare to suit the needs of the people in their state.
The desire to sell insurance regulated in one state in any other state.
You can’t have both.
It’s not a contradiction at all.
We believe in the Constitution which means the federal gov’t should NOT be doing a lot of things it is doing. The fed gov’t has usurped power meant for the states.
Believing that does not mean we believe huge intrusive state governments or huge state welfare programs are good things.
Added:
Oh and yes you can have both. If the federal government gets out of the way NY and NJ residents will be able to get PA plans. Doctors offices will line up on the PA NJ border the way fireworks stores already do today, and NYC are employers will migrate to Northern Jersey where they can offer their employees all the benefits of living near NYC, but with a health plan that comes at a Pennsylvania price.
You’re mistaken. The federal government isn’t in the way at all. New York has determined they don’t want Pennsylvania plans sold in their state.
1 Like
I think the peasantry is screwed no matter what. Enjoy whatever healthcare options our masters provide for us. They’ll always have something different and better.
If they want to buy a plan written in PA - they can move to PA. If they want a plan written in Idaho - they can move to Idaho.
Hmm you may be right about that.
It not be a case of big intrusive federal government disallowing interstate health insurance sales.
It may be a case of big intrusive state government giving a monopoly to uts doctors and insurers.
Either way it means little now that the ACA comes with one-size-fits all, emploer mandates, no choice of insurance pool etc…
If you say you trust local government most to manage insurance regulations, then why would you allow someone else’s government to manage insurance regulations for you?
This is the contradiction I was mentioning.
Legislate via state/local government nit via federal gov’t, (because that is what the Constitution dictates) is not the same as “I love every law and every program San Cisco and California have ever passed.”
Nor does conservativism declare “We want more and more laws and programs like those of San Fran and Cali.”
So don’t live in those states if you don’t like their laws.
I won’t live in any red state, for just those reasons.
