Who would require them?

The market. Requirement is perhaps misleading. Competition would require it in that a potential profit from 330~ million will always prove more viable than limiting to a single state's population.

The idea of selling across state lines was discussed at the summit. I believe that both sides are willing to do that but the GOP does not want the Sec of Health to set a min standard of coverage. Correct?
OBAMA: No, I want to say this -- hold on a second, guys -- what is absolutely true is that some states probably have higher mandates than others, and so you can probably attribute a certain amount of the cost in a high -- you know, a state that has more requirements for bare minimum coverage, doesn't allow drive-by deliveries or requires mammograms or what have you -- those things all may add some incremental cost, but the truth of the matter is, is that that's not the reason that you're seeing such problems. In a lot of states, the problem is just you don't have competition at all. We want competition. We just want some minimum standards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022504025.html?wprss=rss_politics

Paul Ryan and the true cost of health-care reform

To sum up, then, Ryan makes some good points about the true cost of the bill and realities of the federal budget. But he purposefully omits any mention of the bill's expected savings, disingenuously attaches the price tag of a broken Republican policy onto the health-care reform bill, and selectively stops extrapolating trends when they don't fit his points. It's a presentation designed to make the bill look less fiscally responsible than it really is. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/paul_ryan_and_the_true_cost_of.html

There's no doubt that insurance companies would likely prefer to sell their products under one standard set of regulations, than the currrent system with various state regs and insurance divisions regulating them. Their current economic model also favors them having control over who they insure and how much they pay in claims, for profitability and for the proper setting of claim reserves.

I can't think of a good reason not to do this.

Ok, I'll admit I'm something of an insurance dummy. What does "single pool" mean?

That sounds good. I'm accustomed to thinking of insurance as something to protect you from a large and unexpected "Oh s---" type event. Preventive maintenance simple doctor visits for relatively minor ailments and injuries don't fall into that category. I think something along the lines of a plan where you pick your deductible and your premium comes down the higher your deductible is would be a good idea, especially for people like me who seldom go to doctors, but want coverage in the event of a bad car wreck or something like that.

Sounds reasonable to me, but why bother? If we went over to a national sales tax instead of an income tax (as has been brought up here), then all savings are tax free money until you spend it. Saving up for any kind of unexpected expense, and not just medical expenses would be encouraged.

Edit: Oops, national sales tax came up on the Coffee Party thread. These political threads are starting to look alike.

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 401,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 26,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
99 Mazda Miata 183,xxx miles.

Maybe I used the wrong term. By" single pool" I meant requiring insurance companies to base their rates on ALL the people that buy from them. As it is now, there are MANY different groups. Some groups have lower rates because they pose less risk. For instance, non smokers, and non drinkers have lower rates than people over 70 with one lung. Using a single pool might put many actuaries out of work, contributing to the massive unemployment. It also might not improve rates overall, I just don't know. I'd like to see some study on it.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

[QUOTE=MS Fowler;2417227]Maybe I used the wrong term. By" single pool" I meant requiring insurance companies to base their rates on ALL the people that buy from them. As it is now, there are MANY different groups. Some groups have lower rates because they pose less risk. For instance, non smokers, and non drinkers have lower rates than people over 70 with one lung. Using a single pool might put many actuaries out of work, contributing to the massive unemployment. It also might not improve rates overall, I just don't know. I'd like to see some study on it. Isn't that why the Senate proposes a mandate? To get all those young healthy people (less risk) to join in to keep preimums low? To have comprehensive health reform in this country that delivers coverage for tens of millions of Americans, reduces healthcare costs and builds a system in which healthcare is no longer an issue you can go bankrupt over; to do that you have to have an individual mandate. The reason why is that policy makers need to ensure that both healthy and sick people are coming into the system. Otherwise you will only have sick people and it will drive up costs for everybody. That has been the experience of every state that has tried to do exchanges without an individual mandate.The history of trying to cover people without an individual mandate is generally one of complete and abject failure. The one experiment we have is Massachusetts, which has an individual mandate and is successful. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/03/02/tanden_interview

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/draft_1.html
Holding the price of insurance equal, insurance is gamble on both sides. From the insurer's perspective, it's a better deal to insure people who won't need to use their insurance. From the customer's perspective, it's precisely the reverse.
Right now, the insurer sets the rules. It collects background information on applicants and then varies the price and availability of insurance to discriminate against those who are likely to use it. Health-care reform is going to render those practices illegal. An insurer will have to offer insurance at the same price to a diabetic and a triathlete.
But if you remove the individual mandate, you're caught in the reverse of our current problem: The triathlete doesn't buy insurance. Fine, you might say. Let the insurer get gamed. They deserve it.
The insurers, however, are not the ones who will be gamed. The sick are. Imagine the triathlete's expected medical cost for a year is $200 and the diabetic's cost is $20,000. And imagine we have three more people who are normal risks, and their expected cost in $6,000. If they all purchase coverage, the cost of insurance is $7,640. Let the triathlete walk away and the cost is $9,500. Now, one of the younger folks at normal cost just can't afford that. He drops out. Now the average cost is $10,600. This prices out the diabetic, so now she's uninsured. Or maybe it prices out the next normal-cost person, so costs jump to $13,000.
This is called an insurance death spiral. If the people who think they're healthy now decide to wait until they need insurance to purchase it, the cost increases, which means the next healthiest group leaves, which jacks up costs again, and so forth

Of course.


$6000/yr expected cost for a "normal" risk Is that number accurate? I don't think I've had $6000 worth of medical care in my life.

Quote:

If they all purchase coverage, the cost of insurance is $7,640. Let the triathlete walk away and the cost is $9,500. Now, one of the younger folks at normal cost just can't afford that. He drops out. Now the average cost is $10,600. This prices out the diabetic, so now she's uninsured. Or maybe it prices out the next normal-cost person, so costs jump to $13,000.

This all makes sense. I, for one, am not going to pay $7640 a year for health insurance when I'm not expecting to need to see a doctor at all in any given year. So, some are advocating an individual mandate. I question whether this is legal. I know a couple states have an individual mandate, and I don't know if it has been challenged in the courts yet. I was also wondering about the constitutionality of EMTALA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act, and find that it only applies to hostpitals that take certain types of federal money, so that one is safe unless and until Medicare/Medicaid is thrown out as unconstitutional (which they are, but I don't see SCOTUS ruling that way any time soon).

So, I must conclude that "single pool" isn't going to work very well.

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 401,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 26,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.
99 Mazda Miata 183,xxx miles.

Somehow images of another civil war come to mind when mandating federal law over states rights. Bad enough the 2 political parties can't get along, imagine what it would be like politicking between 50 states.

I'm sure the insurance lobbyist would have a field day with that one.

I can see it now, a mass exodus of Insurance companies in states like Florida and Nevada that have large populations of elderly.

I do like the Idea, but if you think HC compromise is complicated now, try getting this amendment into the legislative bill.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

I understand WHY the government wants to require everyone to buy insurance--the illustration above with the diabetic and triathlete is very much to the point.

The question then becomes, CAN government require all citizens to buy a product simply because they are citizens? It is not at all like auti insurance--you do not have to drive, or own a car. To require purchase of health insurance just because one is born in, or emmigrates to, the USA will be a hard sell--and probably will result in a protracted Court battle.

Maybe government is not the solution. After all, we are not France, or Canada, or England. We have a Constitution that (supposedly) limits the reach, jurisdiction, and power of the federal government.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Sorta like if you dont have a car, but pay for roads.
Or a child and pay for shcools.
Or read but pay for the libraries.
Or want a war in iraq but are forced to pay for it.

Not everyone owns a car, but the vast majority of people will eventually need health care sometime in their life.

Who pays the bill when uninsured drivers crash their cars? How much money do you spend for your auto insurance policy to pay for uninsured drivers?

Who pays the bill when the uninsured get sick/injured and seek medical care? How much do you pay in taxes for the uninsured to receive health care?

If theory, the people/government will save big money because they will not have pay for the uninsured.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.

BY John McCormack

March 3, 2010 6:15 PM

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.
Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?



OUT COME THE WHITE JACKETS ....AGAIN!!!

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert