Comments on: State Versus Federal Regulation Of Health Insurance http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/2009/07/08/state-versus-federal-regulation-of-health-insurance/ Research and discussion of the Colorado health insurance industry and the healthcare crisis in America. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:14:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: harvey http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/2009/07/08/state-versus-federal-regulation-of-health-insurance/comment-page-1/#comment-14128 harvey Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:20:11 +0000 http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/?p=1215#comment-14128 i just came across this article and comments so, sorry to be a little tardy in pointing this out. but ... dev (aug. 22, 2:54 p.m.) is wrong. mccarran-ferguson act was passed by congress in 1945 so modern day health insurance has been subject to state regulation for its complete existence. there IS some federal regulation and oversight of some health insurance cousins, like medicare advantage plans, but not for health insurance plans for the masses. kind of makes you wonder if (s)he really knows precisely how the public option would work and what it would do, doesn't it? i just came across this article and comments so, sorry to be a little tardy in pointing this out. but …

dev (aug. 22, 2:54 p.m.) is wrong. mccarran-ferguson act was passed by congress in 1945 so modern day health insurance has been subject to state regulation for its complete existence. there IS some federal regulation and oversight of some health insurance cousins, like medicare advantage plans, but not for health insurance plans for the masses.

kind of makes you wonder if (s)he really knows precisely how the public option would work and what it would do, doesn’t it?

]]> By: De Donnelly http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/2009/07/08/state-versus-federal-regulation-of-health-insurance/comment-page-1/#comment-14059 De Donnelly Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:54:33 +0000 http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/?p=1215#comment-14059 Isn't this missing the point? Yes, some state controls would most likely be more stringent than some states, that's a given. There are two reasons I kind think of that make state regulation important. First, you would have "portable" health coverage since any federally regulated insurer would approved mationwide. You don't lose your current coverage if you move between states. Second, as referenced in the article, some states have few companies, and therefor little choice or competition to contain prices. Having the insurers compete on a national level should lower prices. Many seem to dislike the "public option" since this would be government run health care(not really, cause it isn't a single payer system, but that is the perception that has been promoted by opponents). We use to have federal regulation of the health insurers until it was deregulated in the late 70's or 80's - I think that was a big mistake. I also wouldn't be against tort reform if that would help bring some of the Blue Dog Democrats and some Republicans along. Dev Isn’t this missing the point? Yes, some state controls would most likely be more stringent than some states, that’s a given. There are two reasons I kind think of that make state regulation important. First, you would have “portable” health coverage since any federally regulated insurer would approved mationwide. You don’t lose your current coverage if you move between states. Second, as referenced in the article, some states have few companies, and therefor little choice or competition to contain prices. Having the insurers compete on a national level should lower prices.

Many seem to dislike the “public option” since this would be government run health care(not really, cause it isn’t a single payer system, but that is the perception that has been promoted by opponents). We use to have federal regulation of the health insurers until it was deregulated in the late 70’s or 80’s – I think that was a big mistake.

I also wouldn’t be against tort reform if that would help bring some of the Blue Dog Democrats and some Republicans along.

Dev

]]> By: Don Levit http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/2009/07/08/state-versus-federal-regulation-of-health-insurance/comment-page-1/#comment-13182 Don Levit Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:45:48 +0000 http://www.healthinsurancecolorado.net/blog1/?p=1215#comment-13182 Louise: It is good to hear that Colorado seems to have a progressive insurance department. My experiences with several insurance departments is that they are well-versed on state regulation, but have little regard to federal laws that may conflict with state regulation. One of the conflicts would be a 501(c)(9) insurer, whose tax-exempt status is based on being different from commercial insurers. State insurance departments invariably will require similar capital and reserve requirements, as if the non-profit distinctive insurer was a commercial player, like UHC. Don Levit Louise:
It is good to hear that Colorado seems to have a progressive insurance department.
My experiences with several insurance departments is that they are well-versed on state regulation, but have little regard to federal laws that may conflict with state regulation.
One of the conflicts would be a 501(c)(9) insurer, whose tax-exempt status is based on being different from commercial insurers.
State insurance departments invariably will require similar capital and reserve requirements, as if the non-profit distinctive insurer was a commercial player, like UHC.
Don Levit

]]>