State regulation

tool name

tool name

Across state lines

After reading Republican state Sen. Neal Hunt's ideas about health care reform from the GOP in the Oct. 30 People's Forum, I have a question about one of the ideas.

Is Hunt suggesting that individual states give up their rights to regulate the insurance industry and have a set of federal regulations created so that insurance could be bought and sold across state lines? Or, rather, is he suggesting that we just allow the insurance companies to race to locate in the states with the most favorable regulations, as we have done with the credit card industry?

And, if he is suggesting the latter, how's the credit card industry working out for you?

Don't blame capitalism

In your Aug. 11 editorial "Acute debate," your characterization of our current health-care morass as this country's for-profit system is ludicrous. Every legitimate problem in our current health-care system has been caused by government programs, government regulations and government ineptitude at both the federal and state levels. Yet you call it a for-profit system as a way to cast all blame on capitalism, a social system that you utterly misunderstand and viscerally hate, in order to justify the only solution liberals are capable of advocating: more government.

Take the loss of insurance when you lose your job. It wasn't capitalism that decided your health insurance should be tied to your job; it was government. Health insurance is deductible for corporations, but not for individuals, and insurance plans offered by companies are exempt from onerous state insurance regulations that drive the cost of insurance for individuals through the roof.

There is no doubt that our health-care system needs reform

Insurance across state lines?

As the Democratic health-reform plans have developed, Republicans have consistently offered one suggestion in opposition: allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. In doing so, the argument goes, persons could shop via the Internet for a policy with a cheaper premium that was being sold in another state, thereby saving money.

This seems perfectly sensible to anyone who has purchased a pair of running shoes over the Internet for a price lower than that available locally. Unfortunately, it won't work with health insurance.

States have regulated health insurance since the 1945 passage of the McCarran Ferguson Act, which, among other things, forbids interstate sale of insurance (health, auto, homeowners). States have regulated insurance ever since. Many insurance companies sell policies in different states but, in doing so, must comply with a given state's regulations. For example, I have car insurance from the same company as my dad who lives in Georgia.

Who should run health insurance exchanges, feds or states?

WASHINGTON — The debate over whether the states or the federal government will have more clout in a proposed health insurance marketplace is escalating, and the outcome has big implications for consumers.

This issue is one of the key disputes in negotiations between leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate as they meld their health care bills. The House, which would establish a national exchange run by the federal government, argues that setting a uniform program would help protect consumers. The Senate, which wants each state to create and run its own exchange, says that the states have more experience overseeing insurance plans and know their residents' needs better.

Health care analysts say the final decision is crucial to the choice of insurance plans that workers would receive, how much consumers would pay for coverage and how much clout regulators would have over policing insurers who behaved badly.

Can Congress halt rising health insurance premiums?

WASHINGTON — Amid all their squabbling over health care legislation, congressional Democrats agree on the need to regulate how insurers spend their customers' money.

The measure that the House of Representatives has passed and the Senate bill that's expected to pass later this week would force insurers to spend the vast majority of their premium revenues on medical care for their customers, reducing their profits, executive salaries, sales and administrative spending.

The Senate bill would require insurers to spend at least 80 percent on medical care and quality improvements, while the House bill specifies 85 percent. Insurers that don't comply would owe rebates to customers.