rickyp wrote:By the way, I also love that Steve, a big states rights guy, wants interstate competition that would eliminate the states ability to regulate insurance schemes in their jurisdictions. He’s wonderfully contradictory.
That's contradictory? Richard, you are really acting like . . . well, like you do.
That's just a ridiculous point from a ridiculous person.
Allowing companies in one State to compete across State lines . . . wow, how radical! It's almost like we would not have 50 different countries--able to charge tariffs to products produced in other States.
Oh yeah. That IS THE LAW!
What is wrong with you?
As "proof," you cite a "blogger." Well, that's it then. Case closed.
In short Ray, there is abundant evidence that there already is interstate competition and abundant evidence that it hasn’t lead to lower insurance rates.
Here's
a bit from Newsweek. Now, the article says competition across State lines won't work and it gives reasons why. I would argue those reasons are absurd and easily preventable (like how about simply requiring full disclosure?).
So, why did I link it? Because it demonstrates that there is NOT "abundant evidence that there already is interstate competition." Mr. Klein, one of your idols, is claiming it won't work. However, he is making it from the perspective that it currently DOES NOT EXIST.
I use big letters hoping they will penetrate your apparently thick skull.
It goes back to the magical beleif in the wisdom of the markets.. (Sometimes the marekts aren'[t so wise and the practioners in those markets need boundaries).
And, in this case the markets are subjected to the Berlin Wall.
For the 500th time, we don't know if the free market would work in medical insurance, because we've not tried it. "Free market" is not even close to describing the medical insurance market. If we had gasoline on the same basis, well, we know what would happen--it would cost more.
For example, gasoline sold in California has to be refined in California. Who pays more for gasoline--California or other States without such rigid regulation?
Answer: California.
As for your anecdotes. They are what they are. I can’t prove or disprove anything based on your anecdotes.
Frankly, you would have to be able to grasp English in order to prove or disprove Ray's anecdotes. Given your constant carping about the failure of the free market where it does not exist, your inability to grasp medical insurance cannot be sold across State lines, and your tenuous hold on reason, there is little reason to be optimistic.
All you need do to refute him is compare Illinois (where 20 companies compete) with other states where there is less competition. I tried.
Are companies outside of Illinois allowed to compete in Illinois? Is the Illinois market free and unfettered by State regulations and restrictions?
In all the conservative claims about competition none actually point to examples in todays world that support the notion.
Please. Point to a State that offers a free market for health insurance.
I’m a horribly conservative person when it comes to fiscal matters.
Right. I think what you mean to say is that you think you're conservative on fiscal matters.
One thing is clear: you have no capacity for understanding what a free market is, but an endless capacity for caricature.