Which healthcare reform plan do you prefer, and why?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

What say you?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Neither; allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, but keep Medicaid and Medicare for those who need it.

[SPC]

This sums up my thoughts nicely

[barfbag]

Neither; allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, but keep Medicaid and Medicare for those who need it.

This and allow adults to remain on their parents' insurance until 23. People shouldn't be denied for pre-existing conditions either.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm kind of indifferent to each option. Both have make purchasing insurance mandatory, which is key to any healthcare reform, but both options would drive up costs and neglect to include options like buying across state lines.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Neither; allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, but keep Medicaid and Medicare for those who need it.

This and allow for an opt out/private medical savings for folks under 35.

[bedstuy]

Neither; allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, but keep Medicaid and Medicare for those who need it.

What would happen if insurers decided to move their operations en masse to the least regulated state?  Wouldn't the least regulated state insurance commission be totally underwhelmed?  Wouldn't we have a race to the bottom in terms of insurance regulation?

That sounds like a good idea, but it would be a disaster for consumers in the long run.

[Maxwell]

Neither. Though I do like the 716 Billion of Medicare savings in Obamacare.

[TNF]

Other: Medicare-for-All

[Leftbehind]

Neither. Single-payer funded through direct taxation.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Neither; allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, but keep Medicaid and Medicare for those who need it.

What would happen if insurers decided to move their operations en masse to the least regulated state?  Wouldn't the least regulated state insurance commission be totally underwhelmed?  Wouldn't we have a race to the bottom in terms of insurance regulation?

That sounds like a good idea, but it would be a disaster for consumers in the long run.

Plus, insurance companies already have been competing across state lines for a long time, if my facts are correct.  If you encourage new companies to come in and undercut the established companies, then chances are the healthy people (who are already covered) will buy the new, cheaper health insurance, leaving the cost to be spread among sicker, poorer people who can't switch to the new company.  This doesn't really do anything to affect the average cost of health insurance because as they offer the lower rate, the established company's rates will go up.  (Note that by law, at least 80% of premiums must be spent to pay a policyholder's medical bills, and 85% for group policies.)

So making it easier for people to buy insurance across state lines, while helpful to some, will only make things worse for people who need it the most.  Healthcare simply doesn't work like other products in the market economy do.

Also, apparently three states have tried this already, and so far nothing has happened to significantly reduce costs.

[Peter the Lefty]

Neither. Single-payer funded through direct taxation.

[Cryptic]

Neither. Single-payer funded through direct taxation.

[Miles]

Other: Medicare-for-All

[barfbag]

Neither; allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, but keep Medicaid and Medicare for those who need it.

What would happen if insurers decided to move their operations en masse to the least regulated state?  Wouldn't the least regulated state insurance commission be totally underwhelmed?  Wouldn't we have a race to the bottom in terms of insurance regulation?

That sounds like a good idea, but it would be a disaster for consumers in the long run.

Plus, insurance companies already have been competing across state lines for a long time, if my facts are correct.  If you encourage new companies to come in and undercut the established companies, then chances are the healthy people (who are already covered) will buy the new, cheaper health insurance, leaving the cost to be spread among sicker, poorer people who can't switch to the new company.  This doesn't really do anything to affect the average cost of health insurance because as they offer the lower rate, the established company's rates will go up.  (Note that by law, at least 80% of premiums must be spent to pay a policyholder's medical bills, and 85% for group policies.)

So making it easier for people to buy insurance across state lines, while helpful to some, will only make things worse for people who need it the most.  Healthcare simply doesn't work like other products in the market economy do.

Also, apparently three states have tried this already, and so far nothing has happened to significantly reduce costs.

Yes health insurance companies do have the ability to expand into different states, but a human should have the freedom to buy health insurance in Ohio if they live in Pennsylvania. What we have now is discrimination and Obama has done nothing about this discrimination.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Other: Medicare-for-All

[politicallefty]

Neither. I prefer a single-payer system.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Neither. Single-payer funded through direct taxation.

This, but Hillarycare of the two.

[nolesfan2011]

single payer universal.. so neither

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm on the universal bandwagon as well.

[AkSaber]

This sums up my thoughts nicely

Haha great.

[Indy Texas]

Neither; allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, but keep Medicaid and Medicare for those who need it.

What would happen if insurers decided to move their operations en masse to the least regulated state?  Wouldn't the least regulated state insurance commission be totally underwhelmed?  Wouldn't we have a race to the bottom in terms of insurance regulation?

That sounds like a good idea, but it would be a disaster for consumers in the long run.

Plus, insurance companies already have been competing across state lines for a long time, if my facts are correct.  If you encourage new companies to come in and undercut the established companies, then chances are the healthy people (who are already covered) will buy the new, cheaper health insurance, leaving the cost to be spread among sicker, poorer people who can't switch to the new company.  This doesn't really do anything to affect the average cost of health insurance because as they offer the lower rate, the established company's rates will go up.  (Note that by law, at least 80% of premiums must be spent to pay a policyholder's medical bills, and 85% for group policies.)

So making it easier for people to buy insurance across state lines, while helpful to some, will only make things worse for people who need it the most.  Healthcare simply doesn't work like other products in the market economy do.

Also, apparently three states have tried this already, and so far nothing has happened to significantly reduce costs.

Yes health insurance companies do have the ability to expand into different states, but a human should have the freedom to buy health insurance in Ohio if they live in Pennsylvania. What we have now is discrimination and Obama has done nothing about this discrimination.

So basically you're advocating something that isn't going to have the desired effect or solve the problem it's meant to solve because...people should "have the freedom." That basically sums up the GOP approach to everything.

[bedstuy]

Neither; allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, but keep Medicaid and Medicare for those who need it.

What would happen if insurers decided to move their operations en masse to the least regulated state?  Wouldn't the least regulated state insurance commission be totally underwhelmed?  Wouldn't we have a race to the bottom in terms of insurance regulation?

That sounds like a good idea, but it would be a disaster for consumers in the long run.

Plus, insurance companies already have been competing across state lines for a long time, if my facts are correct.  If you encourage new companies to come in and undercut the established companies, then chances are the healthy people (who are already covered) will buy the new, cheaper health insurance, leaving the cost to be spread among sicker, poorer people who can't switch to the new company.  This doesn't really do anything to affect the average cost of health insurance because as they offer the lower rate, the established company's rates will go up.  (Note that by law, at least 80% of premiums must be spent to pay a policyholder's medical bills, and 85% for group policies.)

So making it easier for people to buy insurance across state lines, while helpful to some, will only make things worse for people who need it the most.  Healthcare simply doesn't work like other products in the market economy do.

Also, apparently three states have tried this already, and so far nothing has happened to significantly reduce costs.

Yes health insurance companies do have the ability to expand into different states, but a human should have the freedom to buy health insurance in Ohio if they live in Pennsylvania. What we have now is discrimination and Obama has done nothing about this discrimination.

So basically you're advocating something that isn't going to have the desired effect or solve the problem it's meant to solve because...people should "have the freedom." That basically sums up the GOP approach to everything.

I think what people don't realize is that there's a state by state system of insurance regulation.  We would need to create a national insurance standards and a federal regulatory agency to have an interstate insurance market that functioned and didn't completely screw consumers. 

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Neither; allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, but keep Medicaid and Medicare for those who need it.

What would happen if insurers decided to move their operations en masse to the least regulated state?  Wouldn't the least regulated state insurance commission be totally underwhelmed?  Wouldn't we have a race to the bottom in terms of insurance regulation?

That sounds like a good idea, but it would be a disaster for consumers in the long run.

Plus, insurance companies already have been competing across state lines for a long time, if my facts are correct.  If you encourage new companies to come in and undercut the established companies, then chances are the healthy people (who are already covered) will buy the new, cheaper health insurance, leaving the cost to be spread among sicker, poorer people who can't switch to the new company.  This doesn't really do anything to affect the average cost of health insurance because as they offer the lower rate, the established company's rates will go up.  (Note that by law, at least 80% of premiums must be spent to pay a policyholder's medical bills, and 85% for group policies.)

So making it easier for people to buy insurance across state lines, while helpful to some, will only make things worse for people who need it the most.  Healthcare simply doesn't work like other products in the market economy do.

Also, apparently three states have tried this already, and so far nothing has happened to significantly reduce costs.

Yes health insurance companies do have the ability to expand into different states, but a human should have the freedom to buy health insurance in Ohio if they live in Pennsylvania. What we have now is discrimination and Obama has done nothing about this discrimination.

So basically you're advocating something that isn't going to have the desired effect or solve the problem it's meant to solve because...people should "have the freedom." That basically sums up the GOP approach to everything.

I think what people don't realize is that there's a state by state system of insurance regulation.  We would need to create a national insurance standards and a federal regulatory agency to have an interstate insurance market that functioned and didn't completely screw consumers. 

For there to be true competition in this system, yes, essentially that is what would have to happen: state laws would need to effectively become null and void and regulatory standards would be made uniform.  Of course, get Obama to embrace the idea and the Republicans will accuse him of trying to expand the size of the federal government and trample on states' rights.

[barfbag]

No denial for pre-existing conditions.
People remain on their parents' insurance until age 23.
Insurance companies can compete across state borders.
Careful and delicate tort reform.
Expand Medicaid to cover more of the uninsured.