EH>> The GOP plan is to make it possible to buy insurance across state
 EH>> lines,

 BA> It has always been possible to do that - PROVIDED that (a)
 BA> the insurance product
 BA> has been approved by the states' insurance commissioner and
 BA> (b) the insurance company
 BA> is licensed to do business in the state and (c) the
 BA> agent(s) is/are licensed to sell the
 BA> product in the state.

 I have been saying that for a long time. Watch EH ignore him on
 that.

 BA> My former employer, Central States Life & Health Insurancer
 BA> of Omaha (which, despite it's
 BA> name, doesn't deal in life or health insurance any more;
 BA> www.cso.com) sold policies through independent agents all
 BA> over the country.  Each agent was licensed to sell

 As does United Health care, who used to be my insurance company
 through my employer.

 ...

 BA> What you can't do is run across a state line, buy a policy
 BA> that's not approved in your state
 BA> written by a sompany not licensed to do business in oour
 BA> state from an agent not licensed to sell insurance in your
 BA> state, and then expect to be covvered for anything.  The

 True. Except maybe in the state where they are licensed.
 Michigan is just a mile north of me.

 ...

 EH>> making it easier for people to set up personal medical savings accounts,

 BA> Not THAT is a great idea.

 It is very easy now to set up a personal medical savings
 account. It's only useful to those who have money to put into
 it, and pay enough in taxes to benefit from the tax credits.
 Those people are more likely to have insurance anyway.

 EH>> tort reform to reduce frivolous and overpriced lawsuits,

 When the insurance companies tell us just how much frivolous
 lawsuits cost I'll be interested in that. Current reports who
 tort reform will save very little.

 BA> They don't even have to do that.  All they need to do is
 BA> adopt the 'everyplace on the planet
 BA> except the United States' system that the loser in a civil
 BA> lawsuit pays the winnder's costs.

 They tried that in Florida. The doctors wound up paying more of
 the legal bills than the plaintiffs.

 BA> In the case of contingency lawsuits, the lawyer should be
 BA> on the hook for the same percentage
 BA> of those costs as s/he would have received from the spoils
 BA> had s/he won the case (and I'd
 BA> make it joint liability for all of it - if the client can't
 BA> pay anything the lawyer gets to pay it
 BA> all).

 Which denies the injured access to a lawyer. Bad doctors and
 dishonest insurance companies would love that.

 Note that no industrialized country with national health care,
 IOW all of them except the US, has the malpractice problem we
 have. That is largely due to the fact that most malpractice
 awards cover the cost of projected future health care. Since
 that's covered by national health care, there are no such
 judgements.

 IOW, Obamacare is instant tort reform.

 EH>> and reducing government interference with individual decisions.

 BA> Another good idea.

 Irrelevant to this discussion though. And not one the right
 actually believes in.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)