coolbeans said:
You didn't "have" to (as I'm familiar with some of those posted), but you did anyways so that's appreciated. It's interesting how you use the AEI article in particular as part of your "arguments against it" when it leaves off with this kind of a conclusion: "Regulatory competition is one tool in establishing a balance between cost and consumer protection in health insurance, but it must be part of a broader reform agenda to be effective." So...not exactly picking from people who're outright scoffing at the idea of it. That quote's the kind of ideal I was alluding to with the market-based plan Republicans brought up to counter Obamacare back in the day. The nationwide availabilty part was something like the first or second stepping stone in their proposal. 1.) The part I specifically bolded in my previous response. It got formatted out a bit from my weird quote block but you can still see it. As you said before: "Just saying "allowing insurances across any state line" is so vague as to be almost meaningless." I responded to that in kind. 2.) I figured it was clearly understood "tenfold" was an expression to suggest the dramatic increase in competition such a policy would allow...which is true...which is why I said it. |
Yeah, you're right, I did not cherry-pick because my argument was never that it should not be considered or enacted if an intelligent and effective framework is proposed that addresses all the negatives. It's an idea that has a lot of potential drawbacks.
My argument, from that start, was countering what you said, which was implying that it would have a massive impact. There is no data that suggests that it would. In fact, states that allow it now have seen a zero increases in competition. That doesn't prove anything for the long term, of course, but it certainly doesn't make your statement seem likely. The more likely outcome is that a few of the stronger companies would begin to slowly creep across state lines and build networks gradually.
