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)