SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : A US National Health Care System?
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: i-node who wrote (12372)12/18/2009 7:03:12 AM
From: Lane32 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 42652
 
I don't understand the basis for any objection to this. Hard for me to see a downside in it.

He claimed that passage would make the health commissioner of Texas (as the epitome of lax regulation) effectively the health commissioner of Vermont, which is certainly possible. The question is whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. To the extent that Vermont is an optimal regulator, it's a good thing.

I don't know anything about Vermont's regulation. It may, indeed, be optimal. The problem you and I want to fix and which selling across state lines would fix is states like New York where regulation disallows affordable policies and required gold-plated ones.

So there is a downside to allowing cross-state shopping, seems to me. There is risk of losing some key consumer protections. But it also seems to me that the downside of the status quo, cost and liberty, is far worse.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News