Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (9681)	9/21/2009 4:57:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

It would hardly be no regulation at all. If a state was known for allowing fraud people wouldn't trust it, and by extension to a lesser extent firms charted by it. Also federal interstate fraud laws, wire fraud, mail fraud etc. would still apply. Plus even the state most hostile to regulation (and in reality I'm sure there would be several states not just one, its not like every company in other industries incorporates in Delaware, just a strongly disproportionate share of them), the voters would want some regulation. And existing federal laws and regulation directly pertaining to health insurance and insurance in general wouldn't go away unless it was also repealed. What you would get is more flexible, less expensive insurance, that isn't required to provide full coverage for every disorder with even a modest interest group, and that can be structured with different deductible levels and other terms. No need for any new federal regulation (or probably much of the existing regulation) on top of that.