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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (129881)	2/2/2010 5:19:26 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541743

>>Not particularly. Unless your considering preventing states from interfering with interstate sales to itself be federal regulation (but if it is the current law that allows them to do so would be as well). I'd prefer allowing any policy allowed by any state's regulator, to be sold to any one in the country, without also applying federal regulations. I would accept a minimal federal standard if that's what it took to get the interstate competition, but I'm concerned that the standard wouldn't be so minimal. << OK, then, the objection I raised to Lane3 comes into play. Each healthcare provider in each state would have to bill multiple insurers, potentially, from each of the 50 states. Each of those insurers might have different billing and documentation requirements, and different appeal processes in the case of denial of coverage for some specific thing. So where a small medical group might now have four or five people dedicated to doing billing and handling appeals, they might have to double or triple that number. That doesn't seem to be a formula for reducing costs.