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: Cogito who wrote (129985)	2/2/2010 5:53:15 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541735

there's no possibility of buying car insurance from any state other than the one in which your car is registered. I do not have car insurance specific to the state in which my car is registered. I have a national policy. I have had it all my adult life during which time I have had cars registered in several different states. When I moved, I sent my insurance company a change of address. If you tell me what specific policies you want to talk about, we can talk about them. You want a specific bill--a fixed proposal--on the table before engaging it. I'm trying to collaboratively scope out a design concept for a system around the general notion of enabling people to buy insurance that is regulated by a state other than the one in which he lives. The output of my process would be the product you seem to want before you engage. Unfortunately, we're out of phase. Since the product you want as a starting point will never come to be in our political environment, I guess we have nothing to discuss.

To: Cogito who wrote (129985)	2/2/2010 6:17:21 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541735

Do you see why I am confused? OK, I take back my "intentionally obtuse." I'm not finding Tim's alternate concept but I can see where different voices would be confusing. If I find his offering, I'll critique it. I have seen general statements on blogs advocating buying insurance from states that have more friendly regulation. It doesn't make any more sense to me than it does to you to have all the offerings from 50 differently regulated states on the table for my consideration. I cannot imagine things playing out that way. I would submit that anyone proposing that hasn't thought things through or is only offering a general notion, not a proposal. Political bloggers are not known for thinking things through. I suspect that most just parrot whatever half-assed notion their side is promoting.

To: Cogito who wrote (129985)	2/2/2010 6:48:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541735

Tim thinks, from what I can gather, that allowing people to buy insurance across state lines means letting people in any state buy insurance that is offered in any other state. I guess the idea is that since insurance costs less in Wyoming than it does in New Jersey, we should let the people who live in New Jersey buy the Wyoming insurance. Or whatever. You understand what I'm getting at. But what you don't understand why that would lead to a "national policy" the way Lane3 was talking about. Each company would likely make one policy for the whole nation, whether it was approved in Wyoming, Delaware, Texas, PA, or whatever. You wouldn't have XYZ insurance company of Wyoming, its afiliate XYZ of NY, its afiliate XYZ of CA, etc, you would have the one regulatory setup to deal with if your dealing with that company. Competing companies might use several states, but not the 50 they have to use now (if they want to offer insurance to the whole nation). Lets say Wyoming, Delaware, Nevada, and Florida get all the business. Then there will be essentially four different setups to deal with (and they might be very similar since they will be competing against each other). For big companies that will be much simpler. Even for the small supplier I shouldn't hurt any. Right now small suppliers have to deal with a lot of different insurance companies anyway, they might have to deal with fewer if allowing one national market allows for some consolidation. If its the regulatory environment that's important for the small provider (and I really think its the insurance company that has to deal with that complexity), then it still shouldn't be any worse. As it is now, a doctor operating in say DC, might frequently see patients with insurance companies charted in DC, in VA, and in MD, and less frequently in many other states.