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 (129994)	2/2/2010 7:24:32 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541786

If we changed things so that someone from New York (where insurance costs are high) could buy a policy from any state, than the business would tend to concentrate in a few states with the most favorable climate. I saw Howard Dean on TV a couple of weeks ago (back when he was saying that the pending bills were not acceptable). He was expecting Texas to be the state of choice by insurance companies. He might have some insight or he might have picked Texas because it is known for loose regulation. I'm not sure that the companies would pick states with loose regulation. It's in their interests as well as that of consumers to have quality regulation. Dean seemed to think that Vermont has quality regulation. Maybe it does and Dean's state would benefit from becoming the health insurance mecca. Wouldn't that be ironic? You pick the state you like and you set up your policies, no need to deal with 50 different policies and create 50 subsidiaries to be a national insurer. Not having to deal with that should cut overhead. It seems to me like you and I are talking about more or less the same thing. Even though there's no proposal on the table, it's pretty easy to see how things would fall out. It's like predicting which way the water will go when the dam breaks. There are natural patterns.