Somewhat circular.

There ain't much getting out of this congress/administration that could not be challenged on constitutional grounds.

DED

Actually it's not remotely circular, but it is inconsistent to a degree depending on how (or if) you read the Commerce Clause - which was expanded beyond what it should have been by both Dem/Rep and Con/Lib members of the SCOTUS. No clean hands when it comes to the Commerce Clause.

#3

Thank You for inserting some actual facts into this. There aren't many federal politicians who aren't all cozy in bed with the lawyers and their lobbyists. Most of the ARE lawyers for God's sake! What does THAT tell you!

And this, in particular really pisses me off! I'm not one to be content with remaining in a certain state for the rest of my life just because my insurance company lives there! And I'm not real confident in the laws regarding pre-existing conditions and transfer of companies between states.

Regardless, as a Libertarian, I'm for freeing up the trade... especially within our own country! Republicans are supposed to be for that too! At least the Dems are consistently obstructionist and anti-business. You know where you stand with them. The Republican politicians are just hypocrites...

At least... in this case.

^4

Yeah, but the regulations/requirements placed on your health insurance are governed by State law too, so you might not even be able to take a policy with you "as is" when you move to a different State. And frankly, a State line isn't much of an obstruction to an insurer that wants to sell a policy - just register a sister co. in the State you want to sell in and start writing policies there. That's why you have BXBS Georgia, BXBS Massachusetts, BXBS Alabama, BXBS Texas, etc. etc.

#5

Yes, but the point is... it's not exactly the same and you can't just take it with you when you move between states. I used to ASSume that if you had Blue Cross in California, you could take it with you to Oregon. Sure seems freakin' logical!

Nope.

^

Well you'd have to prevent states from regulating insurance to accomplish that, and the last thing we need is decreased States' rights.

now that is something i agree with healthcare coverage should be nationwide. why not hospitals are owned by companies that span multiple states. claims are taken and handled by people in other states. why restrict the sale of insurance to instate providers only and allow states to regulate and control policies into stupidity.

^

Because at the most simplistic level it is a contract (company X agrees to pay your bills in exchange for premium payments). States set their own laws for contracts, generally speaking.