Obamacare Alternative

[Dante]

This looks like it has potential. Anything without government involvement is attractive.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/07/the-tea-partys-plan-for-replacing-obamacare/

Edited July 3, 2012 by Dante

[B-Large]

Nobody, still, has explained the "Across State Lines" golden wand. Insurance compaines are National, they can do business in any State they wish to do business- they offer plans where they can make money, they don't offer plans where they cannot.... a individual with a history of Childhood cancer can search out plans in every State in the union as an individual, and NOBODY will underwrite coverage prior to the ACA.... now exactly does this fix that issue? Additionally, who do you think will regulate Insurance Compaines if States don't approve their charter to do business.... you guessed, it the Federal Government- basically, you are back to ACA guidlines where the Fed sets the rules.

 

Private Insurance without someone forcing their hand will not by any means take on money losers, ie the sick. Tea Partiers can dance around this fact and yell "freedom" and "liberty" all they want, but Government is going to be more involved in Heathcare than any other sector, simple because we do not have a system that efficiently serves all people who want to particpate in the market.

 

There are some good thoughts in that proposal, I have always been supportive of the HSA increases and deductible plans. Insurance should be about Catastrophic Illness, ie cancer, stroke, heart attack, torn ACLS.... there is just no reason people cannot pay out of pocker for an annual exam, labs, mammogram... they are not that expensive... It interesting when people bring up Automobile Insurance to make a comparison, when was the last time AllState paid for your oil change, brake repairs, tires???? They don't and they only pay for your repairs after your deductible amount is met and there is ALOT of damage.

 

The ACA is a step in the right direction, but it focuses on the wrong actions. Consumer driven healthcare plans with deductibles and tax advataged HSA's are the right direction, unless people want to pay higher premiums for managed care plans that cover everything.

Edited July 3, 2012 by B-Large

[DC Tom]

This looks like it has potential. Anything without government involvement is attractive.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/07/the-tea-partys-plan-for-replacing-obamacare/

 

Briefly...

 

The promising thing about that is that it actually looks like it does something to address health CARE costs, not just health insurance premiums.

 

But the problems that immediately jump out at me are:

 

1) Refining EMTLA so that the point-of-care emergency room decides what is and isn't an emergency is problematic. Never mind the potential for abuse ("We're too busy, start turning away the less-injured people" - but abuse is no reason not to pass a law, IMO), the potential for health mismanagement through simple bureaucratic stupidity is high as hell ("I have a stomach ache." "Sorry...not an emergency." Three hours later, patient is dead of an aortic aneurysm) and can't be implemented without the protections of tort reform (which I don't see in the plan.)

 

2) "[A]llowing people to purchase insurance across state lines." Uh...hello? Tea Party !@#$os? Hello? You there? You can't argue that health care is a states' rights issue, then take away the states' rights to regulate insurance.

 

Nobody, still, has explained the "Across State Lines" golden wand. Insurance compaines are National, they can do business in any State they wish to do business- they offer plans where they can make money, they don't offer plans where they cannot.... a individual with a history of Childhood cancer can search out plans in every State in the union as an individual, and NOBODY will underwrite coverage prior to the ACA.... now exactly does this fix that issue? Additionally, who do you think will regulate Insurance Compaines if States don't approve their charter to do business.... you guessed, it the Federal Government- basically, you are back to ACA guidlines where the Fed sets the rules.

 

Because insurance is regulated at the state level, premiums can differ between states. Allowing purchase "across state lines" allows the consumer to shop for insurance in a cheaper state, theoretically allowing more choice, more competition, and hence cheaper rates.

 

Theoretically. In practice, it ends up not with insurance companies competing against each other for your business, but STATES competing with each other. At best. At worst, it means that the regulatory authority of states over health insurance is, as a practical matter, eliminated (because, for example, how is MD supposed to regulate health insurance if I can buy it in Delaware?) Either way, it's a silly, stupid panacea.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Nobody, still, has explained the "Across State Lines" golden wand. Insurance compaines are National, they can do business in any State they wish to do business- they offer plans where they can make money, they don't offer plans where they cannot.... a individual with a history of Childhood cancer can search out plans in every State in the union as an individual, and NOBODY will underwrite coverage prior to the ACA.... now exactly does this fix that issue? Additionally, who do you think will regulate Insurance Compaines if States don't approve their charter to do business.... you guessed, it the Federal Government- basically, you are back to ACA guidlines where the Fed sets the rules.

Insurance companies are international, actually, but that really isn't in any way relevant. I'll explain it to you:

 

As an example, the state of Rhode Island's legislature only allows three providers to sell health insurance here, and the type of insurance those companies can (and often must) offer is heavily regulated in a way that drives up insurance costs. The State of Rhode Island has mandated that all health insurances sold in the state must include coverage for fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization. When I was a younger man, single and without a family, this was an insurance rider I had no use for, and yet I was forced to pay for it's cost if I wanted to have health coverage. There are many such riders in many different states. The "Across State Lines" idea focuses on the fact that while a state may regulate the type of insurance that can be sold within it's borders, it cannot regulate what it's citizens can purchase in another state. If another state offers products that are better suited to the citizen, the citizen is then able to purchase them, and return home, product in hand.

[TakeYouToTasker]

"[A]llowing people to purchase insurance across state lines." Uh...hello? Tea Party !@#$os? Hello? You there? You can't argue that health care is a states' rights issue' date=' then take away the states' rights to regulate insurance.[/quote']

The right for a state to regulate what can be sold within it's borders should not be conflated with a state having the authority to dictate what a citizen of that state can purchase outside of that state's borders. While the state absolutely has jurisdiction within it's borders, it does not own it's citizens.

Edited July 3, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Doc]

Insurance companies are international, actually, but that really isn't in any way relevant. I'll explain it to you:

 

As an example, the state of Rhode Island's legislature only allows three providers to sell health insurance here, and the type of insurance those companies can (and often must) offer is heavily regulated in a way that drives up insurance costs. The State of Rhode Island has mandated that all health insurances sold in the state must include coverage for fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization. When I was a younger man, single and without a family, this was an insurance rider I had no use for, and yet I was forced to pay for it's cost if I wanted to have health coverage. There are many such riders in many different states. The "Across State Lines" idea focuses on the fact that while a state may regulate the type of insurance that can be sold within it's borders, it cannot regulate what it's citizens can purchase in another state. If another state offers products that are better suited to the citizen, the citizen is then able to purchase them, and return home, product in hand.

Why should fertility/in vitro stuff be mandated to be covered? It has nothing to do with health.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Why should fertility/in vitro stuff be mandated to be covered? It has nothing to do with health.

Technically it falls under the blanket of reproductive health, and enlists medical procedures, but that's neither here nor there. The reason it is mandated is the state legislature passed a law saying that it was. Whether I agree or disagree with the mandate is inconsequential to the point I made in my above post.

[DC Tom]

The right for a state to regulate what can be sold within it's borders should not be conflated with a state having the authority to dictate what a citizen of that state can purchase outside of that state's borders. While the state absolutely has jurisdiction within it's borders, it does not own it's citizens.

 

If true...then why is it an issue? If MD can't dictate what insurance I can buy outside of MD, then why can't I already? Why do we need a federal law allowing interstate purchase, then? It also begs the question: if I'm residing in MD, purchasing insurance in Delaware, am I purchasing it within MD's borders or outside? (And you're right, MD doesn't own me...I can move to Delaware.)

 

None of which changes anything I said, anyway: it's still a party purportedly supporting states' rights arguably overriding (directly or indirectly) the states' rights with federal legislation, which is a pretty dumb thing to do in an election year.

[Doc]

Technically it falls under the blanket of reproductive health, and enlists medical procedures, but that's neither here nor there. The reason it is mandated is the state legislature passed a law saying that it was. Whether I agree or disagree with the mandate is inconsequential to the point I made in my above post.

It's consequential in that everyone is paying for something which has nothing to do with actual health maintenance, yet rates become higher as a result. Perhaps a la carte policies should be the way to go? Don't need "reproductive health" coverage? Shave $50/month off your premium. Don't need OB coverage? Same.

[TakeYouToTasker]

If true...then why is it an issue? If MD can't dictate what insurance I can buy outside of MD, then why can't I already? Why do we need a federal law allowing interstate purchase, then? It also begs the question: if I'm residing in MD, purchasing insurance in Delaware, am I purchasing it within MD's borders or outside? (And you're right, MD doesn't own me...I can move to Delaware.)

 

None of which changes anything I said, anyway: it's still a party purportedly supporting states' rights arguably overriding (directly or indirectly) the states' rights with federal legislation, which is a pretty dumb thing to do in an election year.

Currently, as the law is written, insurance isn't portable and you cannot purchase accross state lines. The proposed change being discussed in this thread would eliminate that restriction, adding to consumer choice, and lowering insurance costs.

 

Your moving to Delaware example is actually very apt, and I'm going to use it to create a hypothetical:

 

Using the same leagal structuring that heath insurance's lack of portability opperates on, a state could remove your ability to move to another state. A state has the right to create housing codes and standards for homes built within it's own borders, ruling on what sorts of homes individuals can purchase within it's borders. It cannot, however, place restrictions on what sorts of properties it's citizens can purchase within another state. If it could, it would drive up home prices within the state by disallowing outside competition for it's citizens dollars, and make prisoners of it's entire population.

 

It's consequential in that everyone is paying for something which has nothing to do with actual health maintenance, yet rates become higher as a result. Perhaps a la carte policies should be the way to go? Don't need "reproductive health" coverage? Shave $50/month off your premium. Don't need OB coverage? Same.

You're missing my point entirely. I'm not arguing for or against the State of Rhode Island's particular mandate. I'm arguing that if the State of Rhode Island insists on such a mandate, that it's citizens should be able to go elsewhere for insurance if they don't want to pay for it.

[Nanker]

If true...then why is it an issue? If MD can't dictate what insurance I can buy outside of MD, then why can't I already? Why do we need a federal law allowing interstate purchase, then? It also begs the question: if I'm residing in MD, purchasing insurance in Delaware, am I purchasing it within MD's borders or outside? (And you're right, MD doesn't own me...I can move to Delaware.)

 

None of which changes anything I said, anyway: it's still a party purportedly supporting states' rights arguably overriding (directly or indirectly) the states' rights with federal legislation, which is a pretty dumb thing to do in an election year.

 

 

 

I side with TYTT on this issue. Insurance of all kinds is regulated by each state's insurance agency. The insurance companies can only offer to residents of a state - (or if it's a group policy in some cases), where the company that's sponsoring the plan is sitused - a coverage plan that conforms to the requirements as set forth by the state's insurance commissioner and/or promulgated by the state's legislature.

 

Every insurance company (as well as their agents) must file with each state in order to be able to provide their products to the citizens of that state. Think that cost's 'em much? Each plan must offer at a minimum the package that is mandated by the rules and laws that govern that state's insurance code. To do otherwise makes the company and/or its producers subject to incredibly harsh penalties. e.g., An insurance agent may not telephone a citizen of CA with an offer to sell an insurance product unless the agent has the written permission of the person they are calling. The fine is $10,000.00 per occurrence if the person called reports the incident to the state's insurance commissioner. That's the rule for any kind of insurance - not just health care coverage.

 

It's not a matter that one can't "buy" insurance from an out-of-state provider of coverages. It's that the providers are prohibited from "selling" their products across state lines for the reasons mentioned above. In fact, the states do act as Nannies - doing what they as elected representatives of their respective constituencies purportedly elected them to do. We all know though, that what they really are doing is lining their own pockets and those of their friends who can woo them at candlelight dinners and on the golf course.

[Juror#8]

Insurance companies are international, actually, but that really isn't in any way relevant. I'll explain it to you:

 

As an example, the state of Rhode Island's legislature only allows three providers to sell health insurance here, and the type of insurance those companies can (and often must) offer is heavily regulated in a way that drives up insurance costs. The State of Rhode Island has mandated that all health insurances sold in the state must include coverage for fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization. When I was a younger man, single and without a family, this was an insurance rider I had no use for, and yet I was forced to pay for it's cost if I wanted to have health coverage. There are many such riders in many different states. The "Across State Lines" idea focuses on the fact that while a state may regulate the type of insurance that can be sold within it's borders, it cannot regulate what it's citizens can purchase in another state. If another state offers products that are better suited to the citizen, the citizen is then able to purchase them, and return home, product in hand.

 

You're a !@#$ing jackass!

 

I was reading your post. Out of the blue...I thought "Dormant Commerce Clause problem." I began envisioning the host of scenarios that will develop that cause conflicts with the Dormant Commerce Clause.

 

I haven't thought about or heard the term "Dormant Commerce Clause" mentioned in over a decade....FOR A REASON. And your over-thinking, loquacious ass decided to come up with a hypo that, with a tweek here, and a tweek there, raises all kinds of funky issues with THE negative command.

 

While you're at it, can you explain if Grandma can bequeath Blackacre to her cousin's unborn niece's offspring 40 years from now.

 

Thanks.

 

Seriously though, the lawyer's will be tooling up on that. And even though the scenarios that I envision can be contradicted by the state claiming a lack of protectionist interest, there are still considerable NCC/DCC issues that you can envision coming out of that effort.

 

Let it lay dormant.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Juror#8

[Nanker]

Currently, as the law is written, insurance isn't portable and you cannot purchase accross state lines. The proposed change being discussed in this thread would eliminate that restriction, adding to consumer choice, and lowering insurance costs.

 

Your moving to Delaware example is actually very apt, and I'm going to use it to create a hypothetical:

 

Using the same leagal structuring that heath insurance's lack of portability opperates on, 1. a state could remove your ability to move to another state. A state has the right to create housing codes and standards for homes built within it's own borders, ruling on what sorts of homes individuals can purchase within it's borders. It cannot, however, place restrictions on what sorts of properties it's citizens can purchase within another state. If it could, it would drive up home prices within the state by disallowing outside competition for it's citizens dollars, and make prisoners of it's entire population.

 

 

You're missing my point entirely. I'm not arguing for or against the State of Rhode Island's particular mandate. 2. I'm arguing that if the State of Rhode Island insists on such a mandate, that it's citizens should be able to go elsewhere for insurance if they don't want to pay for it.

 

 

1. I'm in NJ and they keep for a year either about 9% of the capital gains or 2% of the selling price - whichever is greater. If you leave the state in that time - you forfeit that money.

2. That in itself would relieve a lot of cost pressure on premiums and would enhance competition - IF it were available.

 

Currently, as the law is written, insurance isn't portable and you cannot purchase accross state lines. The proposed change being discussed in this thread would eliminate that restriction, adding to consumer choice, and lowering insurance costs.

 

Your moving to Delaware example is actually very apt, and I'm going to use it to create a hypothetical:

 

Using the same leagal structuring that heath insurance's lack of portability opperates on, 1. a state could remove your ability to move to another state. A state has the right to create housing codes and standards for homes built within it's own borders, ruling on what sorts of homes individuals can purchase within it's borders. It cannot, however, place restrictions on what sorts of properties it's citizens can purchase within another state. If it could, it would drive up home prices within the state by disallowing outside competition for it's citizens dollars, and make prisoners of it's entire population.

 

 

You're missing my point entirely. I'm not arguing for or against the State of Rhode Island's particular mandate. 2. I'm arguing that if the State of Rhode Island insists on such a mandate, that it's citizens should be able to go elsewhere for insurance if they don't want to pay for it.

 

 

1. I'm in NJ and they keep for a year either about 9% of the capital gains or 2% of the selling price - whichever is greater. If you leave the state in that time - you forfeit that money.

2. That in itself would relieve a lot of cost pressure on premiums and would enhance competition - IF it were available.

 

You're a !@#$ing jackass!

 

I was reading your post. Out of the blue...I thought "Dormant Commerce Clause problem." I began envisioning the host of scenarios that will develop that cause conflicts with the Dormant Commerce Clause.

 

I haven't thought about or heard the term "Dormant Commerce Clause" mentioned in over a decade....FOR A REASON. And your over-thinking, loquacious ass decided to come up with a hypo that, with a tweek here, and a tweek there, raises all kinds of funky issues with THE negative command.

 

While you're at it, can you explain if Grandma can bequeath Blackacre to her cousin's unborn niece's offspring 40 years from now.

 

Thanks.

 

Seriously though, the lawyer's will be tooling up on that. And even though the scenarios that I envision can be contradicted by the state claiming a lack of protectionist interest, there are still considerable NCC/DCC issues that you can envision coming out of that effort.

 

Let it lay dormant.

 

I beg you take that up with the 50 separate state legislatures and their 50 insurance commissioners. I believe they have a different view because they've been dictating what stands for insurance coverage in their respective states since their incorporation.

 

 

 

[DC Tom]

Currently, as the law is written, insurance isn't portable and you cannot purchase accross state lines. The proposed change being discussed in this thread would eliminate that restriction, adding to consumer choice, and lowering insurance costs.

 

Your moving to Delaware example is actually very apt, and I'm going to use it to create a hypothetical:

 

Using the same leagal structuring that heath insurance's lack of portability opperates on, a state could remove your ability to move to another state. A state has the right to create housing codes and standards for homes built within it's own borders, ruling on what sorts of homes individuals can purchase within it's borders. It cannot, however, place restrictions on what sorts of properties it's citizens can purchase within another state. If it could, it would drive up home prices within the state by disallowing outside competition for it's citizens dollars, and make prisoners of it's entire population.

 

Except that real property is not portable; I can't buy a house and move it to MD (excepting "manufactured housing", which I'm sure would then have to meet MD standards for me to bring it into MD and reside in it - i.e., actually use it.)

 

Which makes your argument fallacious: you can't argue that I should be allowed to buy insurance in DE as a MD resident and use it in MD, because I can buy a house in DE as a MD resident and use it in Delaware. You're arguing for the mobility of insurance using the immobility of housing (and the mobility of people). You'd be better off choosing a car purchase as an example, since a car actually is portable. And currently, if I buy a car in DE, it must meet MD emissions standards. Which would mean, if such were regulated state-to-state (and if DE standards were laxer than MD standards), that I effectively could not buy a car in DE as a MD resident. Which doesn't happen, of course, is that the auto manufactures build to the most strict state regulations, so I can buy a car in DE and know it'll meet MD standards, because ultimately CA determines those by creating the regulations the auto companies must conform to as practical reality.

 

And all of which misses the point that states regulate SALES, not purchases. I can purchase whatever I want...the state determines what can be SOLD to me. That holds true for houses, cars, and insurance - I can buy a car in Delaware easy enough, what I can't do is buy a car in Maryland from a dealer in Delaware not licensed to sell cars in Maryland. Which is the more proper analogy to health insurance.

 

I side with TYTT on this issue. Insurance of all kinds is regulated by each state's insurance agency. The insurance companies can only offer to residents of a state - (or if it's a group policy in some cases), where the company that's sponsoring the plan is sitused - a coverage plan that conforms to the requirements as set forth by the state's insurance commissioner and/or promulgated by the state's legislature.

 

Every insurance company (as well as their agents) must file with each state in order to be able to provide their products to the citizens of that state. Think that cost's 'em much? Each plan must offer at a minimum the package that is mandated by the rules and laws that govern that state's insurance code. To do otherwise makes the company and/or its producers subject to incredibly harsh penalties. e.g., An insurance agent may not telephone a citizen of CA with an offer to sell an insurance product unless the agent has the written permission of the person they are calling. The fine is $10,000.00 per occurrence if the person called reports the incident to the state's insurance commissioner. That's the rule for any kind of insurance - not just health care coverage.

 

It's not a matter that one can't "buy" insurance from an out-of-state provider of coverages. It's that the providers are prohibited from "selling" their products across state lines for the reasons mentioned above. In fact, the states do act as Nannies - doing what they as elected representatives of their respective constituencies purportedly elected them to do. We all know though, that what they really are doing is lining their own pockets and those of their friends who can woo them at candlelight dinners and on the golf course.

 

I'm not arguing that the states don't. I'm arguing whether or not it's their right to. Mostly because 1) I'm arguing whether or not the Tea Party is a bunch of fools for being inconsistent on the issue of states' rights, and 2) arguing whether or not this is anything more than "back-door" deregulation - forcing the states to deregulate, and by extension making the laxest state the de facto regulator - by forcing the states to compete.

[Juror#8]

I beg you take that up with the 50 separate state legislatures and their 50 insurance commissioners. I believe they have a different view because they've been dictating what stands for insurance coverage in their respective states since their incorporation.

 

Your response shows that you haven't the foggiest idea of what the DCC is or does. That's ok, because even most attorneys don't either. So I don't blame you.

 

Understanding the significance of the implicit negative converse on textualized "4 corners" language that is 200 years old is not something that gets you very far in social scenes and the more "gregarious" night life.

[Nanker]

 

 

I'm not arguing that the states don't. I'm arguing whether or not it's their right to. Mostly because 1) I'm arguing whether or not the Tea Party is a bunch of fools for being inconsistent on the issue of states' rights, and 2) arguing whether or not this is anything more than "back-door" deregulation - forcing the states to deregulate, and by extension making the laxest state the de facto regulator - by forcing the states to compete.

 

Yes, they do and currently they have the right according to each state's constitution.

1. I dunno. Perhaps the Tea Party is simply arguing for a reduction in the right of all governments to over regulate their constituencies. Don't know. Haven't been that close to that cause. But their Taxed Enough Already mantra says a lot.

 

2. It certainly could be looked at as that - however, that market is far from frictionless - but it would certainly offer greater competition in that particular marketplace, and far more choice than what is currently available. That's certainly a reason why most companies are incorporated in the state of DE.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Except that real property is not portable; I can't buy a house and move it to MD (excepting "manufactured housing", which I'm sure would then have to meet MD standards for me to bring it into MD and reside in it - i.e., actually use it.)

 

Which makes your argument fallacious: you can't argue that I should be allowed to buy insurance in DE as a MD resident and use it in MD, because I can buy a house in DE as a MD resident and use it in Delaware. You're arguing for the mobility of insurance using the immobility of housing (and the mobility of people). You'd be better off choosing a car purchase as an example, since a car actually is portable. And currently, if I buy a car in DE, it must meet MD emissions standards. Which would mean, if such were regulated state-to-state (and if DE standards were laxer than MD standards), that I effectively could not buy a car in DE as a MD resident. Which doesn't happen, of course, is that the auto manufactures build to the most strict state regulations, so I can buy a car in DE and know it'll meet MD standards, because ultimately CA determines those by creating the regulations the auto companies must conform to as practical reality.

 

And all of which misses the point that states regulate SALES, not purchases. I can purchase whatever I want...the state determines what can be SOLD to me. That holds true for houses, cars, and insurance - I can buy a car in Delaware easy enough, what I can't do is buy a car in Maryland from a dealer in Delaware not licensed to sell cars in Maryland. Which is the more proper analogy to health insurance.

No, the argument is not fallacious. Real property itself is not portable, but the ownership of that real property is, and that is what we are discussing. You do not reliquish title when you travel. Additionally, while living in Maryland and even physically standing in Maryland, you can use your property in another state. You can rent it, have labor contracted to be performed on it, ect. The one constant in all purchases one can make is the exchange of ownership for currency.

 

Your response shows that you haven't the foggiest idea of what the DCC is or does. That's ok, because even most attorneys don't either. So I don't blame you.

 

Understanding the significance of the implicit negative converse on textualized "4 corners" language that is 200 years old is not something that gets you very far in social scenes and the more "gregarious" night life.

It's certainly a can of worms that could stand to be reopened.

[DC Tom]

No, the argument is not fallacious. Real property itself is not portable, but the ownership of that real property is, and that is what we are discussing. You do not reliquish title when you travel. Additionally, while living in Maryland and even physically standing in Maryland, you can use your property in another state. You can rent it, have labor contracted to be performed on it, ect. The one constant in all purchases one can make is the exchange of ownership for currency.

 

If you're talking about building codes - which was your specific example - then yes, it is fallacious.

 

But if you want to change that to rental agreements or maintenance...then yes, it is still fallacious. The rental example, for instance: I can't buy a house in Delaware and claim it as a Maryland rental property (roughly the equivalent of buying health insurance in DE as a MD resident). It is explicitly regulated by DE (Delaware states, point-blank, that the owner of real property in Delaware agrees that Delaware law applies to that property), and my MD residency doesn't enter into it. The rough equivalent to shopping out-of-state for health insurance in this case is if I owned a rental property and were able to use a rental agreement and law from whatever state I felt benefited me the most.

 

Which is a clumsy argument, which really gets down to why your argument is fallacious: it's a really ****ty analogy, comparing ownership of real property to purchase of insurance. You're trying to compare apples to something decidedly non-applish. If you were comparing out-of-state use of insurance to ownership of real property, that would be more accurate...and in fact, the health insurance I purchase in MD can be used in other states (the benefit of ownership conveys across state lines, regardless of how acquired). Similarly, if you were to compare the acquisition of real property vs. insurance, it would at least be a less inaccurate analogy (still not accurate - while I can buy a house in FL, for example, I have no expectation of the homestead exemption in FL to conveying to me as a MD resident. Still a really lousy analogy, but at least closer to how buying out-of-state insurance would work.)

 

So I suggest that first: decide what you're specifically talking about, buying health insurance or using health insurance. Second, either pick an analogy that doesn't suck (and you're probably only going to find one in finance - try mortgage regulation, for starters. Title insurance, if you're courageous), or don't use an analogy at all.

[TakeYouToTasker]

If you're talking about building codes - which was your specific example - then yes, it is fallacious.

 

But if you want to change that to rental agreements or maintenance...then yes, it is still fallacious. The rental example, for instance: I can't buy a house in Delaware and claim it as a Maryland rental property (roughly the equivalent of buying health insurance in DE as a MD resident). It is explicitly regulated by DE (Delaware states, point-blank, that the owner of real property in Delaware agrees that Delaware law applies to that property), and my MD residency doesn't enter into it. The rough equivalent to shopping out-of-state for health insurance in this case is if I owned a rental property and were able to use a rental agreement and law from whatever state I felt benefited me the most.

 

Which is a clumsy argument, which really gets down to why your argument is fallacious: it's a really ****ty analogy, comparing ownership of real property to purchase of insurance. You're trying to compare apples to something decidedly non-applish. If you were comparing out-of-state use of insurance to ownership of real property, that would be more accurate...and in fact, the health insurance I purchase in MD can be used in other states (the benefit of ownership conveys across state lines, regardless of how acquired). Similarly, if you were to compare the acquisition of real property vs. insurance, it would at least be a less inaccurate analogy (still not accurate - while I can buy a house in FL, for example, I have no expectation of the homestead exemption in FL to conveying to me as a MD resident. Still a really lousy analogy, but at least closer to how buying out-of-state insurance would work.)

 

So I suggest that first: decide what you're specifically talking about, buying health insurance or using health insurance. Second, either pick an analogy that doesn't suck (and you're probably only going to find one in finance - try mortgage regulation, for starters. Title insurance, if you're courageous), or don't use an analogy at all.

No, stop tap dancing . The purchase of any product makes that product your property. You are attempting to manufacture an otherwise non-existent difference between the ownership of healthcare and the ownership of anything else because your argument is internally inconsistent, and wholly depends on it.

[/dev/null]

Z0mg!!1!!11!!! That bill is the OPTION Act. And everybody wants an OPTION

 

2 revelations that I've had about Congressional bills

-1 If it has some kind of cutesy name or acronym, it sucks

-2 If it claims to solve all of the problems then it solves none of the problems and creates even more

 

Pass a bill repealing the Affordable Care Act in it's entirety. Then take up bits and pieces. Fancy Nancy prefers to undrestand bills after they are passed. I prefer to understand bills before they are brought to a vote