Maybe you misread the article. The 89% was from the AMA, not from a survey.
I read the article, I just happen to be familiar with the literature sources. The AMA report is based on a survey they conduct. If you google the title of it, you'll probably be able to find this out for yourself quickly. (For the record, ALL of this information is based on one of three surveys. There's the AIS survey, the AMA survey, healthleaders... oh, i think there's a fourth survey company as well. Largely they rely on the insurance providers to self-report data. We don't know whether the AMA study accounted for the error in the number that the BCBS company claims, do we? The GAO reports only have non-group and small-group market numbers, and are from state data. The AHIP reports rely on self-reporting from the insurance companies.)
The Wall Street Journal disagrees with you. Which do you think has more credibility. You or the wall street journal?
Insurance Companies Should Be Allowed to Sell Policies Across State Lines - WSJ.com
An opinion article without an author identified has no creditability to me. I know more about the insurance market than the average person.
A reason why plan costs vary so much (as stressed in that article) is due to the different mandates that states have for insurance. There is nothing preventing a company from incorporating a subsidiary in another state and selling insurance currently.
Then nothing would change by changing the law. No one has anything to gain or lose right? Then why not change it?
Sure. As long as they have to follow the mandates of the individual state.
Interesting, because we aren't bound by a "network". We can go to any doctor we choose.
Which only matters in an HMO's network.
So, an insurance company builds a network by negotiating contracts with a series of providers. Essentially what happens, is that they tend to promise hospitals, or other providers, a certain number of patients (or expected number of patients) in exchange for a deal on pricing.
Now, how that influences you, the consumer, varies by the kind of insurance you buy. If you're in an HMO, the number of doctors you can see is limited to a tier of doctors that they have the best deals with, with referral requirements, etc. If you have a PPO/POS, you have "in-network" and "out-of-network" doctors. Generally speaking, there's about a $10 co-pay difference between the two, though that varies by plan, but you can see anyone you choose.
Yep, looking at the SEHIP website, you're on a PPO. You'll notice, if you look at your
allowed benefits, the cost to you as the consumer varies by whether you're in-network or out-of-network. The insurance company is paying substantially more when you're out-of-network as opposed to in-network, and that difference isn't made up for by the difference in cost to you.
http://www.alseib.org/PDF/SEHIP/SEHIPSummary.pdf
/edit: Oh, hey cool: you only have inpatient hospital benefits covered if the hospital is in-network or it is an emergency. Guess that argument is out the window?
And how much of that is waste? How much of that is because of fraud? You don't know. You assume.
How much of what is waste or fraud? Their admin costs are the 4th lowest of the 39 BCBSA plans. That's pretty much where 'waste' would be located, on the insurance side. Fraud? Not sure what insurance fraud you're getting at.
Again... the WSJ would beg to differ.
The WSJ op-ed. Oh no. You'll notice that the reason it says it would save costs is because the plans would be able to ignore the state mandated benefits. I already said that was a large reason for the state-by-state variance in costs. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.
Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review: Selling Insurance Across State Lines--Now the Dems Are Pushing the Idea--Why It Won't Work
Here's the Washington Post article. You'll find some information from the CBO inside, showing why it's probably a bad idea to sell across state lines the way you're advocating:
Ezra Klein - Selling insurance across state lines: A terrible, no good, very bad health-care idea
Here's an article from a Duke Public Health School professor on why it doesn't work the way you think (provider costs; utilization differences):
Insurance across state lines? - Other Views - NewsObserver.com
McCain's Health Proposals Under a Microscope, Part IV : Columbia Journalism Review
Even if companies want to move into a new state with fewer mandates and less regulation, they would still have trouble competing. They might save on administrative costs—and maybe get a boost from having no mandates to contend with—but they’d be no match for the dominant players. Most likely, a new entrant would not have a network of providers of its own and, instead, would have to rent a network of doctors and hospitals. Rent-a-network providers typically give discounts only in the 10 to 15 percent range. Policies sold by the new carrier may be cheaper, but not as low as those offered by the major carrier. “It’s an ineffective policy tool,” says one actuary.
is that Republicans believe it is their responsibility, whereas Democrats don't to actually do it personally. Democrats want the government to do it, but Republicans don't trust the government to determine who is truly needy and don't trust the government to truly HELP those in need.
