Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 647

Eliminating ACA Mandates and Letting Consumers to Buy Health Insurance Across State Lines

Argument in favor

Repealing the health insurance coverage mandates and allowing consumers to buy their health insurance across state lines is a sensible way to make the health insurance market more competitive -- which will help drive down costs.

BTSundra's Opinion
···
08/20/2016
We have to get rid of unnecessary restrictions and allow the free market to take its place.
Like (27)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
08/19/2016
Let's do this. In a few months ACA will finally be history. Then Congress will have to do their job and repeal this Socialist Democrat bill. This is a example of the IQs of the members of Congress. Thank you Nancy Pelosi, with your IQ as Speaker, the Democrat IQ surpassed 80 and ACA became law "so we could read it." We didn't like it, but you passed it without Republicans. so this Total Failure is on you. Time to retire and get another facelift.
Like (25)
Follow
Share
coldkeyes's Opinion
···
08/20/2016
No one should be forced to buy obamacare in the first place. This law is NOT doable, its not enforceable, this law doesn't respect your civil rights. Your gonna arrest someone for not buying healthcare insurance? Your dumber than a bag of hammers.
Like (18)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

It is not clear what will happen to people with existing health insurance policies if this bill were made it into law, and uncertainty about coverage rightfully makes people nervous. No changes should take place that can’t provide those assurances.

jesus.figueroa's Opinion
···
08/20/2016
Honestly? I simply do not trust Ted Cruz to represent the interests of the most marginalized amongst us. There is still plenty of room for improvement in our health care sector. The ACA took a step forward. For many reasons it did not get us quite there. But millions more are now insured. Let's not undo that progress. Let's build on it.
Like (19)
Follow
Share
James's Opinion
···
08/20/2016
This bill is a massive giveaway to health insurance corporations that already shouldn't exist. The individual mandate isn't the best part of the Affordable Care Act to be sure (you can blame Rahm Emanuel for convincing Obama to abandon the public option, even though the Democrats had a large majority in both houses of Congress). But the second part which is "buying across state lines" is the worst section of is bill. Essentially what it does is allow you to buy health insurance from another state. So a state like Texas, has less regulations on healthcare, but a state like New York has more regulations. This law would allow you to buy the health insurance from Texas while living in New York, but comes with the risk of less regulations on prices, quality, and other things. The devil is always in the details, and I feel sorry for people who fall for the argument that if we let corporations run wild, then everyone will prosper equally. Health insurance companies profit off of making money at the expense of your welfare, and to allow them to not just continue to screw, but to allow them to royally screw their costumers is disgusting.
Like (8)
Follow
Share
Diego's Opinion
···
08/21/2016
A national public option would be well received. Insurance providers will always put profits before people unless the law reigns them in from being fixated on their profits. Single payer is the only solution
Like (2)
Follow
Share

What is Senate Bill S. 647?

This bill would repeal the health insurance and health coverage expansions required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and related provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HCERA) and restore the law that existed previously. It would also enact reforms allowing consumers to purchase health insurance that is offered in any state -- not just plans that are available in their own.

The Public Health Service Act would be changed to make the laws of a state designated by a health insurance company as its ‘primary state’ would apply to individual health insurance offered by that company in the primary state and in any other state (secondary states). This change would only apply if the insurance company and its coverage comply with this legislation.

Health insurance companies would be exempt from any secondary state’s laws prohibiting or regulating a company’s operations in a secondary state. However, the laws of the primary state could allow for such restrictions to be imposed in secondary states -- but absent specific public policies to that effect, primary states have jurisdiction over enforcing its own laws on a health insurance company in primary and secondary states.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) would be required to study the effect of this legislation on specified health insurance issues, particularly:

  • The number of people who are uninsured or underinsured;

  • The availability and cost of health insurance policies for people with pre-existing medical conditions;

  • The availability and cost of health insurance in general;

  • The elimination or reduction of different types of benefits under health insurance policies offered in different states;

  • Cases of fraud or abuse relating to health insurance coverage offered and the resolution of such cases.

Impact

People with health insurance they obtained through health insurance exchanges, health insurance companies, state regulators.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 647

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: In introducing his legislation, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said that it will “reduce costs, force insurers to compete for business and empower consumers to choose a health plan that meets their needs.” He added that it is a “true market-based reform that will make health insurance more personal and affordable, giving consumers the freedom to select plans that fit their needs, anywhere from Alaska to Texas to Vermont.”

Under current law, the McCarran-Ferguson Act gives states the right to regulate health insurance plans within their borders and has led to a patchwork of differing state regulations. While it McCarran-Ferguson didn’t explicitly ban interstate health insurance, the circumstances it created have made it too complex and costly for most health insurers to offer plans in multiple states.

Some state governments have attempted to create regional health insurance compacts or just out-of-state purchases, as Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Rhode Island, and Wyoming have enacted laws allowing for out-of-state health insurance.

Proponents of interstate health insurance note that theoretically it should help reduce the cost of coverage, as some states have mandated health insurers to cover particular treatments like acupuncture -- the cost of which gets embedded in health insurance premiums. By giving more options for purchasing health insurance, they can choose a plan that delivers the quality they need at an affordable price without excessive or unneeded benefits.

But detractors point out that encouraging interstate health insurance plans could make the task of protecting consumers more difficult -- particularly enforcing premium rate protections, and covering consumers with pre-existing conditions. They also cite research showing that state-level insurance mandates only comprised about 2.5 percent of premiums in the states that were involved in the analysis.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user MilitaryHealth)

AKA

Health Care Choice Act of 2015

Official Title

A bill to repeal title I of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage offered in interstate commerce.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Finance
    IntroducedMarch 3rd, 2015
    We have to get rid of unnecessary restrictions and allow the free market to take its place.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    Honestly? I simply do not trust Ted Cruz to represent the interests of the most marginalized amongst us. There is still plenty of room for improvement in our health care sector. The ACA took a step forward. For many reasons it did not get us quite there. But millions more are now insured. Let's not undo that progress. Let's build on it.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Let's do this. In a few months ACA will finally be history. Then Congress will have to do their job and repeal this Socialist Democrat bill. This is a example of the IQs of the members of Congress. Thank you Nancy Pelosi, with your IQ as Speaker, the Democrat IQ surpassed 80 and ACA became law "so we could read it." We didn't like it, but you passed it without Republicans. so this Total Failure is on you. Time to retire and get another facelift.
    Like (25)
    Follow
    Share
    No one should be forced to buy obamacare in the first place. This law is NOT doable, its not enforceable, this law doesn't respect your civil rights. Your gonna arrest someone for not buying healthcare insurance? Your dumber than a bag of hammers.
    Like (18)
    Follow
    Share
    Get rid of all controls that are not a free market. Let consumers decide what best fits their families needs. Government controls simply pick winners and losers. The taxpayers are always the loser.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    There is no good reason to deny freedom of choice to Americans when it comes to buying health insurance. Which is why this idea isn’t a new one: let people save money by purchasing insurance coverage from another state where policies might be cheaper. The largest concentration of power in health care does not lie with the insurance companies looking for profit; it lies with the government looking for "fairness" Our society has elected to provide health care for the elderly and the poor through Medicare and Medicaid, but since the dawn of those programs, both Federal and State governments have added more agencies and more bureaucracies that all take their portion of the health care pie. You can debate the merits of many of these agencies and their regulations but I'm pretty sure that most of them have outlived their usefulness and simply cost money without producing much of anything. Not that they really ever did. Opening up health care markets to interstate competition may hold down the costs of healthcare by a small portion, but the biggest reason that America spends so much on health care lies in the incredible rise in associated non-clinical costs and until our legislators start cutting back on these regulations, health care costs will continue to rise.
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    Open markets and competitive vendors is the way to go.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    I guess this might be okay, but Senator Cruz, one of your campaign promises was that you would fight to get the ACA repealed!!
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    This bill is a massive giveaway to health insurance corporations that already shouldn't exist. The individual mandate isn't the best part of the Affordable Care Act to be sure (you can blame Rahm Emanuel for convincing Obama to abandon the public option, even though the Democrats had a large majority in both houses of Congress). But the second part which is "buying across state lines" is the worst section of is bill. Essentially what it does is allow you to buy health insurance from another state. So a state like Texas, has less regulations on healthcare, but a state like New York has more regulations. This law would allow you to buy the health insurance from Texas while living in New York, but comes with the risk of less regulations on prices, quality, and other things. The devil is always in the details, and I feel sorry for people who fall for the argument that if we let corporations run wild, then everyone will prosper equally. Health insurance companies profit off of making money at the expense of your welfare, and to allow them to not just continue to screw, but to allow them to royally screw their costumers is disgusting.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely. Not having more options in terms of competition is what's keeping prices high. Being able to buy insurance across state lines will create more competition amongst insurers.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Eliminate Obamacare and eliminate managed health care. Allow the medical community manage their patients health care. And, do what's best for them.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes! This is so important. Why would there ever be a reason why people shouldn't have access to more options? The way it is currently, the states are little monopoly zones where healthcare companies can charge whatever high prices they want to due to a total lack of competition. We need to allow these healthcare giants to compete across state lines and have prices dictated by the free market. More competition in a high demand industry = lower costs and increased innovation for everyone involved.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    "Healthy" competition is the way of USA!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes! Yes! Yes! That will increase competition and create more value for the consumer!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Freedom of choice. Point and Case
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I support buying health insurance across state lines.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Yea get government out of healthcare entirely.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Repeal Obamacare immediately!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Yea, I shouldn't have a government, that is corrupt, and doesn't care about my well being, dictate to me what health insurance I should have.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Open markets = lower prices
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE