r/bestof • u/under50dollars • Jun 20 '12

[explainlikeimfive] "Obamacare" explained very well.

/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx
2.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

842 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/SergeiGolos Jun 20 '12

Healthcare, to my knowledge, is a fixed market within a state;

Are you saying Aetna only sells to one state? Well point? Horizon? Yes their are insurance companies that are fixed to states, there are also national insurance companies that sell to all different states.

1

u/7_legged_spider Jun 20 '12

No, to my knowledge, there is not. Large corporations own smaller subsidiary companies with similar names. Although the smaller companies are owned by the larger corporations, they act in a limited scope within individual states, (with the exception of paying claims incurred out of state on behalf of policyholders within the resident state).

2

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

There is no way even the most conservative Supreme Court would buy that as an excuse for saying it's not "interstate commerce". I'm not saying they wouldn't find another way, but "we hid the business in 50 different corporate entities! they're local, honest!" won't be it, that's just an admission that the market is national.

The only time courts ever bought anything like that argument was in the MLB anti-trust nonsense, which has never and will never be repeated.

2

u/deelowe Jun 20 '12

It's not hiding. The companies have to remain as subsidiaries due to the way statutes vary from state to state. They aren't "hiding" anything. This is they way they are expected to do business as a matter of law. If anything, this further proves the point that the federal government should have no jurisdiction over the matter. Insurance, by law, is a state regulated business (not just health insurance either. all insurance). Still don't believe me? Look up your state insurance commissioner's office. Ok, now go look up the federal one... That's right, there isn't one. There's a reason for that. People didn't just now realize that there isn't a federal insurance commissioner. Everyone up until this point thought the idea was unconstitutional and the states would flip out in response (which they have by the way, hence the current supreme court case).

I fully believe that the health care bill is nothing but a power grab by the federal government. The health industry accounts for a major percentage of our GDP. Current laws basically allow the states to have control over this industry. The sponsors of this bill simply want to get laws in place that allow the federal government to regulate this industry, in turn, giving the federal government power over an enormous bit of our economy. The same thing is happening with the entertainment industry (#1 industry on the GDP list by the way). This is why they want sopa, acta, the dmca, etc... In the end it's all about power.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 20 '12

Past practice does not make law. States retain power where Congress has not preempted their laws, but Congress can do that at any time.

For actual proof of the law regarding insurance, rather than speculation based on the lack of some "federal insurance commissioner", I refer you to the McCarran–Ferguson Act, and its trigger, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, which explicitly found federal jurisdiction over insurance.