I get a kick out of how much attention a shlock like Krugman is paid by otherwise intelligent people. Of course, this makes it necessary for Dr. Boudreaux to send letter after letter to the Grey Lady, hoping against hope that a few of those readers who read approvingly Krugman's column the day before read his response, and further that they pay attention and think about the questions at hand, and that at least a few well-intentioned readers will recognize what a charlatan Krugman is. The same battles have to be fought and won over and over and over again.

I get a kick out of how much attention a shlock like Krugman is paid by otherwise intelligent people. Of course, this makes it necessary for Dr. Boudreaux to send letter after letter to the Grey Lady, hoping against hope that a few of those readers who read approvingly Krugman's column the day before read his response, and further that they pay attention and think about the questions at hand, and that at least a few well-intentioned readers will recognize what a charlatan Krugman is. The same battles have to be fought and won over and over and over again.

The Republican Party claims its proposal will allow unfettered interstate sale of insurance. Despite danielkuehn's arguments to the contrary, the interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the McCarran-Ferguson Act have already been settled. If the Republican proposal is enacted, the language in this new Act would prevent a state from banning interstate sales of health insuarance. The language in this new Act would prevent a state from imposing its own mandates on the insurance offerred by a company from another state.

So I guess we have to appeal to Don to explicate the purpose of his letter since you don't seem interested in my explanation.

Don?

I realize there is no restriction to regulate insurance intrastate and the commerce clause doesn't refer to intrastate commerce. If I understand it correctly, I believe the McCarran-Ferguson Act pertains to intrastate commerce.

When I said that I think congress may be derelict in its duties under the Commerce Clause, I was referring to allowing the prohibition of interstate commerce in health insurance, not the right of each state to regulate insurance companies doing business specifically in their state.

Securities Broker Dealers have similar regulatory issues. However, BDs are allowed to have customers in a state in which they have no office and which does not regulate them.

I guess I don't understand why the dormant commerce clause is not preventing states from the prohibition on buying insurance from an insurance company housed in another state.

And because of McCarren-Ferguson there hasn't been a need to.

If anyone, including myself, pretends to know exactly what can and can't be done they're lying.

“So could a proposal in the bill from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. Today, insurance generally can't be sold across state lines. Baucus would permit states to jointly allow insurance plans sold in one state to be offered in the other. This differs from the Republican proposal to permit unlimited interstate insurance sales. The GOP approach would allow any policy sold anywhere to be sold everywhere, and effectively permit the state with the weakest regulation to write the rules for the 49 others. The Baucus variation would allow states to open their markets only to states with comparable consumer protections while simultaneously expanding consumer choice.”

I have no doubt that the staffs of Democratic and Republican senators know much more than me about the legality of ending state regulation of health insurance. Heck, I bet they even know more than danielkuehn.

“The case gets pretty weak when you move beyond those three points.”