jpete wrote:Because the feds said it wasn't regulated commerce, the insurance companies get together and collude on prices and policies. Neither will compete against each other And they pay the right people to keep it that way.
I'm not sure why the individual state insurance commissioners don't allow out of state companies in, maybe the companies don't try.
The other issue with the insurance companies is that the core of their business is actuarial statistics and projections. Much of the information is difficult to collect. No single company has the resources to do it all. They rely on the government and on each other to share these data
. Without McCarran they would have been colluding. The sharing of the data actually makes the insurance companies more "competitive" with each other when setting premiums. Samhill noted that collusion leads to price fixing. That is true. But this price fixing, with state oversight, leads to profits that are not out-of-line with other businesses because the better data leads to a greater certainty of probability in insuring events. That reduces company risk and makes premiums lower for all.
State governments have a considerable investment in their insurance oversight framework as do the companies in compliance. They have created varying degrees of complexity from state to state. To change the game at will would destabilize the insurance community. It could be done, and I believe will be done, but it must be done slowly.
I cannot comment on the HMO act of 1974. I don't know much about it.