Will Brewer veto interstate health-insurance sale bill?

posted at 2:15 pm on April 19, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stunned conservatives with a pair of vetoes yesterday, one on a bill that would have required presidential candidates to submit specific documentation to qualify for a race, and the other on a measure that would have allowed people to carry firearms on public-college campuses.  Brewer has another controversial measure on her desk now that goes to the heart of the health-care debate in the nation, and no one’s quite sure whether Brewer intends to sign it.  Katie Pavlich reports on the question for Townhall:

Senate Bill 1593, or the Arizona Interstate Health Insurance Act, will allow consumers to pick and choose from health insurance plans in Arizona and other states. It is the first legislation of its kind in the country. Individuals will be able to choose a plan with health care mandates that fit them best, reducing individual premium costs. In addition, opening up the health insurance market across state lines will allow for those who cannot afford health insurance in Arizona to find an affordable plan in another state that gives them the coverage they need.

Opposition to the bill has said the legislation will “eliminate laws requiring insurers that sell their products to Arizona residents be licensed and regulated by the state Department of Insurance,” implying the bill is a deregulation of the health insurance industry all together, which is false. All insurance plans, whether in Arizona or other states, are regulated through the state of origin and SB 1593 protects consumers by giving Arizona the ability to block insurance companies with a history of bad behavior from selling policies to Arizona citizens. According to the Smith Amendment for SB 1593, all litigation claims requiring a court process will take place under the jurisdiction of Arizona. All policies will also be subject to Arizona premium taxes, keeping tax revenue local in order to stimulate the economy. Senate Bill 1593 will also give business owners more options on how to best insure employees and allows businesses expanding to Arizona to keep current health plans from the state they are expanding from.

States don’t usually allow for interstate sales of health insurance because the sector is almost always highly regulated.  A state cannot impose mandates on businesses operating across state lines, which means that any insurer selling in Arizona only has to abide by the mandates of their own particular state.  Once Arizona opens its borders to health insurers, those in the states with the smallest mandate burden will compete best against those in Arizona and around the country.

That may be great for consumers, but it’s bad for state governments.  The competition would tend to drive in-state insurers out of business, and put Arizona’s mandates out of business with them.  It would give a more free-market approach to health insurance, which will anger the special interests that drove the mandates in the first place.  Katie notes that coverage for autism is one of the points of argument being made to press Brewer to veto this bill, although according to the Kaiser Foundation’s list of mandates in Arizona, insurers there were not required to offer coverage for those issues in 2010.

Brewer has a decision to make with this bill.  Will she support free-market solutions that benefit the majority of Arizonans, or will she act to protect the state’s prerogative in enforcing mandates on insurers?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Lord I hope she does not veto this – this is the holy grail to drive up competition and drive down prices.

jake-the-goose on April 19, 2011 at 2:17 PM

It worked for auto insurance.

gryphon202 on April 19, 2011 at 2:21 PM

I’m sorry…

… But every time I see Gov. Brewer, I immediately think of Priscilla the Queen of the Dessert.

Seven Percent Solution on April 19, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Cripe, please don’t veto Jan

cmsinaz on April 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stunned conservatives with a pair of vetoes yesterday, one on a bill that would have required presidential candidates to submit specific documentation to qualify for a race, and the other on a measure that would have allowed people to carry firearms on public-college campuses.

For crying out loud, I would have vetoed them as well!

The first bill was just plain boneheaded stupid, and the second bill would have been political suicide for Brewer if she had signed it, especially in light of the shootings in Arizona a few months back!

The only thing stunning here is the fact that both these idiotic bills managed to make it to Brewer’s desk in the first place! Neither of them should have made it past the first initial vote!

pilamaye on April 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM

7%, spot on…never made the connection

cmsinaz on April 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM

pilamaye on April 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Well said.

jake-the-goose on April 19, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Where’s cane_loader from last night making the case that Brewer betrayed the US and the Constitution?

Be interesting to see his wacky thoughts on this one…

catmman on April 19, 2011 at 2:34 PM

The first bill was just plain boneheaded stupid,

You may disagree with vetting candidates thoroughly, but there was nothing “boneheaded stupid” about the birth- certificate bill. Did you read it? It gave a list of acceptable documents, just as when you fill out an I-9 for a government job.

Baptismal/circumcision records were on the list as documents that could be used, at the option of the candidate.

The candidates were under no compulsion to provide these. They were merely given the option, in a long string of choices. A simple long-form birth certificate, as I have in my filing cabinet, was on the list and would do just fine.

Can you quote the language that makes the bill “boneheaded stupid?”

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Voila, here I am. LOL

I was typing the previous comment and so didn’t see yours until after I posted, catmman. Good morning to you, too ;-)

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 2:36 PM

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Yeah, I see that. Good afternoon! :)

catmman on April 19, 2011 at 2:40 PM

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Maybe the part that Brewer actually veoted it for – where it makes the Arizona SecState the arbiter of which Presidential candidates make it onto the ballot.

apollyonbob on April 19, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Maybe the part that Brewer actually veoted it for – where it makes the Arizona SecState the arbiter of which Presidential candidates make it onto the ballot.

apollyonbob on April 19, 2011 at 2:48 PM

Exactly.

sandee on April 19, 2011 at 2:51 PM

GA just passed a similar law this week along with an immigration bill patterned on Arizona’s.

Just A Grunt on April 19, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Nice to see that college campuses are still great places for rapists and predators to roam, and don’t forget mass murderers! /s

It’s distressing to see a Republican Governor veto a law that so obviously needed to be passed. I’m okay with the Birther bill too. A simple requirement for eligibility and the Democrats and their water carriers go crazy. What a world, what a world.

bonnie_ on April 19, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Can you quote the language that makes the bill “boneheaded stupid?”

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 2:35 PM

How about “language” along the lines of In the 236 years of this country’s history, is there any other time you can name where you saw this goofy “birther” philosophy being invoked?

pilamaye on April 19, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Jan Brewer? Where do I go to get a refund?

Heckle on April 19, 2011 at 3:09 PM

How about “language” along the lines of In the 236 years of this country’s history, is there any other time you can name where you saw this goofy “birther” philosophy being invoked?

pilamaye on April 19, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Another adjective. We can add “goofy” to “boneheaded” and “stupid.” Do you want to go for “retarded?”

To answer your question, America was never been in this situation in 236 years, except for Chester A. Arthur, who conveniently burned his papers during the election when people started questioning he was a natural-born citizen.

Reichstag Honolulu BBQ coming up?

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 3:13 PM

catmman, I have to go take care of some biz. Maybe see you later! Have a good one

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 3:14 PM

In the 236 years of this country’s history, is there any other time you can name where you saw this goofy “birther” philosophy being invoked astounding level of blatant disregard for simple proof of one of the few meager Constitutional requirements for the office of President?pilamaye on April 19, 2011 at 3:09 PM

OMGZ, they want people to actually prove that they meet the minimum Constitutional requirements? Holy crizzap, whatever will these extremists demand next?!??!

Midas on April 19, 2011 at 3:20 PM

I hope this bill is well written and does what it was intended to do. Because this is what the whole country should look like.

This is actually a place where the commerce clause could be used in the healthcare debate to make states allow insurance from other states.

This is cost control.

petunia on April 19, 2011 at 3:37 PM

How about “language” along the lines of In the 236 years of this country’s history, is there any other time you can name where you saw this goofy “birther” philosophy being invoked?

pilamaye on April 19, 2011 at 3:09 PM

Thanks for arguing with the idiots! When I see the birther morons spew their talking point and thus provide Obama a vital life line for his re-election, I have a revelation about how Democrats can believe their economic myths.

thuja on April 19, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Im sorry, but wouldnt this bill actually actualize the interstate health-care commerce that currently doesn’t exist, and upon which Obama erroneously justifies Obamacare?

In other words, Obama says the Insterstate Commerce Clause gives him authority to regulate heath insurance, but there currently IS NO interstate commerce in health care. So this legislation would validate Obamas legal argument, no?

American Elephant on April 19, 2011 at 3:41 PM

If a “birther bill” should be passed anywhere, it should be in a state with an early primary. The point here IMHO is to kill this birther business once and for all. 0bama defecates or abandons the commode, and can’t use the ambiguity of his birth certificate to paint his opposition as kooks.

Sekhmet on April 19, 2011 at 3:46 PM

thuja on April 19, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Birth certificate

College applications

College transcripts

Checks written for his college tuition

True SS# among the nine he’s used to rent apartments and offices

For starters, I’d just like to see any one of these.

Akzed on April 19, 2011 at 3:54 PM

John McCain had to prove his citizenship as well cane_loader.

Conservalicious on April 19, 2011 at 3:55 PM

John McCain had to prove his citizenship as well cane_loader.
Conservalicious on April 19, 2011 at 3:55 PM

He produced about 50 lbs of docs in about an hour, proving that he is a citizens. He must be a racist.

Akzed on April 19, 2011 at 3:59 PM

RED ALERT
OBAMA FINALLY IS ASKED TO HIS FACE ABOUT CITIZENSHIP

His timing is unbelievable

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 4:04 PM

I don’t know how to insert links – here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOLJU6dbZRc

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Obama answers citizenship question

cane_loader on April 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM

“Will she support free-market solutions that benefit the majority of Arizonans, or will she act to protect the state’s prerogative in enforcing mandates on insurers?”

I don’t see why they can’t do both. Just say: “Any insurance carrier in any state can insure in Arizona as long as they meet the following minimum requirements …”

But the more I think about it, to heck with the mandates. If people want coverage for autism and if there is enough demand for it, the insurers will offer it.

What I have problems with is mandates for things like hair transplants. Why should a woman have to pay for some guy’s hair loss insecurity? Or why should a man pay for a woman’s breast enlargement? Those are mandated by some states. I can see reconstructive surgery to repair damage from disease or injury, but not cosmetic surgery for the sake of it.

You hear that argument of “why should the poor not have access to breast enhancement” and the answer is “because they are poor”. Life isn’t “fair” and stop expecting it to be. The poor don’t have access to BMWs, private airplanes, and their own swimming pool, either.

crosspatch on April 19, 2011 at 4:53 PM

The campus carry bill was horribly written and provided only to be able to carry “on campus” but NOT in residential, academic or other buildings.

Essentially it said “You can carry on campus but if you walk inside a building with the gun you’re breaking the law”.

Very poor bill. It needs to have been vetoed and hopefully will be re-written to actually allow you to carry FULLY ON CAMPUS….i.e. in your dorm, classroom, dining hall, apartment, etc.

IMO, would have only looked nice on paper and been an immediate lawsuit magnet with no actual protection added.

http://www.concealedcampus.org/

SgtSVJones on April 19, 2011 at 5:34 PM

https://www.facebook.com/ConcealedCampus

SgtSVJones on April 19, 2011 at 5:39 PM

“eliminate laws requiring insurers that sell their products to Arizona residents be licensed and regulated by the state Department of Insurance,”

A state doing this unilaterally will be a friggin disaster……period. People should learn more about the business of regulating hc insurance before they jump to simple but stupid ideas of reform. What consumer protections will a person enjoy when they are buying insurance in out of state jurisdictions that don’t give a crap about said person? Answer: almost none. How does an out-of-state insurance company negotiate rates with in-state provider networks?

Wait, are we actually talking about allowing an insurance company to sell insurance to a state’s population without any regulatory controls? Zero accountability? Zero statutory reserve protections? Answer: yes. What could go wrong?

David in ATL on April 19, 2011 at 6:06 PM

Maybe the part that Brewer actually veoted it for – where it makes the Arizona SecState the arbiter of which Presidential candidates make it onto the ballot.

Why is this objectionable? If the point of this bill is to ensure accountability re: candidate eligibility, then at some point along the way, somebody has to decide yes or no. Of course, the decision must not be arbitrary. It should be made in accord with a set of rules that is public and agreed upon well in advance of election.

lacerta on April 19, 2011 at 9:33 PM

Concealed carry on campus will save lives. If someone (off duty police officer, security guards etc) is legal to carry a concealed weapon, they are an asset in a situation with a limited number of bad guy shooters; not an additional threat. If she was going to veto this bill, she should have put out language to accomplish the same purpose she would sign.

KW64 on April 19, 2011 at 10:46 PM

I am no longer a college student however…my personal right to safety trumps that of the state/city/business/school to restrict my reasonable effort to assure my safety. Were I to work nights at an inner-city 7-11, you could rest assured I would be armed, regardless of my employer’s wishes.

trl on April 20, 2011 at 5:12 AM