No. of Recommendations: 0
Not an expert but I think that one of the arguments that states make is that they need to protect consumers by regulating insurance companies to make sure that they have enough assets to pay claims. If you, as a WA resident, buy a policy from a company that can only do business in WA, you know it will be able to pay your claims. If you buy a policy from a Florida company, who knows if it will be there when you need it? The state of Florida will not be looking to make sure its companies can cover claims in other states. It would be burdensome for states to have to monitor the financial health of insurance companies based in other states.

I don't know if that's a good argument or just an excuse for states to get a stranglehold on the insurance business and make it do stuff it would never do if freedom prevailed -- like force us - clean-living folks in our mid-60s - to pay for maternity and addiction treatment coverage that we will never have any use for.

--fleg
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement