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