re: #239 marjoriemoon

“Another main issue, from what I’ve read, is that because insurance companies are regulated within the state they practice (meaning the state regulates what they must cover or are not obligated to cover), someone out of state would be denied coverages. What I’ve heard discussed are “benefit mandates” which are things like diabetic testing supplies, pre-natal or maternity care. It would also give incentive for insurance companies to move to these states to do business, not cover a variety of issues and yet not have to worry about getting customers. At least, that’s my understanding of it.”

I think that was probably one main reason. When the Enzi bill, which would have opened up purchasing insurance over state lines, was defeated in 2006, there were good and valid reasons:

releases.usnewswire.com

In short, it was a “least common denominator” situation that would have left consumers in worse straits than if nothing was done at all.