Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , Dan Espen
wrote:

An accurate count of regulations means that
every federal regulation reduces the total number
of regulations in the country by a factor of 50.

Which alternative universe do you live in. In this instance, the rules
and regs are largely in addition to the state rules.

I didn't say anything insulting to you did I?
I don't live in an alternate universe.

The recent prenatal coverage brouhaha was one federal ruling
replacing laws in 24 different states. Each insurance company had
to deal with 24 different rules. Now there is one rule.

I don't know what you think these "additional" rules are.
Either the state or the feds are going to set the rules.
If the feds set the rules, then national companies have a simplified
rule environment. At a 50 to 1 ratio.

Have you considered that hospitals are FORCED to
supply care whether you have insurance or not?
Just for a very small number of instances (active labor and
life-threatening circumstances. They are also free to kick your ass out
the door the minute the kid is launched and/or you are stable (at least
legally).

You have an emergency, you get in.
If you don't have an emergency, you don't. Until it turns into an
emergency.

If not, what's wrong with requiring people to pay
for mandated care?
Because instead of small instances, they are making people buy entire
policies. ANd the policies mandate many things other than emergency
care.

I think the assertion is that routine medical care will save costs over
waiting for a full blown emergency. I didn't run the numbers on this
myself, but I think the assertion is plausible.

....

--
Dan Espen