Start?

Have you been in a coma the last 20 years?

Are you seriously arguing that a state licensing an insurance company can not regulate that insurance company?

You might want to take a moment and re-think that.

It's called "an example".

Interest rates are one thing that many people easily recognize. And many states cap interest rates much lower than South Dakota or Delaware.

There's also other aspects of those state laws that favor banks over consumers. For example, you're not allowed to sue. Instead, you get binding arbitration. Nevermind that the arbitration system is set up by the banks, so the job of the person "hearing your case" is dependent on the banks.

I think you need to look closer at your auto insurance. You might notice the plan comes from "State Farm (your state)".

Most states will only allow you to buy auto insurance from companies licensed (and thus regulated) by that state.

It's the case for every plan you looked at. It's in the law.

the insurance on most of these plans seem to only pay about 70% tops of the bills.

Until you hit the out-of-pocket cap. That cap varies by plan, with the "higher" metals having a lower cap.

Unfortunately, the complexity of the plans means there is no universal "this is your cheapest option" plan.

For very healthy people, a bronze plan will probably be cheapest.

For people who see a doctor regularly, a silver plan will probably be the cheapest - lower co-pays, deductible and out-of-pocket cap. So they will pay less overall even though they pay more for the insurance.

Keep in mind deductibles are not the same as they used to be.

The deductible you're talking about in your old plan would pay nothing until you reached the deductible.

The deductible in an ACA plan does not apply to a large number of routine procedures. Those are covered with a co-pay instead. For example, instead of paying full price for a check-up because you haven't hit the deductible, you pay around $10-40 depending on plan.

allowing more interstate (and international) competition in health finance options would help on that front, too

Yeah, how'd that work out for banking? Interstate competition was supposed to do things like drive down credit card interest rates.

Instead, almost every credit card in the US is issued out of Delaware or South Dakota. And interest rates are quite high. Why? Interstate competition also means competition between state legislatures for laws that are most favorable to banks.

So what would happen with interstate health insurance? Legislatures would compete for the most insurance company-friendly laws. Which would be the least consumer-friendly laws.

Really?

Please direct me to the State and Federal programs that do not require a Social Security number or a green card.

http://www.ssa.gov/

Feel free to run on eliminating it. After all, it's what you're complaining about in your post.

Also, as someone else pointed out, the statute of limitations would apply here. South Carolina has one of the shortest statute of limitations I've ever seen. It's only 3 years for both written and oral contracts.

The statute of limitations is the time limit to get a warrant. Once the warrant is issued, it lasts forever.

if you forbidden from claiming it, then you are also forbidden from regulating it

You don't regulate it based on the claim. You regulate it based on the ship.

Let's say there's a giant gold deposit on the moon, and a ship launches from the US in order to build a mining operation. The US can't say "That's our gold, you have to do this to mine it". However, the US can say "That's our ship. You have to do this while you're on the moon....and happen to be mining gold".

I was under the impression that the moon and Antarctica were covered by the same international treaty

Nope, that would be the Moon Treaty

which we are party to.

Nope. No country capable of reaching orbit has ratified the moon treaty.

There is the Outer Space Treaty, but that one doesn't bar NASA from regulating moon mining.

Witness the latest Target breach. Millions stopped shopping there and Target was (rightfully) forced to take numerous steps to draw people back in.

Because there are alternatives for shopping. I have exactly 1 choice for high-speed Internet, Time Warner Cable. When they roll out their tiered Internet and I don't like it, what do you propose I do?

A grocery store near where I lived stopped carrying a lot of things I liked to buy. So I stopped shopping there.

And if they were the only grocery store, you'd just cheerfully starve, right?

Basically any company that has customers, is accountable and will self-regulate based on customer feedback.

And when you grow up, you'll realize that this little theory only works if the customers have alternatives.

If you'd like an example: text messaging: It uses some empty space during the messages that a GSM phone has to send to the tower anyway. It costs the phone company virtually nothing (just the routing servers, which aren't pricey). Yet there are zero cell providers in the US that offer really "free" text messaging. All of them require paying more than "voice only" plans.

How about baggage fees on airlines? With every airline other than Southwest charging them, customers actually don't have alternatives.

And that doesn't even get into the situations where nominal competitors directly collude to screw over customers.

There has NEVER been a single issue with ISP's that Net Nutrality regulations would have prevented away!

So, because no ISP was violating the net neutrality rules, the net neutrality rules aren't needed.

Uh-huh.

So why have a useless regulation that increases costs for ISP's

Actually, Net Neutrality is cheaper for ISPs. They have to treat every packet the same way. That takes less hardware, software (and thus money) than inspecting each packet, determining who it is from and who it is going to, looking up the server and the customer in their "tiered Internet" database and then either delaying or blocking the packet.

While your government conspiracy theories are vaguely entertaining, you should be aware you have utterly no clue about the subject at hand.

Largely because California isn't trying to re-write science textbooks.

CA textbooks say the big bang happened and evolution is real, which has been the nationwide standard for decades. TX is trying to change that, and change is what gets media attention.