"Sell across state lines" is code word for relinquishing control from state regulatory Agencies to Federal. Which will no doubt be more lax in regulation vs. States such as California, Oregon, Washington, New York, etc. In addition, given the size, will be less effective on consumer complaints.
In a number of states this will no doubt change actuarial formulas. In several states, rating is required to be done mostly if not all, lost cost experience of the state of operation. States with higher health and environmental regulations obviously benefit by this, whereas states with lax laws obviously have higher premiums. Thus the insurance company will now rate based on national and not individual state.
As an example, lets say North Dakota has stronger enforcement and stricter laws with Auto's on roads. As a result, less accidents and less severe ones. Which in turn yields lower auto premiums. But say South Dakota is fast and loose and horrible on enforcement, thus higher Premiums. Before, rating is done within each state, now, both states are part of it. South Dakota will see its premiums decrease while North Dakota see's its rise. Thus North Dakota pays for the recklessness of South Dakota.
It's essentially a GOP reckless state finding a way to sweep their horrible record under the rug. Insurance companies can skirt this by developing "rating territories"....but its a good bet the GOP will limit how much they can deviate from a state to state basis.
And....and I think this is why they are walking back from "across state lines" issue. It will be essentially a Federal appropriation of State Tax Revenue to Federal. State's charge premium taxes, filing fee's, etc. This money funds, jobs, safety programs, etc. Many states would cry foul and could be a PR nightmare.
= new reply since forum marked as read