Reply With Quote
wow...a full court press.
this is change.
House Panel Votes to End Health Insurance An rust Exemption
By Christopher Stern
Oct. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. House Judiciary Committee voted to repeal the insurance industry’s federal an rust exemption in a move aimed at spurring compe ion and controlling the cost of premiums.
The panel, in a 20-9 vote, approved legislation to ban companies from engaging in price fixing, bid rigging and market allocation. The measure may be combined with a proposed overhaul of the health-care system the House is considering.
h
Last week, Justice Department an rust chief Christine Varney testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that ending the exemption would create more compe ion. Insurance companies “are highly concentrated in many geographic regions,” meaning there “is very little incentive to compete on price,” she said.
The Obama administration’s pursuit of revamping heath care has increased interest in repealing the insurance industry’s special an rust status.
Congress exempted the insurance industry from an rust laws in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled it was subject to federal regulation. The states have traditionally been the chief regulators of the industry.
wow...a full court press.
this is change.
So they want to eliminate the law that allows the States to regulate the industry, so they can take away more state's right?
McCarran-Ferguson Act
I guess that's a necessary step to nationalize health care.The McCarran-Ferguson Act does not itself regulate insurance, nor does it mandate that states regulate insurance. However, it does empower Congress to pass laws in the future that will have the effect of regulating the "business of insurance." However, federal acts that do not expressly purport to regulate the "business of insurance" will not preempt state laws or regulations that regulate the "business of insurance."
The Act also provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, but federal anti-trust laws will apply in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation.
So are you for or against states rights? It's hard to figure out where you stand on some things
I'm for State's Rights.
I was pointing out that the federal law exists that keep federal regulators from infringing on the state's rights. That the democrats have to throw this law out the window in order to nationalize health care.
The writeup on ending the anti-trust exemption is deceiving. They are talking about taking away a hindrance to federal control.
6701. Operation of State law
Ending the for-profit insurers shield from anti-monopoly laws is real change. It will probably die in the Senate due to Repug bloody-minded obstructionism, then be forced through with reconciliation.
Now, have a Medicare-for-all, nation-wide, "strong" no-profit public insurance option, and make it available to everybody, aka "free consumer choice", and watch the for-profit insurers' stocks tank.
The devil is in the details. Much depends on how much of McCarran-Ferguson gets repealed.
Eliot Spitzer is drawing attention to this right now...
Quite a misleading headline. States already regulate it. This changes nothing except opening up a pathway to nationalization.
An rust enforcement is federal, so I don't see what's so misleading. Little help?
Yup.
Selling it as "Repealing Anti-trust" exemption is just that, selling; what it ACTUALLY does is make it easier (possible) to regulate insurance centrally. (I always wondered how they would cross that hurdle; didn't know it was that easy)
All of you Libs please name the company which has a monopoly on Health Insurance in this country.
I'll wait.
That 1945 law does not allow the feds to regulate the industry in certain ways that the states do. They only can if the state doesn't.
There is no exemption of anti-trust being abolished here. If it isn't at the state level, then the feds can already.
Leaving aside the question of whether the proposed remedy really touches the problems claimed (i.e., I'm inclined to agree with your gloss), is any of the bolded a problem in your view?If enacted, the change would put an end to "price-fixing, bid-rigging and market allocation in the health and medical malpractice" insurance areas, said Sen. Patrick Leahy
Request for information:
Mightn't there be states where this is plausibly the case for health care insurance?
Long as the Government does not run healthcare, I am good.
Are you asking me?
If so, my experience is limited geographically to Texas and Western PA - in neither of those areas are those significant problems that can not, or are not, handled by the respective state's DOI. In Texas, several LARGE carriers compete viciously for business; if they any is out of line with premium, they lose cases. In Western PA - Blue Cross/Blue Shield owns a great majority of the business; but they do not behave like a monopoly; they keep their business specifically by staying aggressive on pricing, and, frankly, provide pretty good service (am covered by them myself up here).
I imagine their could be rural areas where insurance carriers feel immune to compe ion, and charge out the yang; but I don't know where those are; and what is coming out of Washington is big on hyperbole, and short on details. Go figure.
Also, understand for those of you who get confused; I AM NOT arguing that the current system is working great and that their aren't problems; I'm just saying what the govt. is saying the problems are, aren't really them. COST is the problem; nobody's really talking about that. "Big Insurance Company's" and "Profit" are much more evil sounding targets; so they aim at it (meanwhile most of the bills will enrich the insurance companies).
Yes. (see above) Again, don't know which ones; waiting for the obligatory anecdotal evidence from a White House spokesman, however.
for-profit insurance is most often a cartel in a region, where only 1-3 insurers are present, and they don't compete on price, esp when their customers are not individuals, but companies buying group plans. the insurers' know that group insurance is a business expense for the employers and a mostly tax-free gift to the employers.
Yep.
Agree. But I don't really see how cost and profits can be delinked. Somebody's ox will be gored if we take on costs."Big Insurance Company's" and "Profit" are much more evil sounding targets; so they aim at it (meanwhile most of the bills will enrich the insurance companies).
ironically, it's hard to find this information, but find it I did (hard to read, but squint)
The first section are actual healthcare dollars spend from '87 - '04; a four-fold increase over 17 years! Doesn't matter how you slice it; if we don't control THAT, we don't control anything (not sure why the image is not embedding):
The ox that's gonna get gored?
You looked in the drive ways of any doctors lately? How about Hospital execs or drug company reps?
ironically, it's hard to find this information, but find it I did (hard to read, but squint)
The first section are actual healthcare dollars spend from '87 - '04; a four-fold increase over 17 years! Doesn't matter how you slice it; if we don't control THAT, we don't control anything (not sure why the image is not embedding):
In the chart; look at per capita spending; private vs Medicaid for similar ages. Unless I'm reading that wrong, it's pretty telling.
Your point?
The McCarran-Ferguson Act allows government control when the states doesn't.
Again, your point?
Why is the removal of this law needed, other than to open the door to nationalizing health care?
"nationalizing health care"
You Lie, as usual
the issue is about a public, national health insurance, not nationalizing health providers
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
