Dems Favor Repealing Exemption for Insurers

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Health insurance companies, for decades exempt from federal anti-trust laws, are exploiting that privilege to churn profits at the expense of patients, Senate Democrats charged Wednesday. The lawmakers -- including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) -- want to repeal the exemption as part of the health care system overhaul. "There is no reason why insurance companies should be allowed to form monopolies and dictate health choices," Reid told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Posted by danni at 08:56 AM | 55 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

danni

Danni

Private E-mail
No Home Page

Joined 2005/05/24
Visited 2009/11/20

Status: user

MORE STORIES

Obama Rejects Afghan War Options (390 comments) ...

Large Lender CIT Declares Bankruptcy (36 comments) ...

Dems Favor Repealing Exemption for Insurers (55 comments) ...

China Protests U.S. Steel Pipes Tariff (35 comments) ...

Reid Grows Backbone (4 comments) ...

Ukrainian Winner of Got Talent - Simply Amazing (6 comments) ...

Bill O'Reilly Supports Public Option (68 comments) ...

Getting Rich by Denying Americans Care (1 comments) ...

Want Corporations to Buy Elections? (113 comments) ...

As China Stirs Economy, Some See Protectionism (6 comments) ...

Texas Textbook Standards Exclude Liberals (158 comments) ...

Health Insurers Tell Congress They Cancel Sick Patients (8 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

I'd like to know what the Republicans will say about this, how can they oppose it???
I'd love to seem them try.
Good move by Reid.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-14 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Reid testified at a previously scheduled hearing on whether to repeal the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act that lets states regulate insurers without federal interference.

good post danni. this would be progress.

#2 | Posted by eberly at 2009-10-14 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

great, all capitalist should be writing in their support... ermm... what Eberly said.

but yeah, good move. EVERYONE should be writing in.

thanks Danni.

#3 | Posted by ichiro at 2009-10-14 05:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

As Obama is buying off seniors with $250 and buying off Dr's as well with increases in medicare payments the Democrats are getting advice from the Party of European Socialists:

"Dem Leaders Now Coordinating With European Socialists In Bid for "Global New Deal"
gatewaypundit.blogspot.com

"EXCLUSIVE! Democratic Party Coordinates With European Socialists In Bid For "Global New Deal"
www.foundingbloggers.com

#4 | Posted by KBM at 2009-10-15 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think it is a great idea, and should be one of those just do it things. Does not have to be tied to some huge HC bill. I think Danni and others are a little disengenuios (i can't spell that word) in the support for this. If it was some Repub saying this, they would instantly dismiss it, and say the repubs have brought nothing to the table, where oh where is the Repubs plan. Just typical hack stuff from danni

#5 | Posted by freechoice at 2009-10-15 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

I would like some proof and numbers that insurance companies are making a big profit.

The numbers I read are that insurance companies that are for-profit make about 1% profit and 60% are non-profit organizations.

Unless those numbers are complete BS, I don't see how one can say that insurance companies are really screwing anyone.

#6 | Posted by LEgregius at 2009-10-15 10:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, that aside, I agree in principle that they should not be exempt from anti-trust laws. I don't see any benefit from exempting them.

#7 | Posted by LEgregius at 2009-10-15 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Doctor's always win. People want to live and look to them for help. Like Lawyers, they work in markets they tightly control.

#8 | Posted by nutcase at 2009-10-15 10:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

The Republirats are basically out of the loop. If there is no public option don't blame them, blame people in the Demorat party who have a little common sense. They see this so call "health care reform" for what it is-not reform at all.

The true reforms are never going to be enacted because the Demorats are so insane and caught up with pac/special interests. I will say it again. This will turn into another government mandate/entitlement that the government will print money/float debt to pay for. No biggie, just another nail in this countries coffin.

#9 | Posted by tickyul at 2009-10-15 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Reid testified at a previously scheduled hearing on whether to repeal the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act that lets states regulate insurers without federal interference.

This would allow insurance companies to compete across state lines, which is something that Reps have been proposing as part of their health care plans. Nice to see the Dems finally get on board with a free market solution.

#10 | Posted by Redman at 2009-10-15 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

i'd be o.k. with repealing the exemption. however, i think it's prelude to the dems pointing to the unavoidable chaos that will ensue for a couple of years while things shake out to take over health care insurance entirely.

i they would repeal the exemption, then keep their fucking hands to themselves for 5 years, then we'd have a better system. that's not how it'll shake out though.

#11 | Posted by somoco at 2009-10-15 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

"i they would repeal the exemption, then keep their fucking hands to themselves for 5 years, then we'd have a better system. that's not how it'll shake out though."

Yeah riiiight. Take away their right to collude, monopolize markets, fix prices, etc. for five years.....let the burglar in your home have a few days free to carry out his loot.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-15 11:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

"This would allow insurance companies to compete across state lines, which is something that Reps have been proposing as part of their health care plans."

Nice for them to change their course, after so many years of being foursquare against the idea.

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-15 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

#10 | Posted by Redman

a free-market"solution" does not forgo the needed mandate to preclude exclusion based upon health insurance need. If you don't cap rates and force insurers to cover those that have preexisting conditions the "competition" to reduce cost for the customer is void except for the healthy. This is one facet to reduce cost for all but will amazed if it actually reduces costs as the true costs emanate from the sick not the healthy.

Free market is NOT the panacea for all things American despite the illusion perpetrated by the right.

#14 | Posted by Legio at 2009-10-15 11:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

#12 i meant the government keep their fucking hands away for 5 years. good luck with that, though. they are creating a condition that guarantees single payer.

#15 | Posted by somoco at 2009-10-15 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"i they would repeal the exemption, then keep their fucking hands to themselves for 5 years, then we'd have a better system. that's not how it'll shake out though."

Yeah riiiight. Take away their right to collude, monopolize markets, fix prices, etc. for five years.....let the burglar in your home have a few days free to carry out his loot.

#12 | Posted by danni

he must genetically related to JP Morgan and the other robber barons of the 19th century.

#16 | Posted by Legio at 2009-10-15 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

If you don't cap rates and force insurers to cover those that have preexisting conditions the "competition" to reduce cost for the customer is void except for the healthy.

This only works if you also include a mandate. Otherwise people will just buy health insurance when they need it and drop it when they get well. The question is then whether or not a mandate to force healthy people to buy something the don't want would be constitutional.

#17 | Posted by Redman at 2009-10-15 11:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

well here is one thing that everyone should oppose IF they remember that our name is the united STATES of america

www.timesfreepress.com

#18 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-15 11:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

AND this could be something might actually get some bipartisan support

but the govt taking over the entire health care system will never be one of those...

SINCE we know the REAL REASON for this and providing health care for all HAS NEVER BEEN THE GOAL
...otherwise WHY is the baucas bullshit leaving out SEVENTEEN MILLION People...

#19 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-15 11:31 AM | Reply | Flag:

Anti-trust laws? You mean like the so called 'federal' reserve?

#20 | Posted by Shawn at 2009-10-15 11:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Our Congress can be bought for a song. Not so with Nigerians and Greeks:

Pushing for a change in the so called mark to market' accounting rule earlier this year, a coalition of financial industry PACS, contributed $286,000 to committee members. Various members then communicated their mounting dissatisfaction with the rule to the accounting standards board which, coincidentally or not, decreed the rule be changed.

The decision did wonders for Wall Street balance sheets. Wells Fargo's capital officially soared by $4.4 billion, while Citigroup boosted its reported earnings by $413 million in the first quarter of '09. Yet Melissa Bean, D-Ill, who got the most money from the coalition of any committee member, garnered a mere $20,000 toward her next campaign. Chairman Frank was apparently satisfied with $8,500.

Corporations angling for earmarks in this years Pentagon budget spread $1.25 million among the 18 members of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. That's only $69,000 per member -- and these are Senators! --- who nonetheless approved $762.3 million worth of earmarks sought by these same corporations.

In other countries officials extract greater remuneration, as U.S. corporations doing business internationally surely know. Haliburton Corporation admitted to paying $180 million to Nigerian officials in connection with the Bonny River liquefied natural gas terminal project.

Greece has been recently convulsed by revelations of the hundred million euros in bribes allegedly lavished on their elected politicians by the German Siemens Corporation.

Excerpted from Andrew Cockburn @ Counterpunch

#21 | Posted by nutcase at 2009-10-15 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

the dems demon of the week,past winners were doctors,drug company's.wall street,auto exes,anybody that makes a profit and anybody that disagrees with even one on obamas polices.

#22 | Posted by semtex111 at 2009-10-15 12:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

and now we know that those drs in the rose garden not ONLY were finannicial supporters but most were members of HEALTH CARE FOR AMERIca now..

#23 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-15 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The question is then whether or not a mandate to force healthy people to buy something the don't want would be constitutional."

They force us to buy auto insurance so I would think they could force us to buy health care insurance though I'm not claiming it to be a fact.

#24 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-15 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

They force us to buy auto insurance so I would think they could force us to buy health care insurance though I'm not claiming it to be a fact.

only the people who own cars.

#25 | Posted by eberly at 2009-10-15 01:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

They force us to buy auto insurance so I would think they could force us to buy health care insurance though I'm not claiming it to be a fact.

#24 | Posted by danni

AND the rates are much lower because you can
BUY ACROSS STATE LINES.

the people I use SHOP my needs across the country..

so WHY cant we do that???

easy

its not about prices.
its about control

#26 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-15 01:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

and NOWHERE is it more obvious how the price will be much higher than they lie about

young people can pay the thousand dollar fine.
and then when they need it, they can buy insurance..
and put a severe strain on the whole system...
collectively of course.
and WHO wouldnt do that if they could...its not the young people who are at fault but the dems who are making that possible.

and then of course.
HIGH end policies will have a TAX INCREASE OF maybe 40%...
someone PLEASE explain that to me.

#27 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-10-15 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'd like to know what the Republicans will say about this, how can they oppose it???
I'd love to seem them try.
Good move by Reid.

#1 | Posted by danni

Danni you are such an ignorent bitch it hurts to read your posts, the congress in 1945 was democrat controlled and then Nevada Senator Patrick McCarran, a Democrat, co-authored the McCarran-Ferguson Act which is what Reid wants to now repeal.

#28 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2009-10-15 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

They force us to buy auto insurance so I would think they could force us to buy health care insurance though I'm not claiming it to be a fact.

#24 | Posted by danni

Driving an auto is a privilege and you do not have to buy auto insurance if you do not drive on a public road. Equating auto insurance with health insurance makes sense only to the ignorant and retarded like you

#29 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2009-10-15 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

#13 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-15 11:21 AM

Bush pushed for years to have insurance compete across state lines.

#30 | Posted by boojiboy at 2009-10-15 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Bush pushed for years to have insurance compete across state lines."

Then why didn't that become a reality during the 6 years Republicans ran the country? If Bush pushed for it, and the Republicans chaired every committee and set every agenda, why did it never come up as legislation?

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-15 03:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

why did it never come up as legislation?

Same reason the Democrats never get the big things done on their watch: there is always another election coming up that needs a wedge issue.

#32 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-15 03:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

he must genetically related to JP Morgan and the other robber barons of the 19th century.

#16 | POSTED BY LEGIO AT 2009-10-15 11:23 AM | REPLY | FLAG

Wrong. I just don't like paying taxes for a massive governmental program that will likely degrade the quality of health care for me and my family. Self-interest..tsk, tsk... I know that concept is shameful these days.

#33 | Posted by somoco at 2009-10-15 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Democrats didn't mind the exemption until the insurers put out that embarrassing report on Monday. That moved the Demmies to action! No way you're going to embarrass them like that, and expect them to just sit there, no sir.

#34 | Posted by rightisright at 2009-10-15 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

I just don't like paying taxes for a massive governmental program that will likely degrade the quality of health care for me and my family.

Allow me to offer a helpful suggestion which has been give to me many times:

If you don't like it, leave.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2009-10-15 08:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The Democrats didn't mind the exemption until the insurers put out that embarrassing report on Monday."

Which was later qualified by the authors. It was such an obviously distorted analysis that even Price Waterhouse couldn't stomach it. It ended up being more of an embarrassment to the insurance companies than real report. It hurt them more than it helped them. Rightly so too.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-15 08:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Equating auto insurance with health insurance makes sense only to the ignorant and retarded like you"

So well said, classy. Point was, if the government could require you to buy one kind of insurance they could require you to buy another kind of insurance.
Understand, I think mandatory insurance is a violation of our rights as free people. But don't try to pretend that it is ok to mandate one kind of insurance but a violation of our rights to mandate another kind of insurance.
My view, mandate nothing, give everyone Medicare Part E, includes all. We all pay for it, we all benefit from it. WE all reduce the cost of healthcare because of it.

#37 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-15 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But don't try to pretend that it is ok to mandate one kind of insurance but a violation of our rights to mandate another kind of insurance."

You are required to have a minimum amount of Insurance such as liability. For the other driver in case of an accident. You can include whatever extras you want as long as the minimum is covered. The parallel to Health Insurance is just ridiculous. The first obvious point is not everyone drives. The second point is everyone pays a different amount based on multiple factors and amount of coverage. The third point is when someone is the victim of an accident and the other driver at fault has no insurance, does the Gov replace or pick up the tab to repair?

Now I am all for the same type of model when it comes to your options of how much or how little you want to pay. I am also for making sure this Gov insurance charges less for the healthy ones, as opposed to paying the same amount as someone like the 10 Big Mac a day folks. Imagine the uproar when six out of ten people have to pay more. lol

#38 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-10-15 09:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The first obvious point is not everyone drives. The second point is everyone pays a different amount based on multiple factors and amount of coverage. The third point is when someone is the victim of an accident and the other driver at fault has no insurance, does the Gov replace or pick up the tab to repair?"

Crispee you are full of crap. Auto insurance is required so that you will not incur damages that you cannot pay. Health insurance is for the exact same purpose. If you get seriously ill the bill you run up will be of the size that you could have after an auto accident. Requiring you to have insurance for one contingency without requiring it for a similar one is ridiculous and irresponsible.
When you boil it down, requiring auto insurance isn't much different from requiring health insurance. Both are intended to make the individual responsible for the debts he/she incurs.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-15 09:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There is no reason why insurance companies should be allowed to form monopolies and dictate health choices," Reid told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Privately Reid went on to say that only the government should be allowed to monopolize and dictate health choices.

#40 | Posted by Washboard at 2009-10-15 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Buying accross state lines will save you money? Don't bet on it.

#41 | Posted by igmoramus at 2009-10-16 01:04 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tort reform doesn't work either. Look at what happened in texas.

#42 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-10-16 01:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tort reform doesn't work either. Look at what happened in texas.

What happened in Texas?

#43 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-16 02:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Surprise. Goatman doesn't know.

#44 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-10-16 02:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Surprise. Goatman doesn't know.

Apparently you don't either. No surprise.

#45 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-16 02:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

Latest two polls on a "public option" - including a Marist poll released yesterday - showed public support to be at or over 60%. The only group to NOT approve of a Public Option in this poll were Republican men.

Poll after poll has given a robust public option 60% or higher approval. For months.

#46 | Posted by Timex at 2009-10-16 02:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, I do know.

Now go google it, troll.

#47 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-10-16 02:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh, I do know.

No you don't. Nothing says "I don't know" like saying, "What? You don't know?"

I'm not that stupid, alex.

#48 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-16 03:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tort reform doesn't work either. Look at what happened in texas.

Yes, it is stupid to even think it would work. Healthcare is clearly a success in texas.

#49 | Posted by moneywar at 2009-10-16 03:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

WHat happened in Texas?

#50 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-16 03:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Corporations angling for earmarks in this years Pentagon budget spread $1.25 million among the 18 members of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. That's only $69,000 per member -- and these are Senators! --- who nonetheless approved $762.3 million worth of earmarks sought by these same corporations.
In other countries officials extract greater remuneration, as U.S. corporations doing business internationally surely know. Haliburton Corporation admitted to paying $180 million to Nigerian officials in connection with the Bonny River liquefied natural gas terminal project.
Greece has been recently convulsed by revelations of the hundred million euros in bribes allegedly lavished on their elected politicians by the German Siemens Corporation.
Excerpted from Andrew Cockburn @ Counterpunch
#21 | Posted by nutcase at 2009-10-15 11:55 AM

It appears to start and end within the Pentagon activities. The trillions funneled to Israel via Donald Rumsfeld and Dov Zakheim are used for "owning" our government officials as well as military leadership - thus, they all go "private sector" ASAP. The shit really started when President Obama threatened to institute the year-long wait until an official can become a "lobbyist". The poutfest turned ugly and the unofficial law is circumvented anyhow. I wonder what motivates these slime? Money is limiting, power is abstract - perhaps it's just to be as criminal as possible? I really wonder why Bremer wanted Fallujah destroyed? What possible distraction was that invented as (other than the genocide)? Civilian leadership over military appears to be very similar to military contractors actions.

#51 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2009-10-16 05:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hmmm..

I think I should be in charge of deciding who gets what treatment. You don't get a say any more in your treatment...it is up to me to allow you to have any particular procedure. I volunteer for head Nanny State Health Czar. And I want to get paid really well.

-------

OT: Repeal the impediments to competition, such as not allowing cross-state insurance offering, and we'll all win. Unless of course I decide you don't really need that kidney...

#52 | Posted by daprof at 2009-10-16 06:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Auto insurance is required so that you will not incur damages that you cannot pay.

Danni - That's "damages to other people that you cannot pay". I'm not required to have insurance to cover the cost of repairing my car unless I have a loan on the car. If I wreck a $30K car that I own free and clear, through my own negligence, and I don't have comprehensive insurance and can't afford to fix it, then I'm out a car. The government will not "tax" other people to repair my car for me.

#53 | Posted by Redman at 2009-10-16 08:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm not required to have insurance to cover the cost of repairing my car unless I have a loan on the car."

In Florida and most other states you are still required to carry liability insurance.

Society also has a right to require you to carry health insurance because if you are seriously injured or become seriously ill you will need specialists, hospitalization, etc. which we will get stuck paying for unless you happen to be very wealth, in which case you should be allowed to self-insure if you wish.

#54 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-16 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

Allow me to offer a helpful suggestion which has been give to me many times:
If you don't like it, leave.

#35 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2009-10-15 08:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

no thanks. i'll work within the system for change, or at least a workaround while you wait for your governmental reacharound.

#55 | Posted by somoco at 2009-10-16 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag: