PDA

View Full Version : Dems go after antitrust exemption for insurers


gOd
10-21-2009, 06:40 PM
Dems go after antitrust exemption for insurers
(http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul)
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON – Democrats launched a drive at both ends of the Capitol on Wednesday to strip the insurance industry of its decades-old exemption from federal antitrust laws, part of an increasingly bare-knuckled struggle over landmark health care legislation sought by President Barack Obama.

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, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy said he would seek a vote on the plan when the Senate debates health care legislation in the next few weeks.

Leahy made his comments at virtually the same time the House Judiciary Committee voted 20-9 to end an industry exemption that dates to 1945. Three Republicans supported the move.

Senior Democratic officials in the House said the leadership was inclined to incorporate the measure into the broader health care bill expected to be brought to the floor for a vote within a few weeks. No final decision has been made, they added.

The events coincided with a vote in the Senate to sidetrack legislation averting a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments for doctors in January and raising their fees by $247 billion over a decade. The 47-53 vote was 13 short of the 60 needed to advance the bill, reflecting concerns that the measure would have raised deficits. The result was a defeat for Democrats and an embarrassment for the American Medical Association, which had mounted a seven-figure advertising effort to assure passage of one of its top priorities.

Republicans grumbled that Senate Democrats timed the offensive on antitrust matters to obscure their defeat on the bill setting pay rates for doctors, a measure that GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., called "the Senate's first vote on health care this year."

Even so, taken together, the threats to revoke long-standing antitrust protections reflect the fury Democrats have projected in response to recent insurance industry attempts to influence the shape of legislation. The events occurred less than a week after the insurers' trade association issued a report saying a measure in the Senate Finance Committee would produce sharp increases in premiums for millions of people who currently have insurance.

Democrats and the White House reacted angrily, attacking the study as flawed and politically motivated.

Responding to the day's developments, the industry said the legislation was based on a misperception of existing law. "We believe that health insurers have not been engaging in anticompetitive conduct and that McCarran-Ferguson does not provide a shield for such conduct," Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of American's Health Insurance Plans wrote to Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the Houses Judiciary Committee.

"Thus, the bills attempt to remedy a problem that does not exist," she wrote. The industry holds a large conference beginning on Thursday several blocks from the Capitol.

The White House had no reaction. Instead, aides pointed to Obama's statement last weekend that insurers are earning "profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exception from our antitrust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing."

The developments came as Democrats struggled in both houses of Congress to enact Obama's call for legislation to expand health care to millions who lack insurance, provide greater consumer protections to millions more, and rein in the cost of medical care in general.

In the Senate, Reid, key committee chairmen and White House aides are at work crafting legislation the Senate can vote on later this fall.

The House is also on track for a vote this fall, although weeks of private negotiations among Democrats have yet to produce agreement on a bill.

Among the most controversial unresolved issues concerns proposals for the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies.

The House bill is certain to include such a provision, although the rank and file have yet to come to an agreement on key details, slowing action on the overall measure.

It is unclear what type of so-called "public option" will be incorporated into the Senate measure, where Democratic moderates are wary of the idea, even though public polling consistently shows its popularity.

Until recently, the insurance industry has played a noncommittal role as legislative proposals developed in both houses of Congress. AHIP announced months ago it supported comprehensive health care reform and Obama called on Ignagni to speak at a televised White House event designed to showcase widespread agreement that the time had come to change the current system.

Essentially, industry offered a trade. It agreed to abandon practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions if the legislation required nearly universal coverage, a step that would give it access to millions of new customers. At the same time, it vigorously opposes any legislation that would allow the government to sell insurance.

The tone began to change when the Finance Committee voted to excuse an estimated two million lower income Americans from a requirement to purchase insurance, at the same time it greatly reduced the penalties for those who were still covered, but refused to buy coverage.

___

Associated Press writer Erica Werner contributed to this report.

disrupter
10-22-2009, 04:18 PM
This single action alone would probably begin to create competition & end price gouging monopolies.

Purchasing insurance across state might help too.

How long are people going to put up with manslaughtering, fraudulent insurance companies?
It helps to have some kind of alternative.
maybe 'Honest Insurance Company' is an oxymoron?
A public option is some competition.

"Medicare for all" cuts through all this crap.

gOd
10-22-2009, 04:22 PM
This single action alone would probably begin to create competition & end price gouging monopolies.

Purchasing insurance across state might help too.

How long are people going to put up with manslaughtering, fraudulent insurance companies?
It helps to have some kind of alternative.
maybe 'Honest Insurance Company' is an oxymoron?
A public option is some competition.

"Medicare for all" cuts through all this crap.
Yep. And people would pay less then they currently pay—no middleman.

disrupter
10-22-2009, 04:24 PM
But it violates the principle of corporate cheesification of the US government.

GetAClue
10-23-2009, 02:50 PM
But it violates the principle of corporate cheesification of the US government.
...and puts the government between you and your doctor, the same group that can't even deliver the mail with out loosing money. Even Obama acknowledged that UPS, FedEx and the others are able to do the job better and at a lower price. It just shows the built in inefficiencies that come with any government involvement.

Moby
10-23-2009, 03:38 PM
...and puts the government between you and your doctor, the same group that can't even deliver the mail with out loosing money. Even Obama acknowledged that UPS, FedEx and the others are able to do the job better and at a lower price. It just shows the built in inefficiencies that come with any government involvement.
How does limiting price fixing put government between me and my doctor?

Do you understand what antitrust laws are?

This appears to be a perfect example of the wrong talking point being used for the wrong issue. That's one of the problems with programming. It usually doesn't work :talktothehand:

GetAClue
10-23-2009, 03:49 PM
How does limiting price fixing put government between me and my doctor?

Do you understand what antitrust laws are?

This appears to be a perfect example of the wrong talking point being used for the wrong issue. That's one of the problems with programming. It usually doesn't work :talktothehand:
Sorry, I was referring to the Medicare for all post and his respose too it. As far as talking points go you need to talk about that with the others here.

Moby
10-23-2009, 03:53 PM
Sorry, I was referring to the Medicare for all post and his respose too it. As far as talking points go you need to talk about that with the others here.
Obviously you pasted the wrong quote as it doesn't match your preprogrammed talking point. At least you're using the talking points that so much money has been spent creating.

GetAClue
10-23-2009, 04:11 PM
Obviously you pasted the wrong quote as it doesn't match your preprogrammed talking point. At least you're using the talking points that so much money has been spent creating.
You seem to be obsessed with so called talking points. I don't have the time to go looking for anyones talking points. My posts are MY thoughts, not someone elses. Think what you like.

Moby
10-23-2009, 04:37 PM
You seem to be obsessed with so called talking points. I don't have the time to go looking for anyones talking points. My posts are MY thoughts, not someone elses. Think what you like.
Do you even know what a talking point is?

Here's an example
puts the government between you and your doctor
You used a talking point without even knowing it. That's how well programmed you have become. The talking points have become your thoughts and you actually think that they are your own. Brilliant example of the NLP at work :thumbsup:

ROdger Right
10-23-2009, 05:36 PM
Do you even know what a talking point is?

Here's an example

You used a talking point without even knowing it. That's how well programmed you have become. The talking points have become your thoughts and you actually think that they are your own. Brilliant example of the NLP at work :thumbsup:

The fact that every other country that gives their citizens some form of healthcare does exactly what the talking point says. Quincidence or are you dense?

John Galt
10-23-2009, 05:38 PM
... Even Obama acknowledged that UPS, FedEx and the others are able to do the job better and at a lower price. It just shows the built in inefficiencies that come with any government involvement.
I think you missed on this one too...

Fed Ex, and UPS blow the USPS away when it comes to getting your package to you on time...especially with the overnight services.

However, the cost is usually 4 times more.

Just like health insurance

ROdger Right
10-23-2009, 05:41 PM
I think you missed on this one too...

Fed Ex, and UPS blow the USPS away when it comes to getting your package to you on time...especially with the overnight services.

However, the cost is usually 4 times more.

Just like health insurance

And which are the ones that make money instead of lose?

Its not a fucking mystery

MintJulep
10-23-2009, 06:22 PM
Yep. And people would pay less then they currently pay—no middleman.The issue driving insurance rates is skyrocketing medical costs. How will this lower the cost of medical services?

gOd
10-23-2009, 06:26 PM
The issue driving insurance rates is skyrocketing medical costs. How will this lower the cost of medical services?
Kill all lawyers. :D

gOd
10-23-2009, 06:32 PM
And which are the ones that make money instead of lose?

Its not a fucking mystery
Why would the government want to make a profit on health care? That would defeat the purpose of universal health care.

John Galt
10-23-2009, 07:08 PM
And which are the ones that make money instead of lose?

Its not a fucking mystery
Thank you for making that point...

Healthcare should not be about making huge profits, at the expense of the insured.

That's why we need reform.

That's also why it won't happen...the thieves in Congress stand to lose a ton of money on their investments.

ROdger Right
10-23-2009, 08:29 PM
So the government should be givin the task because they have a history of losing money?

I have no idea how you people came to that conclusion but im sure that argument wont win over many people.

For the goal isnt to lose vasts amounts of money either.

gOd
10-23-2009, 08:33 PM
So the government should be givin the task because they have a history of losing money?

I have no idea how you people came to that conclusion but im sure that argument wont win over many people.

For the goal isnt to lose vasts amounts of money either.
Duh. The government does not have a profit motive. We are the government. It's our money; and we don't want to spend more on health care by losing it to private for-profit entity. :banghead:

ROdger Right
10-23-2009, 08:38 PM
Duh. The government does not have a profit motive. We are the government. It's our money; and we don't want to spend more on health care by losing it to private for-profit entity. :banghead:

You mean what the entire system of our economy is based on.

"Power motives" just as deadly and dangourous but of course you turn a blind eye. Its why we spread the power around instead of having an ultimate central government,which if anyones for they clearly dont have the interests of the people at heart.

ROdger Right
10-23-2009, 08:51 PM
Kill all lawyers. :D

Something that actually makes sense.:thumbsup:

Suppose everyone gets lucky once

gOd
10-23-2009, 08:54 PM
You mean what the entire system of our economy is based on.

"Power motives" just as deadly and dangourous but of course you turn a blind eye. Its why we spread the power around instead of having an ultimate central government,which if anyones for they clearly dont have the interests of the people at heart.
Verses the unchecked greed of corporations that are often owned by foriegn investors? I'll take the one's I can vote out of office when they try and rip me off.

ROdger Right
10-23-2009, 09:17 PM
Verses the unchecked greed of corporations that are often owned by foriegn investors? I'll take the one's I can vote out of office when they try and rip me off.

Simple legislation would suffice in checking the greed in which you speak but that isn't the issue at hand.

You dont get to vote who controls your healthcare in this bill anyways. Thats up to a board of people that neither of us have power over.

Are you saying you would actually vote for a different party? I doubt it

gOd
10-23-2009, 10:32 PM
Simple legislation would suffice in checking the greed in which you speak but that isn't the issue at hand.

You dont get to vote who controls your healthcare in this bill anyways. Thats up to a board of people that neither of us have power over.

Are you saying you would actually vote for a different party? I doubt it We do get to vote for who makes the decision. They're called congress. Passing regulatory legislation means more bureaucracy, therefore, bigger government. What kind of righty are you?

We already have a bureaucracy in place to handle Medicare. All we need to do is lift the restrictions and allow everyone access to an existing system.

ROdger Right
10-24-2009, 01:12 AM
hahaha key word. simple

repeal drug laws, away with restrictions, No age limits for consumer goods

When you start taking regulations and laws off handguns you might get my attention.

disrupter
10-24-2009, 09:37 PM
...and puts the government between you and your doctor

Now the Insurance company is between you & your doctor.

In California the claims rejection rate is 21%.
Pacificare there denies 39.6% of claims by medical professionals.
http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/september/california-s-real-death-panels-insurers-deny-21-of-claims.html