Live and Learn
Find a Conversation
| Wed, 10-21-2009 - 8:56am |
I read this article and says to myself "what IS an anti-trust law?" So I turns to the Wiki. An anti-trust law is a fancy way of saying competition. In other words, our government has protected the health insurance industry in this country from any type of competition. Our government has made certain that nothing else was offered up on the table for consumers and that we were at the mercy of these cut-throat companies that have lined their pockets at the expense of patients and employers.
I ask you - why would our government do such a thing? Are there anti-trust laws protecting the underwear business? How about the pumpkin business? Light bulbs? Paper clips? Certainly not automobiles.
Let's go ahead and admit that Washington is often owned and run by the businesses that can grease the most palms. Imagine the money it has taken over the years to manipulate politicians to continue what amounts to mob protection. This has gone on since 1945!!!!
<<<Democrats say the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 has granted the insurance industry a captive market with no curbs on price fixing and other anti-competitive practices. Last week the Justice Department’s top antitrust regulator>>>
I am angry that my government has, IMO, cheated me all these years by not allowing me choices, by controlling my access to what could have possibly saved me thousands of dollars.
Do these things make anyone else angry or has complacency simply made us numb?
Dems eye insurance industry's antitrust protection
AP Special Correspondent / October 21, 2009
If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.
Congressional officials said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, arranged to make the announcement Wednesday, joined by Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York.
The officials who disclosed the plans did so on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting a formal announcement.
In a statement, the major industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said the industry already was one of the most regulated in the country. The focus on the industry's antitrust exemption, it said, was "a political ploy designed to distract attention away from the real issue of rising health care costs."
The move against the antitrust exemption came as Obama appealed to congressional Democrats not to let internal differences sink his comprehensive plan to remake the nation's health care system. "The bill you least like" improves coverage for millions, he said in New York. "Let's make sure that we keep our eye on the prize."


I touched on this subject in a post on another thread.........
http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=16263.6&ctx=0
It's surprising what comes to light when a system is about to change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102100264.html?hpid=topnews
The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to strip federal antitrust protections shielding health insurers from investigations into price fixing and other business practices, the first step in a legislative bid to clamp down on the much-maligned industry.
Although Democrats have led the repeal push in recent weeks, the committee's 20-9 vote came with the support of three Republicans. The legislation would repeal portions of the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act that allows states to regulate health insurance providers without federal intervention. But critics of the law say that 64 years after its passage, the result has been regional monopolies that inflate premiums and discriminate against people based on their health status, gender and other factors.
Repeal advocates said they would seek to include language similar to what passed Judiciary in the health-care reform bills now moving through the House and Senate, although the legislation also could move separately. The three Republicans who voted for the House Judiciary bill were Rep. Dan Lundgren, the former California attorney general; Rep. Louis Gohmert (Tex.), a former judge; and Rep. Tom Rooney (Fla.), a former state assistant attorney general.
"No one on this committee believes that price fixing or carving up markets is a good thing, and the wide, bipartisan support for this bill's passage reflects this," said Judiciary Chairman
((Do these things make anyone else angry or has complacency simply made us numb? ))
It makes me very angry as well. I wonder how many other companies do not have to comply with anti-trust laws?
Why on earth would Congress EVER let something like this happen? In all reality, if nothing else happens with HC reform, this might be a HUGE step in controlling health insurance costs. It should help with doctor reimbursements too.
I cannot imagine why Congress would let Health Insurance companies engage in price fixing amongst themselves at the expense of the American citizen and other companies who want to purchase health insurance.