CONGRESS moves to repeal 65 year-old INSURANCE ANTI-TRUST exemption

[thotzRthingz]

(audio and full text transcript, from publicradio.org)

House set to vote on insurance anti-trust exemption

St. Paul, Minn. — The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote later this week on whether to repeal a decades-long anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies.

It's a small piece of what was included in the original House health care reform bill. It would be the first major legislative action on overhauling health care since Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate last month. Insurers say Congress should leave the exemption alone, but others say repealing it would lead to lower premiums.

While many have pronounced the health care legislation dead, others like Minnesota 4th district DFL Congresswoman Betty McCollum say talks are ongoing to get a bill passed even though she wouldn't give a time frame. In the meantime, she said the House will vote on whether to repeal a law that exempts health insurance companies from federal anti-trust laws.

These laws ban companies from monopolizing markets and stifling free competition. But some industries are exempt -- Major League Baseball is one; insurance is another.

<...snip...>

- source: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/02/08/health-insurance-anti-trust-exemption/

[Enthusiast]

1. This would be a win

for the American consumer and desperately needed.

[thotzRthingz]

10. re: "This would be a win"

Absolutely! Conglomerates have been buying-up the little-guys across the board (look what happened in the case of OIL REFINERIES). I especially had to laugh, when I heard/read the following:

"Health plans are not engaging in anti-competitive practices."
- Robert Zirkelbach, trade group spokesman

Claiming that they're DOING NOTHING WRONG, and that's why the REPEAL should not occur?! If they are doing nothing wrong, and have no intention of doing anything wrong... then what the hell difference would it make, if this REPEAL became LAW? ;)

[thotzRthingz]

17. "kaiserhealthnews.org" makes the point that this is NO BIG DEAL, but

but,no surprise there... and, why would we expect otherwise from an obviously biased source?

The above aside, their article entitled The Antitrust Exemption For Health Insurers: Meaningful Or Not? (ref: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/February/05/antitrust-health-insurance.aspx) closes with the following observation (once you get past all the DOWN-PLAYING stuff):

David Balto, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, and a former policy director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said it's important for the federal government to take a more active role in regulating insurers because state regulation has been uneven. "Less than a third of states have brought consumer protection actions against insurers," he said.

Balto added that ending the antitrust exemption is long overdue. "There's no industry where competition is so clearly vanquished as in health insurance industry," he said.

[earthside]

11. "Would"

It "would" be a win ... that's certainly true.

But Harry Reid will likely still honor the modern interpretation of the filibuster rule and this legislation will die because a 'tyranny of the minority' in the U.S. Senate will prevail.

As long as the Senate Democratic leadership does nothing to restore democracy and majority rule in their body, I just can't get excited anymore about any proposed legislation or anything passed by the House.

There is a very good reason to be discouraged, I'm sorry to say, as long as Reid and his supporters are still 'leading' the 58 Senators majority.

[havocmom]

2. IF they actually do it, that would be a big step in the direction of fixing what is broken in US.

But I won't hold my breath.

[DisgustedInMN]

3. K & R

[TCJ70]

4. For the uninformed, could someone explain the significance of this in plain language?

This is one of the things I never understood. Why would this make a difference when insurance companies still can't sell across state lines?

[tsuki]

6. They could be investigated for price fixing and collusion. That's what

comes to my mind first.

[thotzRthingz]

8. re: "could someone explain the significance of this in plain language"

I'm no lawyer, but apparently this would put "regulation" into the hands of the Federal Gov't (thus trumping individual STATES). A bit more, from the originally cited article:

McCollum said repealing the exemption for insurance companies would allow consumers to buy policies across state lines and compare individual companies.

"It will save every family in America who purchases health insurance at least 10 percent on their policy if not more," McCollum said. "My focus is on making sure that families have access to policies that are transparent and insurance policies that are not written in collusion with other companies."

The insurance exemption goes back 65 years and was meant to ensure that states, not the federal government, were the industry's main regulators. The exemption primarily applies to health insurance markets where individuals are trying to buy insurance on their own or in small groups. Employer-sponsored insurance is largely regulated by the federal government.

[zipplewrath]

16. Primarily collusion

You can't convict an insurance company of price fixing at all because of this exemption. Without it, they would be barred from sharing the kinds of information they'd need in order to accomplish it.

The flip side is that it does allow the sharing of cost data so that smaller regional companies can accurately set prices. Without it they might have to make "conservative" assessments that would drive up costs.

I suspect there will be little effect at all. There are perfectly "legal" ways for companies to price fix and I think the government can easily provide the kinds of data small companies need to set prices without enabling price fixing.

[merh]

5. They need to vote to remove it for ALL insurance, not just health insurance.

[Rapanui1]

7. The next well have ben nelson crying on the floor

The next well have ben nelson crying on the floor and then Save-Bush-Pelosi will claim a defeat and decry that this could not happen because they did not have 99 senators. A month later they will pass a bill to keep the old laws and ram it down our throats as a victory for the American people

[Soylent Brice]

9. make it so. n/t

[rucky]

12. But insurers say Congress should leave the exemption alone.

maybe we should listen to them?

:rofl:

[groundloop]

13. I'd be surprised if it can get past the senate, but even then....

Even if it can't get past the senate it's a win because Americans will see the obstructionist senators for what they are.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

14. Yeah!

Go Betty! ;)

[Wilms]

18. .