• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senators to strip health insurers

Donc

Donc

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
9,796
Reaction score
2,590
Location
out yonder
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Good, about time,this has been going on long enough.


Senators to strip health insurers of antitrust exemption
By Michael O'Brien - 10/21/09 10:58 AM ET

A group of Senate Democratic leaders is set to announce Wednesday that they have decided to strip health insurers of their antitrust exemption.

According to a post on Twitter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this morning, Reid, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Democratic Caucus Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would make the announcement about the antitrust rules this morning.

Reid tweeted Wednesday:

Leahy, Schumer and I will announce today @ 11:30am ET that we will strip the health ins industry of its exemption from antritrust laws

The move mirrors actions taken by House leaders to also include the change in antitrust rules in their version of health reform legislation.

The House and Senate Democrats' jab toward insurers also comes after the industry had launched critical reports over the differing health bills, warning that the reform plans would result in higher premiums for consumers, were they to become law.

Reid's words serve as confirmation that the Senate will move on the initiative, first floated by Leahy, after momentum appeared to move toward the new antitrust rule.

Senators to strip health insurers of antitrust exemption - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
 
You will agree with us, and if you don't we will use the full force of the government to punish you for it.

Wonderful.

Change we can believe in
 
Last edited:
Why did the health insurance industry have antitrust exemptions in the first place?
 
While they're stripping them of anti-trust protection, might they take a moment to strp away the silly regulation that forbids them from competence nationally?
 
donc said:
Good, about time,this has been going on long enough.


Senators to strip health insurers of antitrust exemption
By Michael O'Brien - 10/21/09 10:58 AM ET

A group of Senate Democratic leaders is set to announce Wednesday that they have decided to strip health insurers of their antitrust exemption.

According to a post on Twitter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this morning, Reid, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Democratic Caucus Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would make the announcement about the antitrust rules this morning.

Reid tweeted Wednesday:

Leahy, Schumer and I will announce today @ 11:30am ET that we will strip the health ins industry of its exemption from antritrust laws

The move mirrors actions taken by House leaders to also include the change in antitrust rules in their version of health reform legislation.

The House and Senate Democrats' jab toward insurers also comes after the industry had launched critical reports over the differing health bills, warning that the reform plans would result in higher premiums for consumers, were they to become law.

Reid's words serve as confirmation that the Senate will move on the initiative, first floated by Leahy, after momentum appeared to move toward the new antitrust rule.

Senators to strip health insurers of antitrust exemption - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Click to expand...

Good!!...Way overdo to put a little competition back in the free market! :applaud
 
The punchline: play by our rules, or we'll change the law and punish you for not playing nice.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Why did the health insurance industry have antitrust exemptions in the first place?
Click to expand...

Since government regulation would only allow so much competition, therefore the government had to give anti-trust exemption to the insurance companies.
 
donc said:
Good, about time,this has been going on long enough.


Senators to strip health insurers of antitrust exemption
By Michael O'Brien - 10/21/09 10:58 AM ET

A group of Senate Democratic leaders is set to announce Wednesday that they have decided to strip health insurers of their antitrust exemption.

According to a post on Twitter from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) this morning, Reid, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), and Democratic Caucus Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would make the announcement about the antitrust rules this morning.

Reid tweeted Wednesday:

Leahy, Schumer and I will announce today @ 11:30am ET that we will strip the health ins industry of its exemption from antritrust laws

The move mirrors actions taken by House leaders to also include the change in antitrust rules in their version of health reform legislation.

The House and Senate Democrats' jab toward insurers also comes after the industry had launched critical reports over the differing health bills, warning that the reform plans would result in higher premiums for consumers, were they to become law.

Reid's words serve as confirmation that the Senate will move on the initiative, first floated by Leahy, after momentum appeared to move toward the new antitrust rule.

Senators to strip health insurers of antitrust exemption - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Click to expand...

:thumbs: I first heard about the anti-trust exemption from Dylan Ratigan formerly of CNBC, now on MSNBC. I couldn't believe it. Good. There *must* be competition injected into this industry, no matter how much they scream.
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Why did the health insurance industry have antitrust exemptions in the first place?
Click to expand...


Because of the reasons people already said, also something to do with leveraging against doctors who had too much strength against insurers. Some complex, but tedious, good reasons, but they in no way justify it imo.

I did the trust-busting :cool:
 
jackalope said:
:thumbs: I first heard about the anti-trust exemption from Dylan Ratigan formerly of CNBC, now on MSNBC. I couldn't believe it. Good. There *must* be competition injected into this industry, no matter how much they scream.
Click to expand...

If that had been repealed …say fifty years ago, or whatever, maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess that we are in now, plus we might have a few more American citizens alive paying taxes today. :2wave:
 
My issue with this is much like my issue with the Massachuest legislature voting to change special elections rules.

I don't believe this is being done with the best interests of the public in mind, or becaus its a "good idea", but instead is being done for purely political reasons. And because of that I'm leery of what's actually going to be the fallout of it beyond the potential bonus's people are imagining will occur due to it, in theory, being a good idea in a vacuum
 
jackalope said:
:thumbs: I first heard about the anti-trust exemption from Dylan Ratigan formerly of CNBC, now on MSNBC. I couldn't believe it. Good. There *must* be competition injected into this industry, no matter how much they scream.
Click to expand...

What cracks me up the most are all the people who scream about free markets, and then scream about how insurance companies need an exemption from free markets. LOL.

To Zyphlin: About the political aspect of this - You are 100% right on that. The Democrats are not doing this to restore a free market at all. They are doing it to score political points.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
What cracks me up the most are all the people who scream about free markets, and then scream about how insurance companies need an exemption from free markets. LOL.

To Zyphlin: About the political aspect of this - You are 100% right on that. The Democrats are not doing this to restore a free market at all. They are doing it to score political points.
Click to expand...

Insurance companies aren't allowed to operate within the free market.
 
danarhea said:
To Zyphlin: About the political aspect of this - You are 100% right on that. The Democrats are not doing this to restore a free market at all. They are doing it to score political points.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think of it this way...

Say you're a manager, and you have an employee that has done some things to warrant being fired. Nothing that's over the top, automatic, lets pink slip the guy but enough for it not to be questionable. However, you don't fire him and he keeps working.

Then him, and a few other employee's that are a bit lower position than him, start to bring issues with your management to light, complaining about it and preparing things to take to your superiors. At that point you step in and fire the guy.

Now, was the firing in and of itself a bad thing? Not necessarily, since we previously stated he did do things to definitely justify it as a good thing to do. The problem is it doesn't seem now that you're firing him because he did wrong, it seems you're firing him because he's posing a problem to you and you want to make sure all those people that may be influenced by him see just what could happen to them too because its not really hard to tell for sure if it was done for the legit reasons or for the ulterior reasons.

That's the situation here, and the bad message it sends. Not that "Oh hey, the government is going to clean things up so that the free market can function in our capitalist society" but instead "If you step out of line with what the government is saying and wants then the things we've previously allowed you, and continue to allow others, are going to be taken away as punishment".
 
Zyphlin said:
My issue with this is much like my issue with the Massachuest legislature voting to change special elections rules.

I don't believe this is being done with the best interests of the public in mind, or becaus its a "good idea", but instead is being done for purely political reasons. And because of that I'm leery of what's actually going to be the fallout of it beyond the potential bonus's people are imagining will occur due to it, in theory, being a good idea in a vacuum
Click to expand...

Myself I really don’t give a damn why it is being done, just geterdone. If it’s for political reasons so be it, sometimes-good things happen when things get put in for “political reasons”.

Whoever put that in might look back in a couple of years and see unintended consequences, the rest of the country might see insurance competition.
 
donc said:
Myself I really don’t give a damn why it is being done, just geterdone. If it’s for political reasons so be it, sometimes-good things happen when things get put in for “political reasons”.

Whoever put that in might look back in a couple of years and see unintended consequences, the rest of the country might see insurance competition.
Click to expand...

Yeah, now insurance companies can get screwed over by the government, under the monopoly laws, in an environment where government regulation only allows so many insurance companies to opertate in a particular state, at a time. Oh yeah, that makes all the sense in the world!
 
jackalope said:
Because of the reasons people already said, also something to do with leveraging against doctors who had too much strength against insurers. Some complex, but tedious, good reasons, but they in no way justify it imo.

I did the trust-busting :cool:
Click to expand...


I meant to say 'dig' the trust-busting! :lol:
 
apdst said:
Yeah, now insurance companies can get screwed over by the government, under the monopoly laws, in an environment where government regulation only allows so many insurance companies to opertate in a particular state, at a time. Oh yeah, that makes all the sense in the world!
Click to expand...

You mean competition like this? :roll:

<In at least 21 states, one carrier controls more than half the market. More than half of the market is controlled by two carriers in at least 39 states. In 2007, a survey conducted by the American Medical Association found that in more than 95 percent of insurance markets, a single commercial carrier controlled at least 30 percent of the insurance market>

Interactive Map: Health Care Competition
 
donc said:
Myself I really don’t give a damn why it is being done, just geterdone. If it’s for political reasons so be it, sometimes-good things happen when things get put in for “political reasons”.

Whoever put that in might look back in a couple of years and see unintended consequences, the rest of the country might see insurance competition.
Click to expand...


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ yea ... that !
 
donc said:

You mean competition like this? :roll:

<In at least 21 states, one carrier controls more than half the market. More than half of the market is controlled by two carriers in at least 39 states. In 2007, a survey conducted by the American Medical Association found that in more than 95 percent of insurance markets, a single commercial carrier controlled at least 30 percent of the insurance market>

Interactive Map: Health Care Competition
Click to expand...

What people end up getting isn't important.

What's important is having choices. If everyone ends up going for the same one or two choices, so be it.
 
donc said:

You mean competition like this? :roll:

<In at least 21 states, one carrier controls more than half the market. More than half of the market is controlled by two carriers in at least 39 states. In 2007, a survey conducted by the American Medical Association found that in more than 95 percent of insurance markets, a single commercial carrier controlled at least 30 percent of the insurance market>

Interactive Map: Health Care Competition
Click to expand...

Federal regulations prevent other carriers from competeing, so yes, exactly like that.
 
donc said:
Myself I really don’t give a damn why it is being done, just geterdone. If it’s for political reasons so be it, sometimes-good things happen when things get put in for “political reasons”.

Whoever put that in might look back in a couple of years and see unintended consequences, the rest of the country might see insurance competition.
Click to expand...

Did they stop to think about how all the cost of reorganizing, renegotiating, and working of contracts, assets, etc is going to get passed on in premium costs?
 
jallman said:
Did they stop to think about how all the cost of reorganizing, renegotiating, and working of contracts, assets, etc is going to get passed on in premium costs?
Click to expand...

Sure they did. It's part of the plan. This is the road to single payer health insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom