Skip to comments.

Senators to strip health insurers of antitrust exemption

Posted on by Sub-Driver

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



TOPICS:

Front Page News

Government

News/Current Events

KEYWORDS:

So much for capitalism.......



To: Sub-Driver

Weasels...Correction, Imeant Dirty Weasels!



To: Sub-Driver

Please explain why conservatives don’t like this? I would think that we would want less government in any business issues. I don’t understand what the problem is.



To: DallasDeb

Stripping an exemption from antitrust means exposing these companies to more, not less regulation.



To: Sub-Driver

Non-issue: Contrary to Democratic rhetoric, repealing the insurance industry's antitrust exemption won't reduce prices or profits. The legislative basis for the insurance antitrust exemption is the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, which also codified state insurance regulation as national policy. This statute exempts the "business of insurance" from federal antitrust law provided that the activities are (1) regulated by state law and (2) do not involve boycott, coercion or intimidation. Its passage followed a 1944 Supreme Court ruling that insurance was interstate commerce and therefore subject to federal antitrust lawa ruling that cast doubt on states' exclusive regulatory role, and the legality of then typical agreements among property and casualty insurers to use rates developed jointly by state or regional insurance rating organizations.



by 5 posted onby Yo-Yo (Joe Wilson speaks for me.)

To: Sub-Driver

This is the definition of tyranny, you play the governments way or get laws passed to isolate and punish you. I don’t know why the Insurance companies were deemed exempt from the monopoly laws, but I bet it was none with forethought and deliberation, not from a point of vengeance.

This administration/congress is on the path to totalitarianism and oppression.

I wonder what/when the tipping point will be reached ..



by 6 posted onby Robe (Rome did not create a great empire by talking, they did it by killing all those who opposed them)

To: Sub-Driver

So let’s see now, they have taken over the banks and other financial institutions, they have taken over two of the three major automobile manufacturers, they are going to tax most of the energy sector of the economy out of existence, they are in the process of seizing control of the media and now they are going to destroy a major service industry and replace it with a complicated and expensive set of government programs. How are we any different from the most socialized of European states? When did the Soviets win the Cold War? What are they doing to our country?



To: Sub-Driver

I think, this is the ultimate nuclear option, if obamacare is defeated in congress, the Libs will then attempt to use this to put the insurance industry out of business. Once there is simply no way to purchase insurance, then they will come in to “save the day” with their public option.



To: Sub-Driver

From what I read, it sounds like the Communists are just putting pressure on health insurers to bend to the will of obama. (We’ll drop this if you comply)



by 9 posted onby RetSignman (Townhalls ..."We have seen the Patriots and they are us")

To: Sub-Driver

any sign that the insurance industry is going to react, or are they just going to whimper off into the night?



To: Sub-Driver; Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; ...

The list, ping



by 11 posted onby Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)

To: Buckeye McFrog

The doctors, health care workers and drug companies better be watching their own backs, because they started out the way the insurance companies did, playing nice, and they are going to be throughly screwed, too, before this is all over.



To: Sub-Driver

Yep. What is that saying - First they came for..... Pretty soon we’ll have nothing left of this country.



by 13 posted onby Grumpybutt (Common Sense - where has it gone?)

To: Sub-Driver

Thuggery!



by 14 posted onby mort56 (He who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither. - Ben Franklin)

To: DallasDeb

Antitrust laws and their enforcement have no clear standards that would permit an enterprise to determine in advance whether they are in compliance with the law or in violation of the law. Rather, they are a political tool that is manipulated by the party in power to arbitrarily punish companies or individuals at the whim of the powerful, or to extort huge sums and changes in behavior from the 'victims'. It's also a corrupt vehicle for well-connected and powerful attorneys to guarantee full employment at obscene hourly rates - a classic type of "rent seeking" for law firms. Example: Look at how the Lyndon Johnson administration filed its antitrust suit against IBM in 1969 on the last day of Johnson's term - if it were a non-political attempt at law enforcement, then certainly the career attorneys in Nixon's Justice Department could have handled the matter. So, antitrust laws violate numerous protections of the Constitution, not the least of which is the "equal protection of the law". Exempting an industry from antitrust violations would seem to be beneficial to the "rule of law", and ought to be granted to all businesses and industries. Instead, the corrupt Senate Democrats are attempting to remove the antitrust exemption from an industry, both as a punishment in and of itself, as well as to open up the industry to coercion and extortion by government criminals and lawyer parasites...



by 15 posted onby Zeppo (Save the cheerleader, save the world...)

To: Sub-Driver; DallasDeb; Pearls Before Swine

I think this is great! I hope they do! It means more competition, less price fixing. And it will mean that the uninsured can sue providers for providing services cheaper to insurance companies than they will provide those same services to the uninsured. There is no reason that uninsured pay 4 times more than insurance companies do. You can’t justify that difference in marketing costs, because the providers still have to market to the community.



To: Sub-Driver

A group of Senate Democratic leaders is set to announce Wednesday that they have decided to strip health insurers of their antitrust exemption. OK then if it so true that the insurance companies are acting in an anti-trust manner then the Dems should eliminate the ban on selling health plans across state lines. The number one reason that any health insurance company could even be in a true position to be a RICO entity is in continueing this ban that limits competition in a state due to the lack of plans across state lines.



by 17 posted onby torchthemummy (No Obama: Not Because He's Black But Because He's Red)

To: DallasDeb

Please explain why conservatives dont like this? My reaction is that an honest review of the policy on it's merit is fine and appropriate. But this has nothing to do with the merit or lack of merit of the exemption or the merit in removing it. This is all about government abuse of power. (AGAIN) This congress and this president wield their power as a cudgel, to award or take away something to get people and organizations to fall in line and support the latest government idiocy. The old adage about standing aside when the government comes for others and eventually having to stand alone when they come for you is becoming a reality in the Obama Reich. But this time they are coming for the Patriots, the Veterans, the FOX News Reporters, the Capitalists, the Constitutionalists, the Bitter Clingers and anyone not sufficiently supportive of Obama. "First they came ..." "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew; Then they came for me  and there was no one left to speak out for me." -- (Attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller - 18921984)

.



by 18 posted onby Iron Munro (Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself)

To: torchthemummy

This is about taking away state’s regulations and having a government regulation dictate to all insurance companies.



by 19 posted onby Carley (OBAMA IS A MALEVOLENT FORCE IN THE WORLD)

To: Pearls Before Swine

This is great! Name one other industry that operates without being subject to Federal anti-trust laws. Insurance companies, via the McCarran-Ferguson Act, have had an unfair advantage over every other business. The McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed in response to the crazy notion that insurance was not interstate commerce, and therefore not subject to Congressional oversight. Ridiculous! If insurance is regulated on a national level rather than a state level, it would pave the way for the creation of Association Health Plans that allow small businesses to buy health insurance across state lines.



Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson