Dems eye insurance industry's antitrust protection

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 50 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials, the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.

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."

After months of struggle, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate hope to have legislation ready for votes in both houses within a few weeks, and plan on having a compromise measure ready for Obama's signature by the end of the year.

Progress has been slow, particularly as Democrats squabble over whether to allow the federal government to sell insurance in direct competition with private insurers, and if so, under what terms. Obama's remarks appeared an attempt to place that and similar disagreements in a larger context — a decades-long attempt to provide insurance for millions who lack it while cracking down on insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

Insurance industry officials have been involved in discussions for months with the White House and key congressional Democrats over proposed legislation. They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers.

The tone changed last week after the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation that exempted an estimated 2 million individuals from the requirement to purchase insurance and greatly reduced the penalties on those still subject to the requirement.

In a report paid for by the insurance industry, the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers said the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013 when most of the major provisions of the Senate Finance Committee bill would be in effect.

The White House, Democrats in Congress and other supporters of the legislation attacked the study as flawed and deceptive.

Within a few days, Leahy convened a Judiciary Committee meeting to air the possibility of revoking the industry's antitrust exemption.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091021/ap_on_...h_care_overhaul

Because Obama wasn't in office until now?

So what's your alternative?

I say Single-Payer.

The point of this thread is to point out how the Dems are try to use their legislative powers to punish those that disagree with them.

Really? Cause I thought it was about accusing the Democrats of trying to take over the world through health-reform, or something equally ridiculous.

It's so hard to keep up with the talking points. Are the dems trying to kill grandma still?

Well if you would try reading the post instead of just mindlessly replying you would have seen that.

edit: I meant to reply to the observer but replied to my own post so I had to go back and edit.

Simon - you must know that the insurance companies have been against a public option from the point when it was first proposed. If the proposal to strip the anti-trust exemptions were truly a mere punishment for their lobbying against a public option then surely this issue would have come up months ago.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be to ask why so many Republicans are in favor of supporting the continuation of anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies. Surely such exemptions go against the idea of free enterprise and competition?

Insurance industry officials have been involved in discussions for months with the White House and key congressional Democrats over proposed legislation. They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers.

The tone changed last week after the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation that exempted an estimated 2 million individuals from the requirement to purchase insurance and greatly reduced the penalties on those still subject to the requirement.

In a report paid for by the insurance industry, the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers said the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013 when most of the major provisions of the Senate Finance Committee bill would be in effect.

The White House, Democrats in Congress and other supporters of the legislation attacked the study as flawed and deceptive.

Within a few days, Leahy convened a Judiciary Committee meeting to air the possibility of revoking the industry's antitrust exemption

If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation of [the] industry

Simon - the only reason why there would suddenly be more federal regulation is because the federal government would have to enforce anti-trust laws. Are you honestly defending the monopolies that insurance companies have in many states? You don't think that Republicans are opposed to getting rid of the antitrust exemptions because they are being lobbied by the health insurance industry and are worried about their campaign finance contributions (something Democrats like Baucus are also guilty of)?

Health insurance companies, which make profits out of the misery of workers, have no legitimacy.

The government should cease to pander to these parasites and nationalize the industry without compensation, and provide free health care.

Obama is not doing anything controversial, Simon, so please cut the hysterics.

Please tell me that you don't think the timing of this is purely coencidental.

The Senate has been planning on looking at the anti-trust exemption for over a month.

Using your logic doctors profit off the misery of workers, as do auto-repairmen, plumbers, lawyers etc.

We used to have people that provided services without compenstation .... we called them .... slaves.


Trying to take over. 1/6 of the US economy is controversial not to mentionl unconstitutional. And using legistative intimidation to achieve this is unethical.

Health insurance companies, which make profits out of the misery of workers, have no legitimacy. The government should cease to pander to these parasites and nationalize the industry without compensation, and provide free health care.

Simon - you must know that the insurance companies have been against a public option from the point when it was first proposed. If the proposal to strip the anti-trust exemptions were truly a mere punishment for their lobbying against a public option then surely this issue would have come up months ago.
Perhaps a more interesting question would be to ask why so many Republicans are in favor of supporting the continuation of anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies. Surely such exemptions go against the idea of free enterprise and competition?

Health insurance companies, which make profits out of the misery of workers, have no legitimacy. The government should cease to pander to these parasites and nationalize the industry without compensation, and provide free health care.

Obama is not doing anything controversial, Simon, so please cut the hysterics.

There is no such thing as "free", someone has to pays for it. It will just lead to a BIGGER debt, and even more of a BIGGER debt cuz there are less companies that pay taxes, cuz there will be no more insurance companies. There is only one way to pay for this, and that is tax increases on the middle class and all tax payers. There is no such thing as "free", we all have to pay for it. Doctors will be the major losers folks, study medicine for a decade, and get paid nothing after they get out of med school.

Simon, @ your title, how is the government threatening to bust up the medical insurance conglomerate hegemony (by removing their protection against trust-busting) hurting the little guy? More like it hurts the corporate heads of the companies more than it hurts the average Americans.

Simon, @ your title, how is the government threatening to bust up the medical insurance conglomerate hegemony (by removing their protection against trust-busting) hurting the little guy? More like it hurts the corporate heads of the companies more than it hurts the average Americans.

you're in the same mindset the Canadians and English did before they got Government run health care, "the evil insurance companies!". God forbid they work hard to make a profit. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield, and they are by far the best insurance company in the world, and trust me, if we could just pass tort reform, healthcare will be much better and cheaper, and it solves it with competition which allows prices to go down.

you're in the same mindset the Canadians and English did before they got Government run health care, "the evil insurance companies!". God forbid they work hard to make a profit. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield, and they are by far the best insurance company in the world, and trust me, if we could just pass tort reform, healthcare will be much better and cheaper, and it solves it with competition which allows prices to go down.

you're in the same mindset the Canadians and English did before they got Government run health care, "the evil insurance companies!". God forbid they work hard to make a profit. I had Blue Cross Blue Shield, and they are by far the best insurance company in the world, and trust me, if we could just pass tort reform, healthcare will be much better and cheaper, and it solves it with competition which allows prices to go down.

Hard to maintain any respect for you Western Skier when you keep presenting the notion that anyone in the Obama Administration is proposing anything even remotely approaching "Government run health care"- despite the fact that many on these boards have repeatedly pointed out to you the vast differences between government run health care (UK, Canada), a single-payer system, a public option, and the various other alternatives that are being considered (e.g., something approaching the Swiss or Danish systems).
Any yet you keep conflating these very different notions. Why do this? Since you must know better it suggest a level of willful ignorance and/or misrepresentation of the facts that makes engaging with you utterly pointless.

The Dems have been pretty good about selling their BIG government programs as trying to helping the 'little guy.' But the reality is that it about the acquisition of power. When the insurance industry comes out and says that the Dems health care bill will cause costs to rise. (Big surprise when you expect them to expand coverage. What did they think insurance companies could do it for free?) Congressional Dems strike back with legislation to punish those that dare to disagree with them.

The point of this thread is to point out how the Dems are trying to use their legislative powers to punish those that disagree with them.

hmm, lets see , you have PrinceCaspian posting that the "single payer"(governemnt run_ is great.... There is no "half single payer" , cuz the government will ALWAYS beat everybody below it, including insurance companies.

Per capita, the US GOVERNMENT pays more for people than governments with single payer.

What does this say to you?

That we have vastly differing population ethnicities, massively higher rates of overweight and obese people, an enormous population of illegal immigrants not paying into any system, a radically differing tort system, very different population densities (especially with any European country) and less waiting time, and that our government is filled to the brim with incompetent, apathetic, and corrupt bureaucrats?

When hundreds of thousands of Brits and Canadians stop flying to India, Malaysia, and the US to get operations done every year, and when the IMF isn't telling Britain to charge for NHS services to avoid skyrocketing debt, and when Canada isn't seeing 70% of dentists drop out of the public system in a single day, then we can begin a discussion.

Tired of people acting as if Britain, Canada, and others have perfect systems and the US must just be stupid for not adopting them wholesale. Nobody in the world has found a 'perfect' system. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. In this country, our government is pretty incompetent, especially when it comes to managing its finances. When it can't manage the existing cashflow without bankrupting itself, it seems utterly stupid to vastly expand that cashflow in the hopes that it'll suddenly get better at managing waste, fraud, corruption, and various other major problems.

I'd just like to say that the tort system rarely comes up, incompetence, apathy, and corruption aren't specifically American traits, differing races would help stop disease, and many illegals pay taxes because it helps when you're applying for citizenship.

And hundreds of thousands drive to Canada and fly to the UK because they can no longer pay for their health insurance in the US. In fact, a friend of mine went to Thailand for an operation on his heart that would have cost him upwards of $100,000.00, but got it very cheap in Thailand.

There are problems in both systems. However (and yes, we need reform on portion control, an underlying factor to many health problems) our government spends more per capita than the UK and Canada, yet our life expectancy is lower and our DR is higher. There is no perfect system, however there is a cost effective system that would offer coverage to a majority of Americans.

We need comprehensive reform in more than one area of government, and we can take a good hard look at how well the systems of the UK and Canada preform. And don't take any media bogus on this. Go to those countries yourself or talk to a few friends. Experience what their healthcare is like for yourself.

"Insurance industry officials have been involved in discussions for months with the White House and key congressional Democrats over proposed legislation. They repeatedly said they would accept a series of new restrictions, as long as the legislation required Americans to purchase insurance, thus assuring insurers millions of new customers.

The tone changed last week after the Senate Finance Committee approved legislation that exempted an estimated 2 million individuals from the requirement to purchase insurance and greatly reduced the penalties on those still subject to the requirement.

In a report paid for by the insurance industry, the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers said the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013 when most of the major provisions of the Senate Finance Committee bill would be in effect."


First, I don't like that idea at all myself, all it would do is get the insurance company basically a bailout due to all the people who would then get health insurance. Better to have a public option as well so that you don't just hand the insurance companies money, seeing as you will require people to get insurance I would think having a public option there as well would make sense.


As for the increased cost, there would however also be less costs for hospital charges because people without insurance would not go to the emergency room for things, never pay, and then pass the costs on to everyone else.

How exactly does a public option change anything for the better. Either it won't be able to cut administrative costs and fraud below what insurance companies can (in which case it'll have to cost as much as every other insurance or go bankrupt) or it will and it'll take all the customers currently covered by existing private insurance (in which case the public option will be the only option).

So we either get nothing new or we lose all choice for health insurance? How is a lack of choice for consumer or the status quo good for everyone?

If the public option is run anything like Medicare, it won't actually pay all the costs, it'll be full of fraud, and its costs will run away faster than anyone could possibly keep up.

If the Federal government actually wanted to help lower costs for Americans, they'd address the source of high health insurance costs, which is high healthcare costs. The insurance companies are making a ~3% profit. All the rest, minus administrative costs, goes right into the pockets of doctors, hospitals, and lawyers. Oh, but we certainly can't have Democrats laying a hand on the profiteering of lawyers now could we...

Well personally I don't see how a public option to replace private insurance to be a really bad thing... seeing as health coverage shouldn't be about making a profit. Regardless, the reason for it is to give an option to people, some private insurance companies would still exist because they would cover more things or somehow manage to have their prices as low or lower than the public option. In any event there are both private and public insurance in Germany and so I don't see why creating a public insurance option would somehow destroy all private insurance companies and only leave the government one.

As for your point on not covering everything, many private insurance companies don't cover everything either and find ways to get out of paying people what they deserve.

as Loki mentioned, they usually make a mere ~3% profit! Health care is not a right, its a privilege.

As for your point on not covering everything, many private insurance companies don't cover everything either and find ways to get out of paying people what they deserve.

Per capita, the US GOVERNMENT pays more for people than governments with single payer.

What does this say to you?

Defensive medicine is the number 1 source of waste in the US healthcare industry (waste accounting for nearly 1/2 of all US healthcare spending) according to a Pricewaterhouse Coopers compilation of dozens of various studies, interviews, and other research on the topic. In other words, the tort system is by far the biggest problem with American healthcare spending growth.

I disagree, health care should very much be a right in a nation as wealthy as the United States. And as it is now it is, if you need health care but have no insurance or any way to pay it, the emergency room has to take you in, this raises costs for everyone thus why I am for a public option so that people would go to their regular doctor instead of the emergency room and wouldn't make their emergency room costs raise costs for everyone else.

Now, I don't want to say defensive medicine doesn't exist, but a lot of people, including the CBO, have tried to find it and failed to do so. Even though some others did, it's probably not really in our interests to bank EVERYTHING on defensive medicine and tort reform...

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the public to be the most anxious for its welfare."
-Edmund Burke
The Dems have been pretty good about selling their BIG government programs as trying to helping the 'little guy.' But the reality is that it about the acquisition of power. When the insurance industry comes out and says that the Dems health care bill will cause costs to rise. (Big surprise when you expect them to expand coverage. What did they think insurance companies could do it for free?) Congressional Dems strike back with legislation to punish those that dare to disagree with them.


Oh, and for those of you who think this is a good idea and that the Dems are just doing it to help people, ask yourself these questions. If this is such a good idea why didn't they do this earlier? Why wait until now?