It is currently 05/11/24 5:56 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




  Page 1 of 1   [ 9 posts ]
Author Message
PostPosted: 10/18/09 9:20 am • # 1 
I'm not sure what to make of this and to be honest , having never thought about it before , what is the reason insurers do get exemption from anti trust laws ?

October 18, 2009

Obama Threatens Insurers' Anti-Trust Exemption

WASHINGTON - President Obama mounted a frontal assault on the insurance industry on Saturday, accusing it of using "deceptive and dishonest ads" to derail his health care legislation and threatening to strip the industry of its longstanding exemption from federal antitrust laws.

In unusually harsh terms, Mr. Obama cast insurance companies as obstacles to change interested only in preserving their own "profits and bonuses" and willing to "bend the truth or break it" to stop his drive to remake the nation's health care system. The president used his weekly radio and Internet address to challenge industry assertions that legislation will drive up premiums.

"It's smoke and mirrors," Mr. Obama said. "It's bogus. And it's all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, 'Take one of these, and call us in a decade.' Well, not this time."

Rather than trying to curb costs and help patients, he said, the industry is busy "figuring out how to avoid covering people."

"And they're earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exemption from our antitrust laws," he said, "a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing."

continued @
http://www.nytimes.com/20...address.html?_r=2&hp


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/18/09 9:42 am • # 2 
just saw this


In 1868, the U.S. Supreme Court held that insurance is not interstate commerce and, therefore, insurers are not subject to federal regulation. The court reversed itself in 1944, and insurers were first subject to the federal antitrust laws that ensure competition in the marketplace.

The industry appealed to Congress to reinstate the old rules, and in 1945, lawmakers passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which gave states broad authority to regulate the "business of insurance" without interference from federal regulation. To the extent that insurers were regulated by state law, federal antitrust law no longer applied to them.

In the years since, attempts to transfer regulatory authority back to the federal government have been opposed by states and the insurance industry.

Insurance companies warn that repealing the 1945 law would result in fewer insurance companies, ultimately harming consumers. The House and the Senate are considering legislation that would eliminate the exemption and ensure that insurers do not engage in price-fixing or bid-rigging.

-- Madonna Lebling

http://www.washingtonpost.../AR2009101403910_pf.html


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 10/18/09 10:02 am • # 3 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
susanne, here's more history and current data ~ the numbers in this article are truly shocking to me ~ I found the "Update" below VERY interesting, and I intend to sign the petition ~ Sooz

Miles Mogulescu
Entertainment attorney, Academy Award-nominated filmmaker, writer, activist
Posted: October 16, 2009 02:15 PM

Whatever their differences on comprehensive health care reform or regulation of Wall Street, here's something that progressives, liberals, centrists, and even free-market conservatives and some tea-baggers should be able to agree on: The insurance industry should not be virtually the only business in America -- other than professional baseball -- to be exempt from federal anti-trust laws that prohibit monopolies, price-fixing, market manipulation and other anti-competitive practices which are anathema to a free market.

I'm hereby urging the formation of broadest possible national coalition of people and organizations of all political persuasions to support the following proposition:

Quote:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS, urge Congress to enact, and President Obama to sign, legislation to immediately repeal the insurance industry's exemption from complying with Federal anti-trust laws, while preserving the existing rights of the states to regulate insurance.

We need organizations as diverse as MoveOn, HCAN, Healthcare Now, the AFL-CIO, the National Association of Manufacturers, and even the Club for Growth, and tea bagger organizations to endorse this simple proposition. (Organizations as varied as the American Bar Association and the Automotive Service Association -- the trade organization for auto repair shops -- already support such legislation.)

We need the widest possible coalition of organizations to use their email lists to generate a million or more signatures in support. We need a national media campaign. We need massive lobbying of Congress.

This should be stand-alone legislation, not a piece of comprehensive health reform legislation. Senators and Congress people, Democrats and Republicans, liberals, centrists and conservatives -- whatever their position on comprehensive health care reform -- should be able to vote to make the insurance industry subject to the same anti-monopoly laws as every other American business and bar them from price fixing and market manipulation.

About the only people who could disagree are members of the insurance industry and their paid apologists.

As a result of the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption, 94% of insurance markets in the country are "highly concentrated" according to a study by the AMA. Only two health insurance companies control 98% of the market in Hawaii and 95% in Rhode Island; in 8 other states they control 80%-90% of the market; in 11 other states they control 70%-80% of the market; and in the states with the lowest concentration, they control 47% in New York and 44% in California, which still constitutes an anti-competitive oligopoly.

In part because of monopoly pricing, average health insurance premiums grew 120% between 1999-2007, while average wages grew only 29%. Between 2000-2007, the average profits of the 10 largest publically-traded health insurance companies increased 428%. In 2007, the average CEO salary of those companies was $11.9 million, 468 times the $25,434 wage of the average American worker.

Using their anti-trust exemption, insurance companies collude with health care providers to fix prices to the detriment of consumers. For example, a December, 2008 investigative report in the Boston Globe revealed that the state's largest insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield, made a secret deal with the state's largest health care provider to fix prices and prevent lower prices being charged to other health insurance companies.

The basic principle of free market capitalism is competition. This is a principle upon which both liberals and conservatives agree, or should agree. Basic free market economic theory holds in order to survive and make a profit in a competitive market, businesses have to innovate, find ways to create a better product than their competitors, operate more productively and efficiently, and lower their prices or be undersold by their competitors. When instead of competition, there are monopolies and oligopolies, the free market fails to function properly, innovation is stifled, and monopolistic companies impose higher prices on their customers, whether individual consumers or other businesses.

In addition, to being anti-competitive, monopolies are anti-democratic; monopolies and oligopolies use some of their super-sized profits to hire armies of lobbyist and make contributions to politicians of all political parties in order to prevent lawmakers and regulators from interfering with their monopoly profits.

That's the reason that a century ago, Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and then the Clayton Anti-Trust Act, to break up monopolies and make practices like price-fixing and market manipulation illegal.

However, in an historic anomaly, until 1945 conservative courts held that the insurance business did not constitute "commerce" and thus could not constitutionally be regulated by the federal government or be subject to federal anti-trust law. The Supreme Court overruled this in 1945 and made the insurance industry subject to the same types of federal regulations that applied to other businesses. In response, the insurance industry convinced its friend in Congress to pass the McCarran-Ferguson Act which exempted it from Federal anti-trust laws (while still allowing state regulation, which is generally weaker).

(An historical note: Sen. Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) -- the chief sponsor of the McCarran Ferguson Act, -- was often thought to be the real-life inspiration for the Mafia-owned Senator in [i]The Godfather II).[/i]

There have been many attempts since 1945 to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, but until now they have all been defeated by the insurance lobby. At times even conservatives have supported repeal. After Hurricane Katrina destroyed his home and he was unhappy with the treatment by his insurance company, Republican Minority Leader Trent Lott, along with then Congressman Bobby Jindal, and several other Republicans joined with a number of Democrats including Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Mary Landrieu, to sponsor legislation to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, but the insurance industry and its friends in Congress defeated the legislation.

Now, the insurance industry's double-dealing on health care reform has given new impetus to legislation revoking its Federal anti-trust exemption.

Pat Leahy has reintroduced legislation in the Senate that would partly repeal McCarran Ferguson by outlawing price fixing and bid rigging by health insurance and malpractice insurance companies. Congressmen Gene Taylor of Mississippi and Peter DeFazio of Oregon have introduced the Insurance Industry Competition Act of 2009 which would completely remove the federal anti-trust exemption from the entire insurance industry.

At hearings Wednesday on the Leahy bill, Sen. Chuck Schumer stated, "The health insurance's antitrust exemption is one of the worst accidents of American history. It deserves a lot of the blame for the huge rise in premiums that has made health insurance so unaffordable. It is time to end this special status and bring true competition to the health insurance industry." Majority Leader Harry Reid testified that "there is no reason why the insurance companies should have exemption from antitrust laws." The Obama administration's head of antitrust enforcement, Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney, testified that there are "strong indications" that insurance industry exemption from McCarran-Ferguson are no longer valid, although she did not take an official position backing repeal.

It's not entirely clear whether Democrats are finally serious about repealing McCarran Ferguson or whether this is just a political ploy to threaten the insurance industry to back off from opposing Democratic health reform bills. As best as I can tell, so far this year, Republicans have largely been silent on the issue.

But whatever the outcome of comprehensive health care reform, it's clear that making the insurance industry (not just health insurance but all insurance) subject to the same anti-trust laws as other businesses, and barring them from price-fixing, market manipulation, and other anti-competitive practices, would help increase consumer choice and likely lower insurance costs to American consumers and businesses.

Remember, AIG, whose near-bankruptcy was one of the main catalysts the financial meltdown and great recession, and which has cost the taxpayer over 180 billion dollars (enough to fully fund health care reform for several years) was the world's largest insurance company -- credit default swaps, which was the cause of AIG's collapse, were a form of insurance against investment losses and couldn't legally be regulated as either insurance or gambling.

We need a national coalition crossing the political spectrum from left to right to abolish the insurance industry's exemption from Federal anti-trust laws with all deliberate speed.

*** UPDATE: While we're working to put together a larger national coalition, Sen. Pat Leahy has a web site where you can sign a petition to your Congressional representative supporting his bill to make health and malpractice insurance companies subject to anti-trust laws. http://ga3.org/campaign/hcr_antitrust



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 10/18/09 10:11 am • # 4 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Sorry ~ I don't know what happened to the link at the end of the article in my post ~ the original can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/a-call-for-a-bipartisan-n_b_323993.html ~ Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/18/09 10:23 am • # 5 
I was reading on bringing costs down via breaking up monopolies. That I suppose would involve the DOJ. It said the top 2 insurers controlled 65 mil lives.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 10/18/09 10:45 am • # 6 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
WOW ~ I used the link [http://ga3.org/campaign/hcr_antitrust] that took me to Sen Leahy's site ~ I filled in the blanks and the message was sent off automatically to my reps [both Congress and Senate] ~ I know this because I also got a "received" message back from Jan Schakowsky ~ AND I just got the following form "thank you" from Sen Leahy ~ the form letter that is sent in our names is very similar to the "sample message" below ~ mighty cool! ~ Sooz


Dear Susan,

Thank you for taking action to ensure passage of the Health
Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act.

Can you help us spread the word far and wide by forwarding the
message at the bottom of this email to all your friends and
family?

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Patrick Leahy
U.S. Senator

****BEGIN SAMPLE TELL-A-FRIEND MESSAGE****

SUBJECT: Break Up Insurance Monopolies

America's health insurance companies have had a pretty sweet
deal for decades.

They can pick and choose their customers and deny coverage to
anyone with any sort of pre-existing condition -- even acne.
They can get away with dropping your coverage when you get sick.

And since 1945 they have been exempt from the antitrust
regulations that apply to nearly every other industry, rules
that protect consumers from anti-competitive business practices
like price-fixing.

That's why I just sent a letter to Congress, supporting the
Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act, which will
eliminate the outdated insurance industry antitrust exemption,
and force health insurance companies to compete fairly -- like
virtually every other business in America.

Please join me by sending a letter to your members of Congress
as well:

http://ga3.org/campaign/hcr_antitrust

****END SAMPLE TELL-A-FRIEND MESSAGE****


Top
  
PostPosted: 10/18/09 11:09 am • # 7 
Now Obama is finally making a move that might solve some of the problems. Afterall, it's not smoke and mirrors for insurance companies to claim premiums will go up if the government healthcare plan passes...they are fully capable of raising premiums for no reason other than that they can just to say "we told you so." So, take away anti-trust protections, and you pull some of the wind out of their sails.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 10/20/09 4:24 am • # 8 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
I have mentioned a number of times how much I think of Jan Schakowsky ~ she is smart, savvy, and very responsive ~ I used the Leahy email link [above] on Saturday ~ I got "received"-type messages from all 2-1/2 of my reps [Durbin, Burris, and Schakowsky] within minutes ~ and here is the full response I just received from Jan Schakowsky ~ Sooz


Image

Dear Ms. -------:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for H.R. 3596, the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act. I appreciate hearing from you
, and I agree with you.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3596. Like you, I believe the McCarran-Ferguson Act that exempts the insurance industry from antitrust law must be repealed. Our consumer protection laws need to be strengthened to fight against fraud and abuse in the insurance industry. Rising rates for insurance has made coverage unaffordable for many millions of working families, and collusion and price gouging are prevalent in this highly profitable industry. I am working with Representative Conyers-the bill sponsor-to include the bill in H.R. 3200, the America's Affordable Health Choices Act.

In addition to H.R. 3596, I believe we need a public health insurance option to promote competition in a market dominated by only a handful of insurers. According to the Department of Justice, 94% of U.S. markets are noncompetitive because one or two large private insurers dominate them. Effective competition between the private and public sectors will lead to a more efficient health care delivery system that lower costs and meets patients' needs. I will work hard to ensure that a public health insurance option is part of any health reform bill.

Again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch on this important issue. Please feel free to contact me if I can be of assistance to you in the future.

P.S. I've created an
Email Newsletter to provide periodic updates on a variety of issues. You can sign up for it by going to my website at http://www.house.gov/schakowsky.


Sincerely,
Jan Schakowsky



Last edited by sooz06 on 10/20/09 4:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 10/20/09 6:55 am • # 9 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Just in case anyone doesn't believe how important this revocation really is ~ Sooz


By Igor Volsky at 11:40 am

Would Revoking The Anti-Trust Exemption For Insurers Lower Health Care Costs? »

Last week, spurred by two disingenuous industry reports, the Judiciary Committee held hearings to consider revoking the insurance industry's exemption from Federal antitrust laws. For more than 65 years, insurers have been regulated by the states, and in that time, few markets have become "as concentrated, opaque and complex, and subject to rampant anticompetitive and deceptive conduct." During his radio address on Saturday, President Obama formally endorsed the effort, condemning the industry for "earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exception from our anti-trust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing."

But would eliminating the exemption increase competition or lower health care costs? The short answer is no. "At this point, there is really no need from the industry's perspective, for an anti trust exemption," former anti-trust enforcer David Balto explained in an interview with the Wonk Room. "This anti trust exemption permits them to coordinate activities which would be considered collusion in other industries. When you are a monopolist, there is no need to collude":

Quote:

It certainly can make a difference. The exemption currently serves as an obstacle to federal anti-trust and consumer protection enforcement. Thus we need to eliminate the exemption so we can finally start bringing anti-trust and consumer protection enforcement to bear, to stop the anti-competitive and egregious practices of insurance companies. [...] The most immediate direct effect will be that the federal trade commission will be able to go after deceptive and egregious conduct by health insurers, that it hasn't been able to go after before now.

Watch parts of the interview:

Balto, who is now a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, stressed that while removing the exemption won't have an immediate impact on health care markets, it would allow anti trust enforcers to begin preventing anti-competitive activities and enforcing the new regulations of reform. If "the purpose of health reform is to bring competition to the insurance markets," Balto said, then "without the elimination of the exemption, once that competition breaks out, the insurance companies can enter into other types of collusive arrangements to really still born any kind of competition that might occur."

In other words, in order to inject competition, reformers should both establish a new public option and remove the anti-trust exemption. "You need both. You need a public option. An entity which is not beholden to stockholders, which is not engaging in deceptive and fraudulent activities, to disrupt the market, but then you need to buttress that with a very strong enforcement program to go after decades of egregious practices by health insurers."

Transcript:

Quote:

When this exemption was passed 64 years ago, the federal government really wasn't doing anything in insurance and there were state insurance commissioners, so it was sensible to rely on those state insurance commissioners. Now we have strong federal ant-trust and consumer protection agencies which are being prevented by this exemption, in part, from having an effective enforcement program. [...]

At some point in time, the anti-trust exemption probably served as some type of an obstacle and inhibited the federal anti trust agencies from going in and blocking some of the mergers that have led to such a concentrated market. At this point, there is really no need from the industry's perspective, for an anti trust exemption. This anti trust exemption permits them to coordinate activities which would be considered collusion in other industries. When you are a monopolist, there is no need to collude.

It certainly can make a difference. The exemption currently serves as an obstacle to federal anti-trust and consumer protection enforcement. Thus we need to eliminate the exemption so we can finally start bringing anti-trust and consumer protection enforcement to bear, to stop the anti-competitive and egregious practices of insurance companies. Moreover, the purpose of health reform is to bring competition to the insurance markets. Without the elimination of the exemption, once that competition breaks out, the insurance companies can enter into other types of collusive arrangements to really still born any kind of competition that might occur. [...]

The most immediate direct effect will be that the federal trade commission will be able to go after deceptive and egregious conduct by health insurers, that it hasn't been able to go after before now. [...]

You need both. You need a public option. An entity which is not beholden to stockholders, which is not engaging in deceptive and fraudulent activities, to disrupt the market, but then you need to buttress that with a very strong enforcement program to go after decades of egregious practices by health insurers.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

  Page 1 of 1   [ 9 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.