Posted on 02/24/2010 2:43:28 PM PST by Former Military Chick
Washington (CNN) -- The House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to repeal the antitrust exemption currently granted to health insurance companies.
The vote was 406-19 to repeal the exemption, which has been in place since the end of World War II. The 19 who voted against the repeal are Republicans.
Liberal Democrats have said a repeal would help inject competition into the health care industry while reducing consumer costs.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday that President Obama strongly supports the repeal. "At its core, health reform is all about ensuring that American families and businesses have more choices, benefit from more competition and have greater control over their own health care," Gibbs said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Does anyone know why the exemption was given in the first place?
Mark Levin talked about this a couple months ago. I can’t remember the reasoning but he said the exemption makes sense for the health care providers and to watch out because the Dems would be coming after it. I am wary of this.
OK ...now lets repeal the antitrust laws for doctors too...
Yes, I’m guessing the repeal would be a good thing if the market were otherwise healthy — i.e. not totally distorted by govt regulation and bullying. But that is obviously not the case.
Most likely the repeal is about making the healthcare providers more subject to arbitrary government power than to competitive market forces.
When you have a bunch of Democrats voting for something like this, you can bet it’s not about invigorating the free market. It’s about clearing the way for government healthcare.
Mark Levin analyzed this on his show a while back (or maybe he was reading someone else’s analysis, I can’t remember) and his conclusion was that repealing the anti-trust exemption would be a bad thing.
I'm all for increased competition. It's a wonderful thing. But since when have socialists been in favor of it? Never. Can't trust a thing they say.
Right, these are the same people who think a government option brings healthy competition. I’m guessing that’s exactly the kind of “competition” the Dems expect repealing the exemption will foster.
That’s right. TR is a rat.
Yep, I think I'll put myself in the "highly suspicious" category.
This is a good first move.
Now, anti-trust provisions need to be applied to State legislatures who, in effect, create and maintain insurance monopolies and price fixing.
We should at least TRY the free market once ...
Not buying it.
In other industries if they “share” information w/r/t pricing ... they can be hit with collusion charges.
Insurance should be held to the same rules as every other industry.
Indeed. The concept seems acceptable enough, but we need some commentary from those intimately familiar with the ramifications before we understand their real motive.
The States should get out of the business of dictating premiums. This is price fixing pure and simple.
Why is price fixing OK if the government does it but if anyone else does it they wind up in the big house?
Meaningless feel good legislation.
I don't believe they will impeach him. The only way that will occur is that they could allow discovery on his records, and if there is a smoking gun there, that could result in impeachment.
He would have to really cross some lines to get impeached.
I would love to see a Republican Senate or Congress order Obama to remove Jennings and a comprohensive review of any educational materials that have been tainted by him.
I am for this.
In my area UHC is taking over a huge chunk of the market. It is not good for anyone but UHC.
“The straw that broke the camel’s back.”
Kind of like when Lehman Brothers increased the 5/3/07 CEO salary of $52 million, to the 4/30/08 salary of $72 million. Barkley’s Bank in England decided not to get involved with them and by Sept. Lehman was toast.
Source: Forbes CEO Compensation, for 5/3/07 and 4/30/08, and if you want to look at others, 4/22/09. Check out Wellpoint and some of the other insurers, drug, and related medical CEO salaries while you are at it.
They might use the Nuclear option! The Senate I mean!
I’m all for the free market and I believe that CEOs who wisely guide corporations to success, productivity, efficiency contribute to the general prosperity and should be well compensated. That said, the grotesque greed of these people is a major factor in the negative public perception that opens the door to government intrusion into the market, which is to everyone’s detriment.
Why are million$ upon million$ in compensation never enough for them?
Did CA pass a law requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions without a waiting period now? The feds haven’t passed that, so it must be state law that’s pending, right?
*
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.