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 ...
This might make sense.
Just setting the table for the incremental Socialized Medicine takeover to come....
I agree, this is a positive thing even if the goal dems have in mind is evil.
Eeyore news bureau here... count on the Donks to give us the worst of both worlds. Eliminate the antitrust exemption but make it impossible to compete, especially across state lines. Result, NO insurance and everyone clamors for public option.
I need a better explanation since I don’t trust O.
But will it pass the Senate?
However, in effect it could be a stepping stone toward increased competition in the private sector which is why so many Repubs voted for it.
It all depends on who maintains control of Congress in Nov.
I think this is a good thing too.
I wonder why the 19 voted against it.
Boehner voted no, Cantor yes.
Here’s the rest who voted no.
Steve Buyer (R-IN),
Todd Tiahrt (R-KS),
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI),
Paul Ryan (R-WI),
Tom Price (R-GA),
Ron Paul (R-TX),
Jerry Moran (R-KS),
John Linder (R-GA),
Doug Lamborn (R-CO),
Steve King (R-IA),
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS),
Jim Jordan (R-OH),
Scott Garrett (R-NJ),
Trent Franks (R-AZ),
Paul Broun (R-GA),
Kevin Brady (R-TX)
Todd Akin (R-MO).
I do not have a problem with it. I am amazed at the number of pro’s on this, but it helps with competition.
This is OK and adds credibility to the GOP argument that we want health care reform but not the current bill.
Kill the Bill. Still.
Teddy Roosevelt wins again!
Maybe, for the first time, a decision was made by congress that didn't have partisan politics at it's core.
Thought this might be of interest.
The free market works when certain segments are not exempted from it’s natural levels of checks and balances.
“Eeyore news bureau here... count on the Donks to give us the worst of both worlds. Eliminate the antitrust exemption but make it impossible to compete, especially across state lines. Result, NO insurance and everyone clamors for public option.”
and that is the post of the day.
The following quotes are from an insurance industry press release, http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=166258 so take it for what it’s worth, but it does sound like this vote was mainly for show and not substance.
...What Others Are Saying About McCarran-Ferguson:
Los Angeles Times: “Lawmakers are expected to pass a bill this week that would repeal the federal antitrust exemption that insurance companies have enjoyed since 1945 — a move that makes for little more than a good sound bite…Removing the exemption won’t do much to boost competition or spark a price war among insurers, however. (The Congressional Budget Office said that a similar proposal in the House’s comprehensive healthcare bill would have no significant effect on premiums because state regulators already require insurers to price their coverage competitively.)” (Los Angeles Times, Back to the drawing board, 02/08/2010)
Paul Ginsburg, Center for Studying Health System Change: “‘I don’t think this will have much effect. This is strictly political posturing.’…In fact, Ginsburg said, insurers already are prohibited from colluding to raise prices and from merging at will. They can, however, pool information about risks, and it can be argued that that helps them manage ways of controlling costs and even rates.” (McClatchy, Analysts: Stripping health insurers’ antitrust protection won’t affect consumers much, 02/07/2010)
Kaiser Health News: “…many antitrust experts say that ending the exemption — by repealing the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act — wouldn’t significantly increase competition or reduce premiums.” (Kaiser Health News, The Antitrust Exemption For Health Insurers: Meaningful Or Not?, 02/08/2010)
Scott Harrington: “It might sound good, but I can think of very few things in the bill that would be
less consequential for consumers of health insurance.” (Kaiser Health News, The Antitrust Exemption For Health Insurers: Meaningful Or Not?, 02/08/2010)
CQ: “…bill supporters have little evidence to support claims that the antitrust exemption leads to higher costs. In fact, their statements in support of the bill sometimes suggest the opposite.” (CQ, House Democrats Push Bill to Eliminate Insurance Antitrust Exemption, 02/05/2010)
Ezra Klein: “On the other hand, since it doesn’t matter much, and it’s good politics either way, Democrats may as well go after it. They just shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking they’ve actually done anything useful when they’ve finished.” (The Washington Post, Ezra Klein, A primer on the antitrust exemption for insurers, 02/08/2010)
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.