Obama Official Questions Need for Insurance Antitrust Exemption

October 15, 2009

  • October 15, 2009 at 7:03 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You better not question liberals or they will come after you. Funny how the day after the health insurance industry questions the CBO report on the Baucus Bill the Whitehouse comes out saying that you better be quiet or we will come after you.

    Another abuse of power. Could you imagine if the Bush Administration did this?

  • October 15, 2009 at 12:31 pm
    Bob Fox says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Another administration liberal idiot questioning this exemption?
    What next, have the govt. insure all property and casualty risks? Because, they can do it more “fairly” and “””efficiently”””??? Funny. Obama has done more damage in 9 months that ANYONE could have imagined.

    Obama is a “plant” by the Saudi’s and his job is to trash this country. What a great start!

    Impeach this idiot before another of his bright ideas can not be reversed upon his being tossed out.

    Elect ALL NEW Senators and Congressman. Also, PUT ALL of Congress on our NEW GREAT Health Plan. See if they pass it then!!

  • October 15, 2009 at 1:06 am
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Christine A. Varney, assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s Antitrust Division is quoted as saying, “The antitrust laws reflect our society’s belief that competition enhances consumer welfare and promotes our economic and political freedoms,”. I agree. I have to assume from her statement above that Ms. Varney is another administration official against the public option.

  • October 15, 2009 at 1:07 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    They must have too many people in Washington to come up with this. The government needs to be reduced in size, now! Good with any elected official.

    More money for the trial lawyers.

  • October 15, 2009 at 1:10 am
    TR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The government doesn’t react to current antitrust violations. I see the chicken and hog industry being taken over by just a few big companies. The govt. did not do anything about that.

  • October 15, 2009 at 1:25 am
    Cicero says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Cui bono?

  • October 15, 2009 at 1:26 am
    Chas says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey Bob, Let me echoe what you just said and to continue refining the idea. Before you get rid of the congress & senate, we need to get rid of the 2 party system and have each one send in their applications for employment. Make each one of them apply for their job because the’ye all job applicants not political candidates. Right now our system is just an extention of the “WIGS & TORRIES”. Our founding fathers couldn’t have intended for the system to be this way.

  • October 15, 2009 at 1:37 am
    Dave says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I can see this, look at the great job they are doing now. SS and medicare is bankrupt. The dollar is crashing, Federal Reserve is out of controll. We all know the great regulatory job they did with the SEC on the banks. 700 billion dollars in tarp money they can’t seem to manage. Cash for clunkers went well. Why not have a federal dept of insurance? We may even get an insurance Czar.

  • October 15, 2009 at 1:56 am
    independent thinker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey Bob –

    How about if we remove the President (duly elected President) and replace him with, say, Rush Limbaugh, that great paragon of freedom. We could have Sean Hannity as VP, and Bill O’Reilly replace Nancy Pelosi. Maybe even have Sarah (“well, we can see Russia on clear days”) Palin as Secretary of State. No need for elections, cuz all the conservatives and Obama haters have all the answers down pat.

  • October 15, 2009 at 1:59 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    At least conservatives have a few facts at their command. Liberals just post slanders and how they feel. Harry Reid said that there was no reason for McCarren-Ferguson. Of course there was and is a good reason. History for a Liberal is what they think it should be.

  • October 15, 2009 at 3:10 am
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Good post, Bob. I couldn’t agree more. For back-up, just look what “independent thinker” wrote. What a joke is represented there.
    Drink more Kool-Aide, fools, while the world laughs at us and our Pres whose only qualifacation is he’s 1/2 black, continues to tear down America and defy human nature, history and common sense.

  • October 15, 2009 at 3:16 am
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Word on the street is they are planning to name Jeff Gillooly the first Insurance Czar. Why? Why?

  • October 15, 2009 at 3:17 am
    Realist says:
  • October 15, 2009 at 3:26 am
    EDGE says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Let’s be fair about this. The Dept. of Justice official did NOT question the need for insurance antitrust exemption, as the headline tries to imply. She stated that the Justice Department was not going to take a position on the Congressional proposal to repeal McCarran Ferguson as to its antitrust exemption. In fact she restated the principal that the Justice Department is not in favor of antitrust exemptions, and that the Justice Department supports the idea of repealing antitrust exemptions.

    The fact that some state insurance regulators are saying they don’t see a flood of antitrust violations, doesn’t mean that the violations are not taking place.. It could mean that regulators are stretched so thin that they cannot possibly tackle this antitrust issue.

    The argument that is made quite often by insurance industry spokesmen is that the antitrust exemption (allowing the insurance companies to continue to engage in otherwise illegal pricing activity) helps the small and medium insurance companies compete with the stronger insurance carriers. To use that argument and apply it to every other industry, does that mean that we should eliminate the existing antitrust laws in , say, the lumber industry or the electronics industry, to allow the smaller and medium companies to conspire to fix prices?
    The antitrust exemption for the insurance industry is a problem.

  • October 15, 2009 at 4:56 am
    Pete says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If Obama gets his “nose under the tent”, it’s ALL OVER.

  • October 15, 2009 at 6:11 am
    Impeach says:
  • October 16, 2009 at 9:17 am
    innocent bystander says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You mean like the Valerie Plame situation?

  • October 16, 2009 at 9:21 am
    despite it all says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Might repeal of McCarran leave enough state vs. federal confusion that creditors of med mal companies could claim that federal law permits them to force a med mal insurer into Chapter 11 instead of state liquidation? I know some NY companies that should be shaking in their boots.

  • October 16, 2009 at 11:30 am
    EDGE says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Someone has criticized my knowledge of the subject. The writer suggested that my observations about the need to repeal the antitrust exemption for the insurance industry are faulty, and cites the need for insurance companies to create rates from large samples of information- implying that the insurance industry needs an anti-trust exemption to do that.

    The fact that adequate insurance rates need to be determined from large numbers, and not from a small sample, has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here, of antitrust exemption uniquely enjoyed by the insurance industry. Congress is looking at whether to repeal the antitrust exemption granted to the insurance industry in the McCarran Ferguson Act of 1945.

    Competition is a basic tenet of capitalism. The marketplace should be able to determine fair value, based on competitve prices , transparency and fair dealing . This should happen in the insurance industry as well.

    A basic insurance course in college should have given one an understanding that insurance companies are currently allowed to do something (colluding to determine rates) that is illegal and antitrust in every other industry in the US ( with the exception of Major League Baseball) .

    It’s time to realize that the pricing of insurance is, like every other industry, based on a number of industrywide factors, and that the special antitrust exemption granted to the insurance industry more than 50 years ago through McCarran Ferguson is a glaring problem .

  • October 16, 2009 at 11:43 am
    independent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    here here – well said

  • October 16, 2009 at 12:10 pm
    I knew it! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    never miss an opportunity to refer to President Obama as the Messiah.

    Mes·si·ah (m-s)
    n.
    1. also Mes·si·as (m-ss) The anticipated savior of the Jews.
    2. also Messias Christianity Jesus.
    3. messiah One who is anticipated as, regarded as, or professes to be a savior or liberator.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Messiah

    I hope the President “saves me” from being an uninsured, laid off person whose premature death is hastened by a lack of affordable health care.

  • October 16, 2009 at 12:21 pm
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No EDGE, you don’t understand the reason for the law in the first place. Give me the history of the case that caused the law and why it was passed. Give me the justification for turning over another industry to the feds, who simply do not regulate any industry properly. Do you want the same people regulating insurance as do the banks? Imperfect the system may be, turning over this law will not help. Just another talking point since the insurance companies turned on the health care legislation. Tell me how the feds will do it all so much better. You are deluding yourself if you believe it will actually help.

  • October 16, 2009 at 1:26 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If the antitrust law needs to go, then why is there a soft market and carriers are killing each other to get the lowest price.

    Wrong again liberals, This is retribution for the price waterhouse study that contrdicts the CBO report on the Baucus healthcare bull (I mean bill) It is an obvious abuse of power directed at an industry. If you question them they declare war on you. Didnt Mau se Tung do the same thing in 1949.

  • October 16, 2009 at 5:00 am
    Actuary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The idea is that without adequate loss and exposure numbers, you can’t come up with a rate. As we all know, companies with enough data don’t send their data to rating bureaus when not required to do so. Repealing this would screw the small companies with inadequate data.

    Furthermore, when you can’t justify your loss costs, you can set them at inadequate rates and the state would have no justification to say your rates are grossly inadequate since they will only be able to look at your data. Grossly inadequate rates will hurt the players that know what the adequate rates are since they’ll be assessed in the future.

    So insurance cycle 101: rates go down, companies become statutorily insolvent, rates go through the roof.

  • October 16, 2009 at 5:17 am
    Cicero says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Excellent point, Actuary, clearly put. Central Limit Theorem — it’s the Law!

  • October 16, 2009 at 6:34 am
    nobody important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    EDGE apparently doesn’t understand how the insurance rate mechanism requires loss results on large numbers. You can’t determine adequate rates from a small sample. The industries quoted as comparisons do not remotely resemble the insurance pricing mechanism. I learned that in a basic insurance course in college a long time ago,so it’s not too difficult to understand. Learn a little about something before setting yourself up as an “expert” EDGE.

  • October 19, 2009 at 9:01 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Plain and simple – Retribution for report on Healthcare by Price Waterhouse, done on behalf of insurance industry.

    ABUSE OF POWER!

    When has a president threatend an industry for complaining about legislation. When has a president come out publicly against a new network as the president did against Fox. This is against everything our country stands for. Free and open debate. I guess this is the change he was talking about.

  • October 19, 2009 at 9:22 am
    David says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Obama has done damage to this country? What damage? What government system, service, or process has he damaged? What has he really changed, for that matter? I have not seen any taxes go up either. The only damage I see is an increase in the paraniod rantings from the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world. The deal with the Administration on Anti-Trust is the question on whether the same conditions that warranted enacting McCarran-Furguson back in when it was enacted, exist today. It’s a fair question. Exempting anything from Anti-Trust laws is a big deal, genius. Given the Sh!! Storm of the last year-and-a-half it makes sense to raise the question. Like, you, I am not in favor of repeal either. But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The truly significant change brought on by this President is fear that the status-quo will be undone. The fear comes from unfounded, paranoid hysteria by a lunatic fringe centered in the talk radio/FOX segment.

  • October 19, 2009 at 10:53 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    David, Sounds like you are doing just great under this administration. I know you cant see any change yet, but here is the change so far. 1.4 trillion in 9 months in office. Largest prior deficit was 430 Billion under Bush 2008. So where is my tax break that 95% of us were supposed to get? (not going to happen) They reduced the withholding but not the tax rate. Oh so is it that we are about to socialize medicine maybe? or is it the communist Csar? Oh I know what has changed, We left Iraq…hmmm…. maybe not! and the transparency of government, you know that we are watching the bills be formed on Cspan. Yeah right, they are written in the back office with the special interest groups paying off senators and congressmen.

    David get your head out of your A$$.

  • October 19, 2009 at 11:18 am
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    David, if you don’t brush you teeth for months on end, you won’t see your teeth all fall out together but they have begun to rot and a year down the road they will start to loosen and eventually fall out. And you won’t even have a clue why.
    The Chicago thug has lowered the Presidency to new lows and will weaken our country by his antics that have no basis of fact in the real world and no logic as proven by History.
    You are happy to have your standards for all things lowered but I am not.
    You remind me of one of the three pigs that hadn’t a care until the wolf came. The wolves are baying at our door and we are denying that they are there.

  • October 19, 2009 at 11:33 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The main issue cited as the detriment to reomving the antitrust exemption is the sharing of data that currently exists. This is easily solved by having a federal government warehouse of this data that each company pays a proportional share to run via fees collected for each use of the data, but with FREE submission of data.

  • October 19, 2009 at 11:50 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sam – I think you need to get your head out of Rush Limbaugh’s a$$, first.

    The 1.4 trillion deficit is a RESULT of several PRIOR administrations policies of dergulation, including the terms of BUSH and CLINTON. In fact, during the CLINTON terms, the congress was made up of a republican majority which took the opportunity to eliminate or reduce various constraints on the Financial industry that were put there to protect the consumer and require reporting to allow oversight and enforcement. The Bush adminstration then took a position of “hands-off” on the regulatory enforecement, completing the cycle that has led to the current situation.

    Let’s also not forget that the deficit would not have been 400 billion had we not been in a war, so the first 400 billion CANNOT be attributable to the Obama administration.

    This whole ecomnic situation we are in today is a direct result of CONGRESS (not any specific president) playing politics and being concerned about getting re-elected, rather than working in the best interests of the ENTIRE country. The far LEFT and the far RIGHT are both NOT in the best interest of this country and that seems to be the elements driving our nation at this point.

  • October 19, 2009 at 2:35 am
    steve says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    P&C peple have nothing to fear……
    The clear target is the Health Insurance Co’s and it was done in retaliation for that piece of crap “study” put out by the health insurers after they got whupped in the Baucus committee vote.
    And that bill’s far right of every other one that passed Congress.
    A final bill will be alot more consumer-friendly and include the ONLY real vaible alternative, the public option, just like every other industialized country on the planet (except US) has.
    Obama finally got the spine to call them out on the anti-trust exemption and will basically tell the P&C folks that you can hang together (with the Health insurers) or you can hang seperately your choice.
    Already know what that choice will be. That kind of hardball that would make LBJ proud.
    You remember him, the one who in one an 18 month span created the landscape we’ve all lived in for the past 50 years.
    Well get ready for Version 2.0. When its all done it’ll be like stopping hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. You will wonder why you did something that incredibly stupid for so long.
    And regards the for-profit hospitals, med device/supply companies and *especially* big Pharma. Tuff stuff…..
    Couldnt happen to a nicer bunch of crooks.
    And the American people and the economy will be the ultimate vistors.

  • October 19, 2009 at 2:42 am
    Vlad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    …it must be great to live in happy fun town.
    Nothing has a cost and the government will give you everything!!!
    I plan to move there some day myself, but this whole personal responsibilty thing keeps holding me back.

  • October 19, 2009 at 5:31 am
    COAgent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Seems to me the problem with the banks was not enough regulation, not too much. Maybe our industry could benefit from that as well.

  • October 19, 2009 at 5:32 am
    CO Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “If the antitrust law needs to go, then why is there a soft market and carriers are killing each other to get the lowest price.”

    –Wrong, conservative. You are correct if you are speaking about the P&C industry, but DEAD WRONG when talking about the health insurance industry

  • October 20, 2009 at 9:56 am
    Rusty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So, another gov’t official wants to undo the McCarran Ferguson Act and regulate insurance itself. First of all, that violates the constitution which reserves for the states any power not specifically granted to the federal government. (Oh, wait! I forgot! Violation of the constitution is a daily exercise in our current federal government). Secondly, who says insurance isn’t competitive? What about all the auto insurance ads on TV? I see competition between companies inmy office every day. These bureaucrats and politicians live in a vacuum or some kind of make-believe world where the federal government has the answer for everything. They’d want to create a new deity – the government – which we will all be forced to worship and thank for everything we have, but from whose rules they, the ruling class, will be exempt. George Orwell – you were so right!

  • October 20, 2009 at 1:28 am
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Banks were regulated to make loans to persons who couldn’t pay them back in the interest of “fairness”(Socialism). More than half (60%)of the borrowers of the “regulated” mortgage loans never made the FIRST payment.
    So what happens (?), I get burdened with bailing out these irresponsible entities and crooks(Freddy Mac & Fanny Mae, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank) and the irresponsible “free-riders” with my taxes even tho I didn’t make an irresponsible loan and I pay my bills with NO government help.
    Common sense tells you this is not right unless you drink alot of Kool-Aide. Or you are a fat tick on a slim hound.

  • October 20, 2009 at 2:34 am
    Cicero says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I like that phrase, “fat tick on a slim hound.”

  • October 22, 2009 at 10:45 am
    R. C. Jackman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Yes, repeal the federal antitrust exemption. Remove the state protection for those nasty private insurance companies. Force them to compete across state lines. Let them suffer.

  • October 22, 2009 at 5:47 am
    Kevin McCarthy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Workers Compensation companies have been working to limit open access to public information for years. Their exemption under M-Ferguson allows them to collude together and then limit the public’s access to this openly available information. Many states have fought against this practice and now see declining rates (see Florida’s 6% rate decrease) but many still foster a non competitive market and let big insurance companies continue to control the market and overcharge every business in the state.

    Do we really need a 15% increase in our WC rates or has the price of flying around company executives on private planes gotten a little pricier…?

  • November 20, 2009 at 12:35 pm
    Citizen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It always puzzles me how the big free market advocates don’t really want a free market. Anti-trust laws prevent conduct that is contrary to the existence of a free market, which is based on competition. Price fixing supresses competition. Indeed, there are some here claiming that legislation designed to promote competition is socialist. Corporate America does not want a free market – it wants a market in which it is in control. Shoot, if insurance companies had to compete in pricing, they couldn’e afford to spend a million and a half dollars daily to defeat reform legislation.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*