Obama Backs Repeal of Health Insurers’ Antitrust Exemption

February 23, 2010

  • February 23, 2010 at 10:01 am
    Mike says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think that it goes without saying that something must be done, whether or not they are making the right decision in this case, I don’t know, but I think they need to do a lot more talking before taking any further action.
    Mike

  • February 24, 2010 at 9:11 am
    NW Insurance Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Everyone calm down and look at the issue.

    It’s not Democratic v Republicans, but what we experience is the worse economy of all times. Everyone is hurting but the health industry. Their extremes are making it hard on reputation of the P&C industry with the increases they take.

    Just look at your business. Payrolls are down, sales have declined for your insured’s, and host of business no longer exist. Even agencies are laying off staff; carriers have fewer employees than last year.

    Now look at the health industry. BCBS is protected as they built their profit built in into the rate formulas. They made over 2 Billion in the last quarter (compare that to your production). In addition, the executive compensation is out of control-just look at United Health Care.

    So when you start looking at who is bending who over, think twice. Sure I would like to increase premiums 40% as well, but I would be out of business.

    What BCBS has asked for is unrealistic and it doesn’t pass the smell test.

  • February 24, 2010 at 10:38 am
    reaper says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The Bamster is still peddaling his lies. He has the audacity to say this is about having more choices? Another example of how the president and his cronies believe we are stupid. This is nothing more than shoving down our throats a bill two thirds of the people don’t want.

  • February 24, 2010 at 1:00 am
    Joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Opening up to more and enhanced competition is a worthy goal and could help bring down pricing and increase innovation. However, the “anti trust” exemption actually creates more competition by allowing statistics to be more credible, spread around. This creates huge advantages to the big insurance companies who have their own data and eliminates almost all the innovative competition who cannot, by definition figure out their future claims costs.

  • February 24, 2010 at 1:42 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As has been the case from the beginning, this administration continues to mislead (lie to) the public into thinking that a LIMITED anti-trust exemption protects the insurance industry from anti-trust penalties – IT DOES NOT! It would be so easy for the administration to point out why this “limited” antitrust exemption was inacted over 60 years ago; the reason was good then, and it even more valid today.
    The reason was to increase competition by allowing insurers to share large pools of numbers/loss-expense data which would allow small, emerging or regional insurers to offer competitively priced products – without which, there would be much LESS competition. Such “truth” however is not in this administration. This is another
    witch-hunt, an effort to weaken the private insurance industry, and a distraction from the Demoncrat’s efforts toward its already rejected goals to nationalize healthcare for 300 million, when the admitted problem is insuring the 30 million uninsured. Explain to me again, why you have to destroy coverage for 270 million in order to find a way to cover the 30 million..?

  • February 24, 2010 at 2:12 am
    Eyes Open says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Americans understand what is going on. This administration (and the liberal side of congress) is just plain stupid.

    When are they going to tackle the real problem – the COST OF HEALTHCARE?

    They need to look at reducing or capping lawsuit payouts (which cause doctors to run unneeded tests so that they are covering their a#%), providing more tax incentives to those who purchase health insurance (including businesses that provide options for their employees), kicking illegal immigrants out of this country, starting programs that promote healthy living… and so on. Please let me know what else I am missing.

    At this point we are just going around in circles… Washington is a bunch of morons. Vote em out! (or at least half of them)

  • February 24, 2010 at 2:18 am
    Pat Beranger says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The administration should be forced to show evidence of price fixing and anti-competitive practices as opposed to spewing populist rhetoric. There is no evidence that a repeal would increase competition or choice. In fact, the opposite would absolutely occur.

    If the administration really wanted more choice and competition they would push to allow health insurers to write across state lines. Instead, this is about pandering for votes while increasing the reach of the federal government. Mr. President, the people are smarter than that.

  • February 24, 2010 at 2:18 am
    Missy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why should anybody believe or trust anything else from this administratin?

  • February 24, 2010 at 2:19 am
    Realist says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Then they would get fair treatment from this piss-poor administration made up of “scholars” who don’t have a clue how the real world works. Less than 7% have real world experience, like Van Jones and his ilk.
    Too bad for America.

  • February 24, 2010 at 2:23 am
    John says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As Bill said: …destroy coverage for 270 million in order to find a way to cover the 30 million..?

    My question is why does it cost 2.5 trillion in 10 years to insure 10 % of the population.
    The system needs fixed, but with incremental steps of minimal cost that have big impact.
    Junk lawsuits
    Medicare Fraud
    etc.

    If the Big O has to mother hen a group, improve county health and send these non insured there.

  • February 25, 2010 at 9:55 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Paul’s comments are on target as to what should be done; what I hope can be done; but that probably will not be done. These are the things that Republicans can and would support; however, Republicans will not support a complete dismantling of our private healthcare industry; an industry that is, by the way, still THE BEST in the world. Democrats do not want reform – they want control. They seek to destroy this segment of the private sector, and thus control $3 Trillion dollars a year they can steal, employ government cronies, and buy votes (as they have done Medicare and Social Security). The steps Paul mentioned would allow the private sector to rein in costs, and then the 30 million could be covered (with government help) without destroying coverage for 270 million. Democrats absolutely WILL NOT entertain tort reform, because tort reform would squeeze as much as 30% out of the costs – and we can’t have that, now can we!
    The hearings today will push the House and Senate versions, which the US public (70+%) has ALREADY rejected!

  • February 25, 2010 at 6:37 am
    Paul says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Washington is all about sound bites and then running for the hills when asked for in depth answers. To target the anti trust exemption sounds great but it is not the fix. Sharing of loss costs is critical to the health of the insurance buying public by providing more choices and actually increases competetion. We need to increase competition and rely on the creativity of the free market place:
    1. Provide health providers with tax incentives to upgrade technology to share medical information, procedures, records ect.
    2. Open the state borders to competetion
    3. Tort reform
    4. Standardize the health policy much like the auto policy
    5. Incentivise small health buying groups similar to the credit union movememt in the 30’s



Add a Comment

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

*