House Votes 406 to 19 to Pass Insurance Antitrust Bill

[GroundedSailor]

Link

House Passes Insurance Antitrust Bill
By Emily P. Walker, Washington Correspondent, MedPage Today
Published: February 24, 2010


WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives voted 406 to 19 to pass a bill that would apply federal antitrust laws to the insurance industry.

Currently, insurance companies are exempt from antitrust laws that prohibit companies from sharing cost information. The bill would eliminate the insurance industry's 64-year-old exemption and authorize the federal government to investigate insurers who allegedly share information to set rates.

Supporters of the bill say insurers use the exemption to compare market prices and engage in price-fixing and bid-rigging on health insurance and medical liability policies.

When insurance companies set premiums based on what competitors are charging, patients get slapped with higher costs, and physicians must pay more money to get malpractice coverage, supporters of the bill say.

Opponents, including the insurance industry and some Republicans, argue that insurers are are not bid-rigging and say the bill would do nothing to lower costs.

The insurance industry's exemption from general federal prohibitions on price sharing stems from the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act. It was enacted under the theory that states could regulate the industry and didn't need the federal government.

But supporters of the bill say the lack of federal scrutiny has allowed insurance companies to secretly trade information with competitors in setting their own rates, causing insurance premiums to increase.

"This industry should play by the same rules as other industries, plain and simple," said Rep. Pete Defazio (D-Ore.)

President Barack Obama strongly supports the legislation, and the White House released an official statement to that end on Tuesday.

"The repeal of the antitrust exemption in the McCarran-Ferguson Act as it applies to the health insurance industry would give American families and businesses, big and small, more control over their own healthcare choices by promoting greater insurance competition," the statement said.

Democrats took turns on the House floor Wednesday promoting the bill, with many saying that removing the exemption for insurance companies will save consumers money.

However, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in 2009 determined "enacting the legislation would have no significant effect on the premiums that private insurers would charge for health insurance."

The insurance industry called the bill an attempt "to solve a problem that doesn't exist."

"The rhetoric surrounding repeal of McCarran-Ferguson does not match the reality of the situation," said Karen Ignagni, President and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), in a prepared statement.

"Health insurance is one of the most regulated industries in America at both the federal and the state levels. The Act is extremely limited in scope and has nothing to do with competition within the health insurance industry," she said.

House Democrats included a partial repeal of McCarran-Ferguson in their healthcare reform bill, but Senate Democrats did not. The Senate will now have to vote on the bill, and it's expected that a number of Republicans will oppose it.

The bill rode to passage on a swelling tide of resentment against the insurance industry following the announcement from Anthem Blue Cross that it would increase its premiums for individual insurance policies up to 39%.

An executive from Wellpoint, Anthem's parent company, told members of Congress on Wednesday that the higher premiums were justified by rising medical costs.

Obama has cited the soaring costs of insurance as evidence that healthcare reform -- or, as he often calls it, "insurance reform" -- is necessary. The White House is hosting a healthcare summit on Thursday with top lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

A step in the right direction.

While it may not make much of a difference, it's good for competition. Insurance co's should never have been allowed to behave like a cartel, yet because of this exemption they were allowed to. Thankfully states have, to some extent, curtailed that behavior.

 

[lothar]

Who are the 19 Representatives that voted against this?

 

[Slick5150]

The 19 biggest recipients of campaign contributions from the insurance industry most likely.

 

[MotF Bane]

Who are the 19 Representatives that voted against this?

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll064.xml

Edit: All Republicans.

 

[MotF Bane]

The 19 biggest recipients of campaign contributions from the insurance industry most likely.

Nope.

 

[lothar]

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll064.xml

Ron Paul?

 

[UberNeuman]

Who are the 19 Representatives that voted against this?

Rep. Todd Akin [R, MO-2]
Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8]
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
Rep. Stephen Buyer [R, IN-4]
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4]
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5]
Rep. John Linder [R, GA-7]
Rep. Jerry Moran [R, KS-1]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6]
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5]
Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R, KS-4]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3]

 

[lothar]

Rep. Todd Akin [R, MO-2]
Rep. John Boehner [R, OH-8]
Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8]
Rep. Paul Broun [R, GA-10]
Rep. Stephen Buyer [R, IN-4]
Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5]
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4]
Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5]
Rep. John Linder [R, GA-7]
Rep. Jerry Moran [R, KS-1]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]
Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6]
Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1]
Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5]
Rep. Todd Tiahrt [R, KS-4]
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3]

Thank you for your detailed list.
Can any Ron Paul advocates explain his vote?

 

[DrPizza]

The insurance industry called the bill an attempt "to solve a problem that doesn't exist."

Then the bill should be meaningless & they shouldn't care if it passes.

 

[bamacre]

Thank you for your detailed list.
Can any Ron Paul advocates explain his vote?

If you really need to ask, you don't know anything about Ron Paul.

 

[charrison]

Passing healthcare reform in little pieces. What a novel idea.

 

[Robor]

Passing healthcare reform in little pieces. What a novel idea.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

 

[lothar]

If you really need to ask, you don't know anything about Ron Paul.

So Ron Paul is against anti-trust provisions for all businesses, corporations, and industries?
If he is, why hasn't he introduced a bill in the House eliminating anti-trust provisions for other businesses and industries?

 

[Mxylplyx]

If you really need to ask, you don't know anything about Ron Paul.

Isnt that the whole point of asking??

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Seeing Boehner on that list is a real shock. Mr. Paul has some 'splaining to do.

 

[Descartes]

This move supports what I was thinking was the motivation all along with respect to healthcare reform. Shoot for the stars, maybe hit the tallest tree. The disparity of the larger healthcare reform package makes these moves seem simpler, and somehow more obvious and accepting, in contrast.

I think our leaders are smarter than we give them credit and the American public gets played. While we all sit around and argue minutiae, why you're right and everyone else is wrong, the chess game is being one by a pawn push and not a queen sacrifice.

Enjoy.

 

[Throckmorton]

Anthony Weiner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBqtyvn7OVw

 

[BoberFett]

Paul always votes No. It's just what he does.

 

[charrison]

You say that like it's a bad thing?

I have been saying that for a while now. The less a bill does the easier it is to pass. 2000 pages of reform just gets too many factions involved to pass.

 

[woolfe9999]

So Ron Paul is against anti-trust provisions for all businesses, corporations, and industries?

The short answer is yes, and his position on this goes back literally decades.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Anthony Weiner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBqtyvn7OVw

He, is who right here, and wants good policies isnot invited to the conference tomorrow while two Republicans whose plan is to get rid of the entire Medicare system are invited.

 

[ebaycj]

Thank you for your detailed list.
Can any Ron Paul advocates explain his vote?

I'm not a Ron Paul advocate, but I would imagine it stems from antitrust not being specifically mentioned in the constitution.

 

[GroundedSailor]

I'm not a Ron Paul advocate, but I would imagine it stems from antitrust not being specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

- To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
- To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .

It is the 'regulate Commerce' clause under which this act falls.

So while the constitution does not specifically address anti-trust issues, the commerce clause gives the Govt the right to pass laws which regulate commerce and this is one of them.

So if RP is using this as his logic he is wrong.


.

 

[StageLeft]

Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

- To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
- To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; . . .

It is the 'regulate Commerce' clause under which this act falls.

So while the constitution does not specifically address anti-trust issues, the commerce clause gives the Govt the right to pass laws which regulate commerce and this is one of them.

So if RP is using this as his logic he is wrong.


.

Probably the fact it's already not in it. He really does lack some imagination.

anti-trust seems common sense. I guess I'm surprised these companies didn't have to abide by it to begin with.

 

[theeedude]

Good step forward. Now get preexisting conditions exclusion prohibition passed.