Health Care Bombshell - Thanks for reading
gray asphalt
that BP was British Petroleum so maybe this isn't news ...
The health insurance industry, along with major league
baseball, are the only two industries in the United States
with an anti-trust exemption.
Kommienezuspadt
"gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:GiPBm.13234$_l1....@newsfe06.iad...
It has worked out well for the insurance industry -- for the consumer - not
so much.
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4512 (20091015) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4512 (20091015) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
gray asphalt
"Kommienezuspadt" <nos...@nothanks.net> wrote in message
news:4ad7c6ef$0$22237$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> "gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GiPBm.13234$_l1....@newsfe06.iad...
>> Ok, I'm not the most imformed person. I didn't know
>> that BP was British Petroleum so maybe this isn't news ...
>>
>> The health insurance industry, along with major league
>> baseball, are the only two industries in the United States
>> with an anti-trust exemption.
>>
>>
>
>
> It has worked out well for the insurance industry -- for the consumer -
> not so much.
>
after a bill is through the finance committee. Some guy on
local talk said "that old thing" like it's no big deal.
I'm worried that health care is just like bank bailouts and
saving and loan scandal and billions of dollars missing in
military funds.
But on the other hand, I'm sure the money is being put in a
big fund to help vererans and the baby boomers retirement
and to save social security. Ha
BAR
says...
Sen. Harry Reid says the health care proposal coming form the Senate
will cost $2,000,000,000,000. It's caught on video too. Does that scare
you?
Do you like the proposal from some in the House that says open up
Medicare to everyone. The system already existst. The contracts are
negotiated with the doctors and hospitals. No massive overhaul of the
medical system. Just start pulling people into this "public option" now.
Howard Brazee
>Sen. Harry Reid says the health care proposal coming form the Senate
>will cost $2,000,000,000,000. It's caught on video too. Does that scare
>you?
Which is not saying that health care won't cost around that if the
bill isn't passed.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Kommienezuspadt
I'm a capitalist -- have been for 37+ years --- but I heard the other day
that the insurance industry takes in over 200 billion dollars in profits &
overhead out of health care every year. Imagine that amount -- it is over
twice what is being planned for giving coverage in the plans floating
around.
As for why now? I suspect it is partly fueled by anger over the insurance
industry using half truths with a purposely flawed study to try to keep a
strangle hold on their profits.
I keep waiting for the free market types to defend this protection -- but so
far I've only gotten insults from them -- must be they have not received
their orders.
Kommienezuspadt
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:l3ogd5pcn6rtdksuu...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 07:30:28 -0400, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
>
>>Sen. Harry Reid says the health care proposal coming form the Senate
>>will cost $2,000,000,000,000. It's caught on video too. Does that scare
>>you?
>
> Which is not saying that health care won't cost around that if the
> bill isn't passed.
>
or more.
The moderator
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
news:4ad86a2b$0$24351$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
Wow, that is disgusting! Now consider that the same thing is happening with
the bums that build hospitals, and the scum that manufacture beds, and the
schools that teach medicine.
We need the government to do everything for free.
The moderator
>
>>Sen. Harry Reid says the health care proposal coming form the Senate
>>will cost $2,000,000,000,000. It's caught on video too. Does that scare
>>you?
>
> Which is not saying that health care won't cost around that if the
> bill isn't passed.
Except that the government always underestimates the costs.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "gray asphalt" <dontwr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hySBm.11782$6q1....@newsfe17.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Kommienezuspadt" <nos...@nothanks.net> wrote in message
> >news:4ad7c6ef$0$22237$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
What % of total health care (actually delivered) do they cover for
that...and what % of total health care (actually delivered) does the
government cover...and what are the total costs of govt, including
*ALL* the bureaucracy and overhead involved, including fraud.
Dinosaur_Sr
Whatever it costs, it will be what the public is willing to pay rather
than what the government inposes.
Alan Baker
BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> In article <GiPBm.13234$_l1....@newsfe06.iad>, dont...@gmail.com
> says...
> >
> > Ok, I'm not the most imformed person. I didn't know
> > that BP was British Petroleum so maybe this isn't news ...
> >
> > The health insurance industry, along with major league
> > baseball, are the only two industries in the United States
> > with an anti-trust exemption.
>
> Sen. Harry Reid says the health care proposal coming form the Senate
> will cost $2,000,000,000,000. It's caught on video too. Does that scare
> you?
Is that per day? Per week? Per century?
>
> Do you like the proposal from some in the House that says open up
> Medicare to everyone. The system already existst. The contracts are
> negotiated with the doctors and hospitals. No massive overhaul of the
> medical system. Just start pulling people into this "public option" now.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
gray asphalt
"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:4ad87bd4$0$23769$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
What about the anti-trust exemption?
gray asphalt
"Dinosaur_Sr" <frostb...@att.net> wrote in message
news:f642eb6f-1149-4ca3...@e8g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
What about the anti-trust exemption. You believe in competition?
gray asphalt
"BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2542235f2...@news.giganews.com...
What about the anti-trust exemption that the
health insurance industry has?
gray asphalt
What about the anti-trust exemption the
health insurance industry has?
gray asphalt
"Alan Baker" <alang...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-F99F5...@news.shawcable.com...
What about the anti-trust exemption the heatlh insurere
have? I guess if no one cares then I'm free to play the
piano because there really is nothing that can be done.
Mass hypnosis?
Jack Hollis
<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What about the anti-trust exemption?
Federal anti-trust legislation covers all businesses engaged in
interstate commerce. Because health insurance companies are, by law,
not allowed to engage in interstate business they are exempt from
federal antitrust laws. However, state regulators have laws against
anti-competitive practices.
Actually, if the insurance industry were allowed to sell insurance
anywhere in the US they would lose their exemption from federal
antitrust laws. This is something that the industry would welcome.
However, in states where regulations have driven most of the companies
away, you can have only 5 or 6 companies left selling health
insurance. When the number of companies gets low, it's easier for
them to collude with each other.
This can cause problems for the physicians as well. If you have two
companies controlling over two thirds of the business, it's almost
impossible for the doctors not to join these network. The doctors
have to take what these companies offer.
Howard Brazee
traced to government laws. Wage freezes in WWII led to employer
subsidized health care in the first place (before taxes). The
expenses of workman's compensation and health care can be very heavy
for small business. But that's where we are.
I want whatever happens to make it easier for small business to hire
people.
Carbon
> The health insurance industry, along with major league baseball, are
> the only two industries in the United States with an anti-trust
> exemption.
All you free market libertarians must think this is wrong, correct?
Frank Ketchum
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4ad9af97$0$5077$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Correct. What is your point?
Frank Ketchum
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
news:4ad86a2b$0$24351$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
>
> that the insurance industry takes in over 200 billion dollars in profits &
> overhead out of health care every year. Imagine that amount -- it is over
> twice what is being planned for giving coverage in the plans floating
> around.
>
> As for why now? I suspect it is partly fueled by anger over the insurance
> industry using half truths with a purposely flawed study to try to keep a
> strangle hold on their profits.
>
> I keep waiting for the free market types to defend this protection -- but
> so far I've only gotten insults from them -- must be they have not
> received their orders.
You keep waiting for free market types to defend what? The anti trust laws
for insurance?
Free market types do not believe in anti trust laws so you won't find any
defending it.
And you claim you are a capitalist but not a free market type? Amusing.
Frank Ketchum
>
> What about the anti-trust exemption that the
> health insurance industry has?
Repeal them. Let the health insurance industry companies sink or swim based
on the free market without government protection.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
This is so silly, the insurance business does not have any special
exemption form anti trust laws. They're exempt because the law
mandates that the states regulate the insurance business.
The insurance business would love to get out from under 50 different
state regulatory agencies and become federally regulated. Of course,
this wont happen because it would put too many lawyers out of
business.
Dinosaur_Sr
> "BAR" <sc...@you.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.2542235f2...@news.giganews.com...
>
>
>
> > says...
>
> >> Ok, I'm not the most imformed person. I didn't know
> >> that BP was British Petroleum so maybe this isn't news ...
>
> >> The health insurance industry, along with major league
> >> baseball, are the only two industries in the United States
> >> with an anti-trust exemption.
>
> > Sen. Harry Reid says the health care proposal coming form the Senate
> > will cost $2,000,000,000,000. It's caught on video too. Does that scare
> > you?
>
> > Do you like the proposal from some in the House that says open up
> > Medicare to everyone. The system already existst. The contracts are
> > negotiated with the doctors and hospitals. No massive overhaul of the
> > medical system. Just start pulling people into this "public option" now.
>
> What about the anti-trust exemption that the
> health insurance industry has?
What about it? What about the anti trust exemption the government has?
Why not have competing federal governments? If you want to know why
there is an anti trust for the health insurance industry, look up the
legislation and see what it says.
Dinosaur_Sr
Now hush! These guys don't believe in a system where the federal
government doesn't have unfettered powers!
Kommienezuspadt
"Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote in message
news:EKiCm.31707$QG1....@newsfe23.iad...
I have yet to see one Repub say he supports repealing the law -- have you?
Kommienezuspadt
"Jack Hollis" <xsle...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:i7pjd55q7cn57rvgv...@4ax.com...
Why haven't they put their muscle to getting it out of the way?
Are you saying they have no power?
Jack Hollis
<NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>I have yet to see one Repub say he supports repealing the law -- have you?
The insurence industry would love to become federally regulated
instead of having to deal with 50 different state regulatory agencies.
In addition, there are some federal laws regulating the health
insurance business with COBRA and HIPAA being the most well-known.
I'm in favor of people being able to buy insurance out of state which
would automatically bring health insurance under all federal laws
including anti-trust laws.
This is all complete bullshit because the purpose of the 1945 law was
to give states the power to regulate insurance, not to exempt the
industry from federal anti-trust legislation.
Jack Hollis
<NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>> The insurance business would love to get out from under 50 different
>> state regulatory agencies and become federally regulated. Of course,
>> this wont happen because it would put too many lawyers out of
>> business.
>
>Why haven't they put their muscle to getting it out of the way?
>
>Are you saying they have no power?
The forces against such a move are greater than the forces in favor of
it. If they closed down 50 state insurance regulatory boards it would
put a lot of public employees out of work. Many of them are union
members and there are a lot of lawyers there as well.
When's the last time you saw the government do anything that reduced
the size of the public workforce?
Kommienezuspadt
I will rephrase -- have you seen a single elected Repub say he/she supports
tossing this law out?
Please tell us all who & where you found it.
Kommienezuspadt
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:23:41 -0400, "Kommienezuspadt"
> <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>
>>> The insurance business would love to get out from under 50 different
>>> state regulatory agencies and become federally regulated. Of course,
>>> this wont happen because it would put too many lawyers out of
>>> business.
>>
>>Why haven't they put their muscle to getting it out of the way?
>>
>>Are you saying they have no power?
>
> The forces against such a move are greater than the forces in favor of
> it. If they closed down 50 state insurance regulatory boards it would
> put a lot of public employees out of work. Many of them are union
> members and there are a lot of lawyers there as well.
So - you are saying theunions are too tough.
>
> When's the last time you saw the government do anything that reduced
> the size of the public workforce?
military reductions.
Jack Hollis
<NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>I will rephrase -- have you seen a single elected Repub say he/she supports
>tossing this law out?
If insurance companies were allowed to sell across state lines they
would come under federal anti-trust laws. Most Republicans favor
allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines.
However, I don't think you would find many Republicans who would
support a law imposing federal anti-trust laws on a business that does
not engage in interstate commerce.
It's not a big deal because it would just give the federal government
the right to do what the state regulatory agencies already do.
Kommienezuspadt
I'll take that as a no.
Jack Hollis
<NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote:
>So - you are saying theunions are too tough.
>>
>> When's the last time you saw the government do anything that reduced
>> the size of the public workforce?
>
>military reductions.
I'll give you military reduction after WW2, Korea and after the Cold
War. Other than that, reductions in the size of the government are
rare.
You also have to remember that the government hires lots of private
contractors who are not counted on the official rolls of civil
servants. At one time, there were more federally funded private
contractors in Iraq than US military personnel.
Kommienezuspadt
Halliburton thanks all of us for that -- they did such a fine job.
Maybe some of them could find the biilions Bremer lost over there.
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 4518 (20091017) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4518 (20091017) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Howard Brazee
industries. Our Congress Critters know who they work for, and they
will continue to make sure that the money keeps coming.
gray asphalt
__________________________
This is why there isn't real competition in the
health care business. It has a government sanctioned
monopoly. Look it up? You've got to be kidding. And
you're for legitimate competiton in the "free market"?
Did you know there was an exemption against monopoly
for health care companies?
gray asphalt
we are doing health care reform while giving the
health care companies exemptions against monopoly,
ie anti-trust legislation.
gray asphalt
Didn't you say that your wife works in the health care
industry? And you are willing to state that there is no
anti-trust exemption for health care, along with major
league baseball, the only two exemptions in the entire
US?
gray asphalt
So who is stupid, stupid enough, knowing about the
monopoly exemption, to think there is any such thing
as health care reform? The government is keeping
companies that could compete from having a fair shot.
No?
gray asphalt
I think you are absolutely wrong. But I hope not,
because if you are right then I can leave this subject
and never concern myself with politics. With Jack
Abraboff as my witness.
gray asphalt
Where can we find a copy of the law? If you are right we
can all right off MSNBC, if we haven't already.
gray asphalt
Thanks. That's what I was trying to say.
gray asphalt
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:40:04 -0700, "gray asphalt"
> <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>What about the anti-trust exemption?
>
> Federal anti-trust legislation covers all businesses engaged in
> interstate commerce. Because health insurance companies are, by law,
> not allowed to engage in interstate business they are exempt from
> federal antitrust laws. However, state regulators have laws against
> anti-competitive practices.
>
> Actually, if the insurance industry were allowed to sell insurance
> anywhere in the US they would lose their exemption from federal
> antitrust laws. This is something that the industry would welcome.
>
> However, in states where regulations have driven most of the companies
> away, you can have only 5 or 6 companies left selling health
> insurance. When the number of companies gets low, it's easier for
> them to collude with each other.
>
> This can cause problems for the physicians as well. If you have two
> companies controlling over two thirds of the business, it's almost
> impossible for the doctors not to join these network. The doctors
> have to take what these companies offer.
>
I hope this aspect gets really looked at. You seem to be
an important part of the discussion. I'm not sure if your
information is rationalization bs or truth. It will be interesting
and game changing for me.
Carbon
My point is that the libertarians here go on and on about the magical
properties of free-market capitalism as it applies to big healthcare,
when in fact big healthcare is completely free to game the system at no
risk to itself. Obviously there is no legitimate competition in the US
healthcare system. It's a cartel.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>This can cause problems for the physicians as well. If you have two
>companies controlling over two thirds of the business, it's almost
>impossible for the doctors not to join these network. The doctors
>have to take what these companies offer.
An example is comparing the number of physicians that accept Medicare
and those who don't.
On the other hand, it may be compared to having companies such as
Fannie Mae controlling home mortgages - but not really.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>The insurance business would love to get out from under 50 different
>state regulatory agencies and become federally regulated. Of course,
>this wont happen because it would put too many lawyers out of
>business.
Some of this argument is whether we're better off with states doing
the regulation or whether the states are continuing to be more
irrelevant. It was just in the last decade or two that my state
(Colorado), legalized branch banking. Big businesses likes having
only one place to spend their lobbying dollars, and don't care for
small business competing with them.
Those in favor of federal power should vote against states making
their own choices.
Jack Hollis
I would take that as a yes and a no.
Jack Hollis
<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>This is why there isn't real competition in the
>health care business. It has a government sanctioned
>monopoly. Look it up? You've got to be kidding. And
>you're for legitimate competiton in the "free market"?
>
>Did you know there was an exemption against monopoly
>for health care companies?
Complete nonsense. There are over 1000 companies selling health
insurance in the US.
Jack Hollis
<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Didn't you say that your wife works in the health care
>industry? And you are willing to state that there is no
>anti-trust exemption for health care, along with major
>league baseball, the only two exemptions in the entire
>US?
The insurance industry are subject to state anti-trust laws.
Jack Hollis
<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I think you are absolutely wrong. But I hope not,
>because if you are right then I can leave this subject
>and never concern myself with politics. With Jack
>Abraboff as my witness.
I can assure you that staes insurance regulations include unfair
competition laws.
Jack Hollis
<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Where can we find a copy of the law? If you are right we
>can all right off MSNBC, if we haven't already.
It's not that hard to find.
Jack Hollis
wrote:
>>The insurance business would love to get out from under 50 different
>>state regulatory agencies and become federally regulated. Of course,
>>this wont happen because it would put too many lawyers out of
>>business.
>
>Some of this argument is whether we're better off with states doing
>the regulation or whether the states are continuing to be more
>irrelevant. It was just in the last decade or two that my state
>(Colorado), legalized branch banking. Big businesses likes having
>only one place to spend their lobbying dollars, and don't care for
>small business competing with them.
Most of the problems are created by the state regulators. If they
would allow people to buy insurance from any company in the US, health
insurance prices would go down. Right now, in many states, people are
forced to buy high priced coverage that they would rather not pay for.
In NY State I have to pay for things like acupuncture, treatment for
autism and a host of other benefits I neither want or will ever need.
If they get rid of mandated coverage everyone can buy the insurance
that they want and not be forced to pay for things they don't want.
bkn...@conramp.net
wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:15:52 -0700, "gray asphalt"
Columbia? English major I presume. :-)
BK
Frank Ketchum
>
> My point is that the libertarians here go on and on about the magical
> properties of free-market capitalism as it applies to big healthcare,
> when in fact big healthcare is completely free to game the system at no
> risk to itself. Obviously there is no legitimate competition in the US
> healthcare system. It's a cartel.
The problem is that you apparently think we have a true free market system
in healthcare. We don't, we have bits and pieces of a free market operating
underneath massive regulations and protections. Remove the laws that
interfere with free market functioning of the healthcare system, let me as
the consumer buy any level of health insurance I want from any company
willing to sell it to me (you know, like we do with auto insurance,
homeowners insurance, disability insurance, life insurance etc), change the
tax code so that the only realistic way for insurance to be provided is
through employers and you will be closer to a true free market. You will
have better health care as well.
The current proposals all just heap on loads of new regulations further
removing the healthcare system from market forces.
With your comment that we don't have legitimate competition, are you
implying that you wish government to enter into the game to compete with the
private sector insurance providers?
Frank Ketchum
"Kommienezuspadt" <NoS...@NoThanks.net> wrote in message
>
> I'll take that as a no.
Why does this matter so much? Republicans have no power to stop any of this
legislation in the house, senate, or white house. Why does the left care so
much about what Republicans are doing when they don't need a single
Republican vote to implement their policies?
Howard Brazee
<nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>Why does this matter so much? Republicans have no power to stop any of this
>legislation in the house, senate, or white house. Why does the left care so
>much about what Republicans are doing when they don't need a single
>Republican vote to implement their policies?
In politics, perception is very important.
assim...@borg.org
On 18-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Where can we find a copy of the law?
The US Code?
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 18-Oct-2009, "Frank Ketchum" <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
> change the
> tax code so that the only realistic way for insurance to be provided is
> through employers
I'm sure this is not what you meant as it is what we have now.
--
bill-o
Jack Hollis
No, I majored in Ebonics, so any form of the verb "to be" is correct.
Besides, Ivy League Scholars are well beyond the conventions of
everyday grammar.
gray asphalt
I didn't even know it existed and wouldn't be sure
it was "the" law they are talking about. So, if it's
that easy and you aren't bs-ing, please give me a
general where and how to be sure that it's the real
thing under discussion.
Carbon
I do not think there is a true free market system in healthcare. In fact
I believe it's irrational to think such a thing is even possible in this
day and age. As has happended with the banking industry, reducing
regulation in the healthcare industry would just bring more bad more
quickly.
For the past hundred years at least, the only way to prevent the big
players in any industry from limiting competition and arbitrarily
raising prices was through antitrust legislation. Of course, big
healthcare managed to buy itself an exemption from these pesky legal
considerations, with completely predictable results.
William Clark
Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:51:02 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:27:41 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsle...@aol.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:15:52 -0700, "gray asphalt"
> >><dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Didn't you say that your wife works in the health care
> >>>industry? And you are willing to state that there is no
> >>>anti-trust exemption for health care, along with major
> >>>league baseball, the only two exemptions in the entire
> >>>US?
> >>
> >>The insurance industry are subject to state anti-trust laws.
> >
> >Columbia? English major I presume. :-)
> >
> >BK
>
>
> No, I majored in Ebonics, so any form of the verb "to be" is correct.
>
> Besides, Ivy League Scholars are well beyond the conventions of
> everyday grammar.
But you do know, don't you, that Jack went to "Columbia"? Or so he
claimed, and we all believe him on that. don't we?
gray asphalt
When you have lobbyists and special interest
legislation there will be no free market. Libertarian
ideas are just that, ideas. Not pragmatic. Perfection
that gets in the way of the doable. Escapism, imo.
They do need to be heard,though, but not treated as
a realistic possibility, imo.
Frank Ketchum
<assim...@borg.org> wrote in message
news:4adba897$0$5540$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
Yeah, that should be "is not through employers"
The moderator
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:aromd51mbn0g89ccb...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 12:06:31 -0400, "Frank Ketchum"
> <nos...@thanksanyway.com> wrote:
>
>>Why does this matter so much? Republicans have no power to stop any of
>>this
>>legislation in the house, senate, or white house. Why does the left care
>>so
>>much about what Republicans are doing when they don't need a single
>>Republican vote to implement their policies?
>
> In politics, perception is very important.
That is how we ended up with Obama.
Jack Hollis
<dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Jack Hollis" <xsle...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:qfdmd591lau9qfot3...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:21:24 -0700, "gray asphalt"
>> <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Where can we find a copy of the law? If you are right we
>>>can all right off MSNBC, if we haven't already.
>>
>> It's not that hard to find.
>
>I didn't even know it existed and wouldn't be sure
>it was "the" law they are talking about. So, if it's
>that easy and you aren't bs-ing, please give me a
>general where and how to be sure that it's the real
>thing under discussion.
This is probably more than you ever wanted to know about insurance
law, but this is an "objective" evaluation of the McCarran-Ferguson
Act of 1945 from a Legal Encyclopedia.
Considering the current political climate, there's lots of spin going
around on this issue that is full of misinformation.
"The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 (15 U.S.C.A. � 1011 et seq.) gives
states the authority to regulate the "business of insurance" without
interference from federal regulation, unless federal law specifically
provides otherwise.
The act provides that the "business of insurance, and every person
engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States
which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business." Congress
passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act primarily in response to the Supreme
Court case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322
U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162, 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944). Before the
South-Eastern Under-writers case, the issuing of an insurance policy
was not thought to be a transaction in commerce, which would subject
the insurance industry to federal regulation under the COMMERCE
CLAUSE. In South-Eastern Underwriters, the Court held that an
insurance company that conducted substantial business across state
lines was engaged in interstate commerce and thus was subject to
federal antitrust regulations. Within a year of South-Eastern
Underwriters, Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act in response
to states' concerns that they no longer had broad authority to
regulate the insurance industry in their boundaries.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act provides that state law shall govern the
regulation of insurance and that no act of Congress shall invalidate
any state law unless the federal law specifically relates to
insurance. The act thus mandates that a federal law that does not
specifically regulate the business of insurance will not PREEMPT a
state law enacted for that purpose. A state law has the purpose of
regulating the insurance industry if it has the "end, intention or aim
of adjusting, managing, or controlling the business of insurance"
(U.S. Dept. of Treasury v. Fabe, 508 U.S. 491, 113 S. Ct. 2202, 124 L.
Ed. 2d 449 [1993]).
The act does not define the key phrase "business of insurance."
Courts, however, analyze three factors when determining whether a
particular commercial practice constitutes the business of insurance:
whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading a
policy-holder's risk, whether the practice is an integral part of the
policy relationship between the insurer and the insured, and whether
the practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry
(Union Labor Life Insurance Co. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119, 102 S. Ct.
3002, 73 L. Ed. 2d 647 [1982]).
The McCarran-Ferguson Act does not prevent the federal government from
regulating the insurance industry. It provides only that states have
broad authority to regulate the insurance industry unless the federal
government enacts legislation specifically intended to regulate
insurance and to displace state law. The McCarran-Ferguson Act also
provides that the SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST ACT OF 1890, 15 U.S.C.A. � 1 et
seq., the CLAYTON ACT OF 1914, 15 U.S.C.A. � 12 et seq., and the
Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C.A. �� 41�51, apply to
the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not
regulated by state law.
Courts have distinguished between the general regulatory exemption of
the McCarran-Ferguson Act and the separate exemption provided for the
Sherman Act, which is the federal ANTITRUST LAW. Cases involving the
applicability of the Sherman Act to state-regulated insurance
practices take a narrower approach to the phrase "business of
insurance" and apply the three criteria set forth in the Pireno case.
In other cases that do not involve the federal antitrust exemption of
the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the Supreme Court takes a broader approach.
It has thus defined laws enacted for the purpose of regulating the
business of insurance to include laws "aimed at protecting or
regulating the performance of an insurance contract" (Fabe). Insurance
activities that fall within this broader definition of the business of
insurance include those that involve the relationship between insurer
and insured, the type of policies issued, and the policies'
reliability, interpretation, and enforcement (Securities & Exchange
Commission v. National Securities, 393 U.S. 453, 89 S. Ct. 564, 21 L.
Ed. 2d 668 [1969])."
http://law.jrank.org/pages/8497/McCarran-Ferguson-Act-1945.html
One of the most important provisions of the law is in the passage that
follows.
"The McCarran-Ferguson Act also provides that the SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST
ACT OF 1890, 15 U.S.C.A. � 1 et seq., the CLAYTON ACT OF 1914, 15
U.S.C.A. � 12 et seq., and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914,
15 U.S.C.A. �� 41�51, apply to the business of insurance to the extent
that such business is not regulated by state law."
This means that if the state does not regulate against anti-trust
activities of insurance companies, they are not exempt from federal
anti-trust laws.
gray asphalt
> that such business is not regulated by state law."
>
>
> This means that if the state does not regulate against anti-trust
> activities of insurance companies, they are not exempt from federal
> anti-trust laws.
That is exactly what I want. I thank you.
Kommienezuspadt
"The moderator" <no_spam_@no_mail.com> wrote in message
news:4adc7da6$0$23760$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
yes -- the voters were very perceptive -- they took one look at Bailin'
Palin and knew there was NO WAY.
assim...@borg.org
On 19-Oct-2009, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> I do not think there is a true free market system in healthcare. In fact
> I believe it's irrational to think such a thing is even possible in this
> day and age. As has happended with the banking industry, reducing
> regulation in the healthcare industry would just bring more bad more
> quickly.
I believe you are in error here. First of all, there has been very little
de-regulation in the banking industry; it is still the most regulated
industry in the US & secondly, the healthcare industry is not different by
nature, it is different because we have made it so; it is also dysfunctional
because we have made it so: http://tinyurl.com/lquswk
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 19-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When you have lobbyists and special interest
> legislation there will be no free market. Libertarian
> ideas are just that, ideas. Not pragmatic. Perfection
> that gets in the way of the doable. Escapism, imo.
> They do need to be heard,though, but not treated as
> a realistic possibility, imo.
Like any ideals, they are goals to strive for. But you are right, man will
never have totally free markets.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
the senate version of health care "reform" in all its <cough, cough> glory!
http://tinyurl.com/ykkm7lt
--
bill-o
Carbon
john
You need an impartial government to keep the playing field level, with
*huge* fines for anti-trust infractions. Getting evidence of price
fixing is extremely difficult, so when you do get it you have to land
on the offenders like a ton of bricks, not a million dollar fine
(peanuts).
If libertarians don't believe government should be able to do that, then
I agree with gray asphalt that the philosophy is "escapism". Bullshit
too. Adam Smith saw the problem, he just didn't know what to do - so
he suggested "not encouraging businessmen to have meetings". LOL.
We know what to do now though. Tough laws against price fixing. Very
punishing penalties. That would send a message and keep the players
honest, if it was done. If it happened, we wouldn't have totally free
markets, but they would be a hell of a lot free-er than they were
before. They would keep getting free-er as time went on.
If Congress can be bought like a cheap hooker, all bets are *off*.
Government has to exist, be competent, be impartial and enforce laws
that shore up the "primitive" perfectly competitive model. Another big
area is *pollution*. Nothing in the market economy will naturally
correct the damage that a conscience-free polluter will do. If you
want clean rivers, you need government to enforce anti pollution laws.
If you want to know where to start, try this: think about it. How to
get an honest legislature and executive elected?
Go for it. Accomplish something useful. Talking about libertarianism
is just painfully fucking stupid in this day and age. Business is now
gaming the system big time. Starting with Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation's program. Hey, we can make big bets and if they lose, the
guv'mint picks up the tab! Free money! Price fixing in the markets is
big money too, but chump change compared to what the financial boys
have accomplished (twice now. remember the Savings and Loan Crisis?)
Anyway, good luck. Bill-o, if you are going to respond with some
one-liner, save it.
Dinosaur_Sr
> assimil...@borg.org wrote:
Good points, at least IMHO. One of the benefits of democracy is that
you can get rid of govts if they get too corrupt. Not perfect, but
better than any alternative.
gray asphalt
<assim...@borg.org> wrote in message
news:4add2f38$0$32471$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
The markets are getting less free, no?
gray asphalt
<assim...@borg.org> wrote in message
news:4add2ef3$0$32465$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...
Credible sources have railed against the banking
industry and the investment industry being able to
cross over. Reportedly this started in the Clinton
administration. Wasn't this one of the things that
Henry Gonzalez, the chair of the house banking
committee, would not allow?
Jack Hollis
<frostb...@att.net> wrote:
>Good points, at least IMHO. One of the benefits of democracy is that
>you can get rid of govts if they get too corrupt. Not perfect, but
>better than any alternative.
Or, as Al Smith said, "The cure for the ills of democracy is more
democracy."
Jack Hollis
>If you want to know where to start, try this: think about it. How to
>get an honest legislature and executive elected?
Step 1, ban all political contributions from any source.
Carbon
> On 19-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When you have lobbyists and special interest legislation there will
>> be no free market. Libertarian ideas are just that, ideas. Not
>> pragmatic. Perfection that gets in the way of the doable. Escapism,
>> imo. They do need to be heard,though, but not treated as a realistic
>> possibility, imo.
>
> Like any ideals, they are goals to strive for.
May I ask why, since you yourself concede that free markets are
impossible?
assim...@borg.org
On 20-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Credible sources have railed against the banking
> industry and the investment industry being able to
> cross over.
Cedible sources? If they are so credible, cite them
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 20-Oct-2009, "gray asphalt" <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The markets are getting less free, no?
it seems that way, hopefully a temporary trend.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 20-Oct-2009, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> When you have lobbyists and special interest legislation there will
> >> be no free market. Libertarian ideas are just that, ideas. Not
> >> pragmatic. Perfection that gets in the way of the doable. Escapism,
> >> imo. They do need to be heard,though, but not treated as a realistic
> >> possibility, imo.
> >
> > Like any ideals, they are goals to strive for.
>
> May I ask why, since you yourself concede that free markets are
> impossible
Do you not have ideals you strive to acheive, like, I dunno, a single digit
handicap, no matter how impossible?
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 20-Oct-2009, john <jo...@somewhere.net> wrote:
> You need an impartial government to keep the playing field level,
for gov't to remain impartial it must be small; as it's size and power grows
it cannot resist the temptation to "control" everything.
>We know what to do now though. Tough laws against price fixing. Very
>punishing penalties. That would send a message and keep the players
>honest, if it was done. If it happened, we wouldn't have totally free
>markets, but they would be a hell of a lot free-er than they were
>before. They would keep getting free-er as time went on.
I'm not sure what your hang up on price fixing is; as problems go it is not
a huge one and competition rules out such behavior, not absolutely, but
minimizes it.
> If Congress can be bought like a cheap hooker, all bets are *off*.
Please you insult cheap hookers everywhere!
> Government has to exist, be competent, be impartial and enforce laws
> that shore up the "primitive" perfectly competitive model.
Agreed, the minimal gov't that can do this is ideal; what we have now is the
self-perpetuating blob.
> Another big
> area is *pollution*. Nothing in the market economy will naturally
> correct the damage that a conscience-free polluter will do. If you
> want clean rivers, you need government to enforce anti pollution laws.
I don't agree; gov't should have some role, setting standards & enforcement,
but the extreme we have gotten ourselves into these days is that gov't is
prohibiting essential activities because something "might" happen (oil
drilling off CA) & people are being denying the right to use their property
as they see fit.
> How to get an honest legislature and executive elected?
Stop rewarding the crooked ones?
> Talking about libertarianism
> is just painfully fucking stupid in this day and age. Business is now
> gaming the system big time.
This has been going on since the turn of the century, at least, and you are
just noticing? No, not talking about libertarianism is stupid since the
governmental-regulatory state is screwing things up so royally. In a
libertarian state big business would have to compete, not rent seek.
> Starting with Federal Deposit Insurance
> Corporation's program. Hey, we can make big bets and if they lose, the
> guv'mint picks up the tab! Free money! Price fixing in the markets is
> big money too, but chump change compared to what the financial boys
> have accomplished (twice now. remember the Savings and Loan Crisis?)
& what does this have to do with libertarianism? Except to show that the
status quo doesn't work & maybe we should move towards freer markets?
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 19-Oct-2009, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
Glass-Steagall is the scapegoat that the pols hide behind hoping no one will
notice what they've done.
--
bill-o
BAR
nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com says...
You will never be a success in life so you might as well terminate it
now.
Carbon
> On 19-Oct-2009, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> little de-regulation in the banking industry; it is still the most
>>> regulated industry in the US
>>
>
> Glass-Steagall is the scapegoat that the pols hide behind hoping no
> one will notice what they've done.
You claimed there was very little deregulation in the banking industry.
This is wrong. Repealing Glass_Steagall in 1999 did indeed deregulate
the banking industry, enabling the financial shenanigans that led to the
recent banking crisis.
Carbon
I did strive to be a single digit handicapper--a reasonable goal--which
I achieved after some struggle. I did not strive to be 11 feet tall, or
to be anything else which was clearly impossible.
assim...@borg.org
On 21-Oct-2009, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > Glass-Steagall is the scapegoat that the pols hide behind hoping no
> > one will notice what they've done.
>
> You claimed there was very little deregulation in the banking industry.
> This is wrong. Repealing Glass_Steagall in 1999 did indeed deregulate
> the banking industry, enabling the financial shenanigans that led to the
> recent banking crisis.
what do you know about banking regulation? Calling the repeal of
Glass-Steagall deregulation may be technically correct as it removed a small
burden from some banks, but substantively it was nothing.
--
bill-o
assim...@borg.org
On 21-Oct-2009, BAR <sc...@you.com> wrote:
> > > Like any ideals, they are goals to strive for.
> >
> > May I ask why, since you yourself concede that free markets are
> > impossible?
>
> You will never be a success in life so you might as well terminate it
> now.
Exactly
--
bill-o
Carbon
Wrong again. http://tinyurl.com/6nedcs
assim...@borg.org
On 22-Oct-2009, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > what do you know about banking regulation? Calling the repeal of
> > Glass-Steagall deregulation may be technically correct as it removed a
> > small burden from some banks, but substantively it was nothing.
>
> Wrong again. http://tinyurl.com/6nedcs
There is no substance here. It is all conjecture and just axe-grinding
bullsh*t. Please feel free to post something with substance.
This NYT art has a point though, http://tinyurl.com/yg369lw
it isn't completely right. why? not one thing caused the bubble, there were
many factors. Glass-Steagall was not a major factor. Others:
Fed Policy: http://tinyurl.com/yg369lw
GSEs and the CRA: http://tinyurl.com/4z29ow
--
bill-o
gray asphalt
I've asked this question before ... If I take the
time to find the sources will it make any difference
to your point of view? What difference will it make?
<assim...@borg.org> wrote in message
news:4adeaedc$0$32474$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com...