Comments on: Dems vs. Insurance Industry, Round II

By: qofdisks

qofdisks — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 04:45:52 +0000

Just because it has been going on for so long doesn't mean it is righteous nor does it mean we can continue to afford it. What's wrong? Competition not capitalistic enough? We need the public option based on Medicare rates. Standard rates nationally can save a tremendous amount to money in bureaucracy alone. It would streamline the system making it far more efficient. Costs would become mathematically predictable.

By: qofdisks

qofdisks — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:45:52 +0000

By: qofdisks

qofdisks — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:45:52 +0000

By: DanEhrig

DanEhrig — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:06:43 +0000

The exemption has always been a sleazy quid pro quo deal between the insurance industry and congress. The quid in this case was the insurance industry not being assholes to congress. The quo was the anti-trust exemption which really had no reason to exist and is unarguably detrimental to the US as a whole.

By: Dr_Benway

Dr_Benway — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:56:51 +0000

As Christine Varney, assistant attorney general in DOJ’s antitrust division noted “When you don’t have to compete, you can get pretty big profit margins” – which obviously proved to be helpful when it came to the insurance industry having $8.4 million to buy off 'our' representatives in Congress.

By: Vince Ramos

Vince Ramos — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:42:24 +0000

The McCarran-Ferguson Act resulted from a 1944 Supreme Court decision in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association (http://supreme.justia.com/us/322/533/case.html) that was on appeal from a district court located in North Georgia. The South-Eastern Underwriters Association controlled 90 percent of the market for fire and other insurance lines in six southern states and set rates at non-competitive levels (it also used intimidation, boycotts and other coercive tactics to maintain its monopoly). The question before the Court was whether or not insurance was a form of "interstate commerce" which could be regulated under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The general opinion in law before this case, according to the Court, was that the business of insurance was not commerce, and the District Court concurred with the opinion.

By: JoMa

JoMa — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:47:42 +0000

Seems to me this 1945 law, enacted under a Democratic President (H. S. Truman) could have been repealed anytime during the ensuing 70 years. Why is this now being cites as a big deal? Are they grabbing at straws?

By: JoMa

JoMa — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:41:10 +0000

Better yet, tax the lawmakers who receive the – ah – “contributions” at 90%. Its time these sleaze-bags represent the people, not the special interests.

By: derekbill

derekbill — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:37:29 +0000

I have no problem with insurance companies and their executives making massive amounts of money, as long as it's taxed at 90 or 95%. Or a little higher.

Anything less than 100% isn't Socialism, after all.

By: Gnarlodious

Gnarlodious — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 14:32:18 +0000

If you took away the US Postal Service, what do you think would happen to postal rates? With only FedEx and UPS “competing with each other”, you would have despotic turf wars and rampant price gouging. So… think of the USPS as a regulatory agency that operates at a loss.

We should have the same system for internet access, and telephone, and all sorts of required services. It would set the floor, and anyone wanting “Cadillac Services” could just pay for it. That would end all these corporate monopolies.