Why is there only one corporate business in the US that is not subject to Anti trust laws?

[Bligh]

Medical Insurance companies actually collude between each other and dish out areas between them so they dont price cut each other out of business. Why did we just have this so called joke Obama health care reform shoved down our throat and they wont reform health insurance companies to promote lower cost and competition?$?${campaign donations}?$?$

[longfisher]

Medical Insurance companies actually collude between each other and dish out areas between them so they dont price cut each other out of business. Why did we just have this so called joke Obama health care reform shoved down our throat and they wont reform health insurance companies to promote lower cost and competition?$?${campaign donations}?$?$

State control of the insurance industry within each state was established (finally after a few legislative and judician tussles) with the passing and signing into law of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. That law, for all intents and purposes, declares that the business of insurance will be subject to state law.

In the wake of that law's passage and really quite soon after it's passage each state has established a state agency to regulate all forms of insurance and all agents licensed to work within that state.

The regulations of the states closely mimick one another because of an association called the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) which, as the name suggests, is an association of all the elected or appointed state commissioners of the administrative agencies tasked with regulating insurance. So, it's up to the states how they regulate insurance and the only significant moderating force is the advice and council of a non-state association of "wise men" called the NAIC.

If the insurance companies within your state engage in collusion and price fixing it's up to the individual states to fix that problem. At least here in Texas, the department of insurance is a beneficial rabid dog and aggressively protects the rights of the individual consumer.

But even here the state legislature has historically prevented the department from regulating all health insurance rate changes as the language in the law permitting such regulation for ALL health insurance was missing. That may be changing for the better with the passage of Health Reform (PPACA) as the Federal Government, recognizing it's inability to require states to review rates and recognizing that insurance regulation rests with the states, has at least "encouraged" each state to review health insurance rates by providing many millions of dollars of grants to the state for the asking which is intended to defray the costs of establishing the departments with the regulating agencies to establish rate reviews.

Quite simply, it's a state rights issue. But the Federal Government under Obama's Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act are doing what they can under the constraints of existing law to help the state establish or perfect rate reviews.

In many states, it will take more than just money to permit these reviews. That's because many state's have never permitted their regulators to review health insurance rates. So, laws must be changed or formulated and put in place for the state agencies to review insurance rate proposals.

But here's where the politics come in. There has been a concerted effort almost exclusively on the part of right-wing political parties nation-wide to resist the implementation of meaningful legislation that would permit rate reviews by the states that don't already have existing laws which permist same. With their votes, most Republicans and Tea Party-ers have sustained and bolstered these obstructionists.

So, IMO meaningful rate review of health insurance rates is unlikely in many states until either the Republicans hear enough complaints from people like you or they relent out of, well, social conscience. I've not seen much social conscience on the part of Republicans on health care, period. So, I believe that relief will not be found in the offices of state regulators in states which do not already have such powers.

I'm sorry the news is so bleak. But if you would like to be heard on this issue you need to contact your state's governor and your state representatives and senator. Currently, they hold the key now to meaningful or meaningless state regulation of health insurance rates.

LF

[longfisher]

...bashing of Obama for the recent rises in medical insurance rates. So, it's best to pre-empt that discussion with informaiton. At least, then rational and objective people won't have to listen to uninformed blather on the matter.

The real culprit in medical insurance rate increases is what's called in the industry as "the trend". Essentially, it's the rise in costs of providing medical care. The insurance companies have very little to do with that as they're merely middle-men.

The trend is the near-exclusive province of healthcare providers, hospitals, doctors, clinics, biotechnology companies and big pharma. There are no meaningful checks on what these companies can charge for their services.

the PPACA (Health Reform law) does not meaningfully address this problem. Principly that's because Obama cut deals (against his promises otherwise) with the hospitals and with big pharma, henceforth herein called the providers, before the debate on health reform began. He cut deals with them, apparently at the behest of Rham Emanuel, to keep their money out of the fray that the Administration knew was coming.

In response to the providers' pledge to reduce costs of their services and products by many billions of dollars over the next decade they were essentially left out of the resulting regulations. They are not going to be meaninfully regulated under PPACA. But their enormous lobbying and advertising budgets were not spent opposing Health Reform either.

Obama shot at affordable care, but political maneuvering at the outset of the debate denied him that. Pity.

If you don't like the results, you're in good company with most liberals and progressives on the matter. They have excoriated Obama for this and it's in no small measure their revulsion at Obama's secret deal making that they stayed home in mass from the mid-term elections.

It's my opinion that this has been a major contributing factor in the Republican sweep of the mid-term electoins and that it and other acts of betrayal of his pre-election promises will cost him a second term. But time will tell.

LF

[Bligh]

State control of the insurance industry within each state was established (finally after a few legislative and judician tussles) with the passing and signing into law of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. That law, for all intents and purposes, declares that the business of insurance will be subject to state law.

In the wake of that law's passage and really quite soon after it's passage each state has established a state agency to regulate all forms of insurance and all agents licensed to work within that state.

The regulations of the states closely mimick one another because of an association called the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) which, as the name suggests, is an association of all the elected or appointed state commissioners of the administrative agencies tasked with regulating insurance. So, it's up to the states how they regulate insurance and the only significant moderating force is the advice and council of a non-state association of "wise men" called the NAIC.

If the insurance companies within your state engage in collusion and price fixing it's up to the individual states to fix that problem. At least here in Texas, the department of insurance is a beneficial rabid dog and aggressively protects the rights of the individual consumer.

But even here the state legislature has historically prevented the department from regulating all health insurance rate changes as the language in the law permitting such regulation for ALL health insurance was missing. That may be changing for the better with the passage of Health Reform (PPACA) as the Federal Government, recognizing it's inability to require states to review rates and recognizing that insurance regulation rests with the states, has at least "encouraged" each state to review health insurance rates by providing many millions of dollars of grants to the state for the asking which is intended to defray the costs of establishing the departments with the regulating agencies to establish rate reviews.

Quite simply, it's a state rights issue. But the Federal Government under Obama's Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act are doing what they can under the constraints of existing law to help the state establish or perfect rate reviews.

In many states, it will take more than just money to permit these reviews. That's because many state's have never permitted their regulators to review health insurance rates. So, laws must be changed or formulated and put in place for the state agencies to review insurance rate proposals.

But here's where the politics come in. There has been a concerted effort almost exclusively on the part of right-wing political parties nation-wide to resist the implementation of meaningful legislation that would permit rate reviews by the states that don't already have existing laws which permist same. With their votes, most Republicans and Tea Party-ers have sustained and bolstered these obstructionists.

So, IMO meaningful rate review of health insurance rates is unlikely in many states until either the Republicans hear enough complaints from people like you or they relent out of, well, social conscience. I've not seen much social conscience on the part of Republicans on health care, period. So, I believe that relief will not be found in the offices of state regulators in states which do not already have such powers.

I'm sorry the news is so bleak. But if you would like to be heard on this issue you need to contact your state's governor and your state representatives and senator. Currently, they hold the key now to meaningful or meaningless state regulation of health insurance rates.

LF

Throwing you on the deck and filleting you. That same McCarron ferguson act is going to be the down fall of the obama forced mandatory purchase of health insurance with federal IRS inforcement. You liberals want it all ways like any good ?. That law is why the states are going to court against the new liberal demo federal health insurance regulations

[longfisher]

Throwing you on the deck and filleting you. That same McCarron ferguson act is going to be the down fall of the obama forced mandatory purchase of health insurance with federal IRS inforcement. You liberals want it all ways like any good ?. That law is why the states are going to court against the new liberal demo federal health insurance regulations

Instead, I like the opportunity to discuss this rationally and I thank you for giving me this opportunity.

But do try to remain rational.

Since you chose to bring up the mandate, I'll address it. The mandate is an insurance industry initiative and there's ample evidence that the insurance industry itself insisted that it be incorporated into the law in exchange for their support of the law.

Simply put the mandate was required because the pool of purchasers of insurance could shrink to mostly those who were already sick and the insurance companies' costs could overwhelm their revenues. If any state wants a functioning state insurance industry it's best not run the insurance companies out of business right. So, the insurers demanded and got the mandates if they were going to be required to cover everyone and to grant everone rates based largely on what's called community rating.

Community rating is, essentially, insurance rates based on the average citizens rate of utilization of health resources instead of his medical hsitory. Essentially, it prevents pre-existing conditions from knocking someone out of their coverage.

Community rating and guaranteed issue of health insurance is already a part of the regulations of some states, Massachusettes and Vermont to name just two. Massachusettes has a mandate and fines just like the PPACA. Vermont does not.

Interestingly, Vermont's system may be even more effective than that of Mass. in covering the most people. So, many people, including Howard Dean who is the previous governor of VT, don't believe the mandate was necessary. But the insurance companies insisted on it.

Like it or not, the request of demand of a mandate is based on firmly established insurance principles. It's the topic of one of my earliest posts on this board. And, that post and ther response to it may well be the identifying initial instance where board incivility towards me earned the right-wingers a committed adversary.

You may be right about the challenges to the mandate. They may succeed, although I doubt it'll be based on the McCarren Furgusson Act's provisions. There's ample reason to believe other laws and constitutional provisions will prevent the mandate from taking place. And, after the election Obama seems to be in a negotiating mood. It may be that this is negotiated away by Obama.

If that happens, you can bet the insurance companies who demanded the mandate in the first place will go absolutely crazy with indignation and in whatever way is possible will try to defeat the requirement to cover everyone and to do so on communiting ratings.

If the insurance companies succeed in reversing this, then you and others who oppose the PPACA will perhaps unwittingly reinstall the insurance companies worst practices without any meaningful regulation. You will, of course, then have defeated yourself if your beef with the current situation is what appears in your initial post.

But then, conservatives have proven in the past to be more than easily manipulated by big business so as to vote against their own interests. It wouldn't surprise me if you did so again. In that case, you can take credit for your own woes and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop bleating so about it in the future. You will have caused it, so, accept the consequences of your actions like a man.

But time will tell. Ironically, it may be insurance companies who end up on your hook.

Hmmm, I still don't feel like I'm hooked. Oh, well, pull harder, OK.

LF

[longfisher]

It's important to point out that during this period where health insurance rates has skyrocketed, insurance companies have posted record profits.

Surely, even the most dimwitted of you, including you Mr. Bligh, recognize that there must be linkage between these two.

Lastly, I'm not a liberal. I'm an ex-conservative who has come to dislike Republicans for the disenginuity, their hypocrisy and their threats. I'm also a licensed insurance agent in the state of Texas.

From what I read in your posts vs. mine, folks on this board who prefer informed and objective information about the PPACA would be well-advised to disregard your rants in favor of my civil posts.

LF

[longfisher]

But then you're some ways off aren't you. Mr. Christian has put into an open boat with scant provisions and too many anti-mutineers and you're busily planning your survival.

Best of luck. Given the blather of your posts you certainly will need it.

LF

[longfisher]

Hoorah for me. You were an extremely canny adversary (hahaha).

Sail on, Sir, into history. To my recollection there's a British Admiralty High Command review in your future in which your conduct as a British Officer will be harshly judged.

If you're discredited and bounced from your command, please do me the occassional favor of posting here again to provide me a ready platform to explain to people the actual situation that surrounds health reform vs. the meaningless, dangerous utterly baseless ideas of folks like you.

LF

[worldcat lemon]

We need Insurance Reform and not a Socialized form of health care rammed down our gullet.

LF, tell me what you know about the "Collossus" program used by the insurance industry?

I say get rid of Health insurance all together and go back to a pay-for-service cash program and a barter system and let the American dream thrive again. There is too much government intrusion, big Pharma profit, and overinflated fees to make up for the people who don't want to pay for their health care.

BTW, for the most part the Office of the Insurance commission is limited in what they can do to regulate the insurance industry due to funding.

Again, you beat the "It's all the Republicans fault drum". Get serious. When you make blanket statements people just turn you off. I think you are a bright guy but putting the blame on the Repubs is more than misguided.

[Bligh]

You dont like being reeled in huh? Contrary to the so called reason behind the beginning of health insurance. the true history of health insurance is that in the old days as world cat was alleging to we should return to??? Doctors used to see and operate on patients and usually get paid $20. a week on a 500 dollar bill. That is how most working people paid their doctor bill. Then some Doctors got together and formed the beginnings of health insurance so that money would be more readily paid to doctors. Yes the beginnings of health insurance was a doctors Idea because of greed. they did not want to barter for payment anymore. Now look where we are at. Most of the better doctors in my area are not taking insurance anymore and still have plenty of patients.