Discussion in 'Current Events' started by rayboyusmc, Oct 21, 2009.
It sounds as it they are not. The problem appears to be spotty enforcement at the state level where it currently resides. I doubt the solution is to move regulation to the federal level.
As usual, we're starting with a false liberal premise - in this case, the idea that government intervention in the private sector in the form of "trustbusting" is a good thing - and then trying to proceed on to even more egregious nonsense.
Rather than extending antitrust legislation to health insurance companies, I think the government ought to get the hell out of antitrust activities altogether. It's garbage, and helps no one except the OTHER businesses that the government is, de facto, showing favoritism toward by interfering with their more successful competitors.
The Constitution adopted in 1787 exempts all businesses from anti-trust laws.
The Welfare/Warfare State Constitution does not.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_C992KPzKs]YouTube - Two Minutes Hate[/ame]
The Insurance Companiessssssssssssssss We Hates them!!!!
NO!!! And neither should banks.
All businesses should be exempt from Anti-Trust laws. Though a better question is will the government's public option be exempt from Anti-Trust laws? My guess would be that it will be, despite it inevitably becoming a real monopoly.
But these monopolies (by Blue Cross for example) prohibit by law the purchase of an insurance policy from another insurer in another state as dictated by each state's own insurance regulatory agency. How does that fall within any free market parameters if people are restricted from buying insurance from whom and wherever they want?
Constitution. As if anyone's paying attention to THAT any more.
Separate names with a comma.