Dems eye insurance industry's antitrust protection

[actsnoblemartin]

WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials. It's the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.

If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.

 

[rightwinger]

WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials. It's the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.

If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.

Why should the insurance industry have an anti-trust exemption?

 

[Oddball]

WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials. It's the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.

If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.

Good.

The antitrust exemption is part of what assists insurers and HMOs with their in-state quasi-monopolies.

Next, medical insurance needs to be declared as a free field of interstate commerce.

 

[saveliberty]

WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials. It's the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.

If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.

Good.

The antitrust exemption is part of what assists insurers and HMOs with their in-state quasi-monopolies.

Next, medical insurance needs to be declared as a free field of interstate commerce.

Agreed. Orginally it was protected as a states rights Constitutional issue. Just a guess, but that was probably used to help the insurance industry who donated to many campaigns of Congressional members?

AS a side note, I wonder if this will be countered with the insurance industry refusing to give the cost consessions made earlier in the process.

 

[rightwinger]

We need to stop bowing to the insurance industry. They are not the sole reason our healthcare system is in such bad shape, but they are a major player.

With all the fighting they have done against the public option, they should be forced to give up something in return for holding back on Government competition. Open competition across state lines will bring down prices and open up options.
This, along with pooling uninsured or underinsured Americans, advertising medical fees and quality, making them insure anyone who applies, increasing competition in pharms will all help hold down costs

 

[Oddball]

Insurance companies only work within the regulations foisted upon them.

Get rid of the antitrust exemption and prohibition against selling across state lines and the vaunted "choice and competition" would make the cynically dubbed "public option" entirely unnecessary.

 

[saveliberty]

Diverse backgrounds agreeing on an issue. Build more concensus from here. Anyone have a problem with tort reform relating to medical cases?

 

[rightwinger]

Diverse backgrounds agreeing on an issue. Build more concensus from here. Anyone have a problem with tort reform relating to medical cases?

I don't have a problem with limited tort reform as long as a real option to sue remains. Tort restrictions on punative and class action damages is OK.

I still see tort as only one means to hold down rising health costs

 

[Oddball]

Diverse backgrounds agreeing on an issue. Build more concensus from here. Anyone have a problem with tort reform relating to medical cases?

Problem being that none of us have any power or political hangers-on to pay off.

 

[Nosmo King]

Insurance companies only work within the regulations foisted upon them.

Get rid of the antitrust exemption and prohibition against selling across state lines and the vaunted "choice and competition" would make the cynically dubbed "public option" entirely unnecessary.

Didn't the insurance industry request the anti-trust exemption arguing it would....get ready for ti.... keep costs down?!?

 

[Bfgrn]

Diverse backgrounds agreeing on an issue. Build more concensus from here. Anyone have a problem with tort reform relating to medical cases?

Tort reform is an issue continually raised by conservative pundits and angry anti-health reform hoards. Indeed, if you do a news google for "health care reform" you will no doubt find a bounty of recent editorials, like this one in the Nevada Appeal, and on Sarah Palin's Facebook page, thundering that tort reform must be part of any federal health care reform package.

But there are some facts about health care the Right doesn't want you to know. In fact, most righties won't admit the truth about tort reform to themselves. These are:

* Tort law is mostly a state, not a federal, issue. Some proposals for federal tort reform would amount to a federal takeover of state authority and would also run afoul of the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.

* Most of the states already have enacted tort reform laws. There's very little proposed for federal tort reform that all but a few states haven't enacted already. In other words, in large parts of the country, tort already is "reformed."

* State tort reform laws have had no impact on health care costs. In some cases, states with the strongest limitations on tort actually have had bigger increases in health care costs than states which have mostly left tort alone.

* "Defensive medicine" seems to be a sham. The argument that physicians order more tests and procedures to protect themselves from lawsuits is not borne out by physician behavior. There is no data showing that a significant number of physicians change their procedure- and test-ordering policies after state tort reform substantially protects them from malpractice. On the other hand, there is copious documented evidence that physicians who make extra income from the procedures they order, do order more procedures than physicians who don’t.
More...

 

[Murf76]

Diverse backgrounds agreeing on an issue. Build more concensus from here. Anyone have a problem with tort reform relating to medical cases?

Tort reform must be done very carefully, IMHO. It has to be constitutionally sound, and frankly, I just don't see the authority for Congress to reform the entire industry. Certainly, cases which cross state lines or are federal in nature would be under their jurisdiction. We're talking about mandating to the States how they must prosecute local civil cases. What's the constitutional justification? :eh:
That said, I do believe that States would likely follow along on there own, particularly when good examples of success are in the offing as we see in Texas.

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that our quality control mechanism IS the potential for litigation. Otherwise, we'd have to rely on a third entity, government, to provide it to us... and we all know what a dismal failure THAT would be.

What I would suggest for tort reform, whether it be state or federal, would be caps on punitive damages and an adjusted to reasonable cost "loser pays" system. We don't want to limit the ability of poorer people to seek justice for malpractice by having them pay for costs that are more than reasonable and customary if they lose their case. IOW, "loser pays" shouldn't make any litigant responsible for an overabundance of legal spending or a waste of time on the other side. We can't expect the little guy to pay for 12 3-piece suits who are padding their hours and stretching out cases.

 

[Oddball]

Insurance companies only work within the regulations foisted upon them.

Get rid of the antitrust exemption and prohibition against selling across state lines and the vaunted "choice and competition" would make the cynically dubbed "public option" entirely unnecessary.

Didn't the insurance industry request the anti-trust exemption arguing it would....get ready for ti.... keep costs down?!?

I have no idea.

The only use I can see for the antitrust exemption is to maintain their in-state quasi-monopolies.

This is not much unlike the onerous FDA approval process, where only the biggest pharma companies can afford to pay, subsequently driving out less well capitalized labs.

 

[saveliberty]

So no tort reform Bfgrn? Limited as suggested by rightwinger? Any suggestions on other areas of agreement that might be reached? Elimination of some pre-existing conditions like acne?

 

[Wry Catcher]

WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials. It's the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.

If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.

Good.

The antitrust exemption is part of what assists insurers and HMOs with their in-state quasi-monopolies.

Next, medical insurance needs to be declared as a free field of interstate commerce.

How well do that work out for banking?

 

[Oddball]

WASHINGTON – Top Senate Democrats intend to try to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws, according to congressional officials. It's the latest evidence of a deepening struggle over President Barack Obama's effort to overhaul the health care industry.

If enacted, the switch would mean greater federal regulation for an industry that recently has stepped up its criticism of portions of a health care bill moving toward the Senate floor.

Good.

The antitrust exemption is part of what assists insurers and HMOs with their in-state quasi-monopolies.

Next, medical insurance needs to be declared as a free field of interstate commerce.

How well do that work out for banking?

Apples and submarines.

There is no analog for the Federal Reserve currency monopoly.

 

[auditor0007]

We need to stop bowing to the insurance industry. They are not the sole reason our healthcare system is in such bad shape, but they are a major player.

With all the fighting they have done against the public option, they should be forced to give up something in return for holding back on Government competition. Open competition across state lines will bring down prices and open up options.
This, along with pooling uninsured or underinsured Americans, advertising medical fees and quality, making them insure anyone who applies, increasing competition in pharms will all help hold down costs

So long as there is a middle man, healthcare costs will not come down. While there is a need for insurance companies when it comes to catastrophic coverage, having routine medical care covered by insurance companies just raises the cost.

 

[Oddball]

We need to stop bowing to the insurance industry. They are not the sole reason our healthcare system is in such bad shape, but they are a major player.

With all the fighting they have done against the public option, they should be forced to give up something in return for holding back on Government competition. Open competition across state lines will bring down prices and open up options.
This, along with pooling uninsured or underinsured Americans, advertising medical fees and quality, making them insure anyone who applies, increasing competition in pharms will all help hold down costs

So long as there is a middle man, healthcare costs will not come down. While there is a need for insurance companies when it comes to catastrophic coverage, having routine medical care covered by insurance companies just raises the cost.

And that's a product of state regs and antitrust exemptions, which allow those states to mandate full coverage or no coverage as the only "options" in those states.

 

[Bfgrn]

So no tort reform Bfgrn? Limited as suggested by rightwinger? Any suggestions on other areas of agreement that might be reached? Elimination of some pre-existing conditions like acne?

Here's the conclusion from my article...

Tort law is sprawling and messy, and no doubt it could always use a little reforming to make it fairer to both claimants and defendants. But this is an entirely separate issue from health care reform. To insist there can be no health care reform without tort reform is like saying there can be no grapes without cats. It's nonsensical.

However, it's important to keep in mind that "tort reform" is about limiting citizens' legal rights. Allowing special interests to write state tort law amounts to letting foxes set rules for the henhouse.

-----------------

I watched the Republican's attempt to "punish the victims" back in '05 when they tried to push through a cap of $250,000 max lifetime payout on OB GYN malpractice...

Imagine having a severely disabled infant survives and then requires lifetime medical and nursing care...then do the MATH...

 

[Murf76]

Here's the conclusion from my article...

Tort law is sprawling and messy, and no doubt it could always use a little reforming to make it fairer to both claimants and defendants. But this is an entirely separate issue from health care reform. To insist there can be no health care reform without tort reform is like saying there can be no grapes without cats. It's nonsensical.

However, it's important to keep in mind that "tort reform" is about limiting citizens' legal rights. Allowing special interests to write state tort law amounts to letting foxes set rules for the henhouse.

Defendants have legal rights too. And an argument can be made that doctors shouldn't have to go around like grab bags for the pleasure of the legal industry.

The sword cuts both ways. On the one hand, litigation is the best quality control mechanism available to insure good medicine. On the other, when risk is minimal and the potential for reward is high, lawyers are going to circle like sharks.

It's not right to put TOTAL responsibility on the backs of practitioners for a service that everyone needs and utilizes. They provide the service AND absorb all the liability for what is essentially an inexact science. Lives and careers teeter in the balance, and all it takes is any baseless accusation to ruin everything you've worked for, and because there's often very little cost assigned for bringing suit, there's no reason not to play the legal lotto.

As I said before, I don't believe that federal action is constitutionally sound when we're talking about in-state cases. But at the state level, we need to make sure that we're not tilting the table in favor of one side and denying recourse to the other.

I watched the Republican's attempt to "punish the victims" back in '05 when they tried to push through a cap of $250,000 max lifetime payout on OB GYN malpractice...

Imagine having a severely disabled infant survives and then requires lifetime medical and nursing care...then do the MATH...

And good luck finding an OB/GYN in some parts of the country. I can't blame any doctor for getting out. Their malpractice rates are out of this world.

It's sad and it's a shame when babies suffer birth injuries. But giving birth and being born are not without inherent danger. That's been true for the entirety of human history, even though it's alot more safe today.

Sob stories given to juries have cost us good doctors societally. And I have to wonder if someday when my own grandchildren are born if there will be any left to deliver them or if we'll all be standing around, scratching our heads, trying to figure out how to cut the cord.

My kids weren't at all interested in the study of medicine, even though they're certainly intelligent enough to accomplish it. It's a 24/7 job with an "ewww"-factor that's off the charts. And as your reward for having your hands in other people's orifices half the day, you get to double as a pinata for disgruntled patients and their skeezy lawyers.
They naturally said, "No thanks".