|
|
Post by TW on Oct 15, 2009 20:16:16 GMT -5
Did you know that insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws?
Interesting to say the least. They can tell everyone to stick it, and get away with it, just like they always have in the past.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 16, 2009 8:37:01 GMT -5
So is the NFL and MLB. I don't see you bitchin' about that.
|
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 16, 2009 8:47:13 GMT -5
But I do pregnant dog about both of them. Sorry!  Anyhow, where you're going is that insurance compares to professional sports? Man! It must be a rough week for conservatives. |
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Oct 16, 2009 8:51:20 GMT -5
But I do pregnant dog about both of them. Sorry! Anyhow, where you're going is that insurance compares to professional sports? Man! It must be a rough week for conservatives.  |
|
|
|
Post by TMWight on Oct 16, 2009 8:51:24 GMT -5
To add to PC's response, agricultural cooperatives, fishing cooperatives and maritime shipping all have some sort of general anti-trust agreements.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 16, 2009 8:56:03 GMT -5
But I do pregnant dog about both of them. Sorry! Anyhow, where you're going is that insurance compares to professional sports? Man! It must be a rough week for conservatives. Well, unlike someone of the wealthier on this board, I cannot enjoy watching America's favorite past time cause I simply cannot afford it. I think the government should get involved so I can go see a game for an affordable price. Have you seen the price of beer at those games?? Cripes, those NFL and MLB people can charge what they want and the rest of us poor people get screwed. |
|
|
|
Post by TW on Oct 16, 2009 9:07:18 GMT -5
I don't see the comparison, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 16, 2009 9:10:46 GMT -5
So you don't think I have a right to go see a game at an affordable price?
|
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Oct 16, 2009 9:12:49 GMT -5
So you don't think I have a right to go see a game at an affordable price? No to Rush and NO to you.  |
|
|
|
Post by amoeba15 on Oct 16, 2009 9:19:49 GMT -5
Interesting piece from the Washington Post. The McCarran-Ferguson Act antitrust exemption is very expansive with regard to anything that can be said to fall within “the business of insurance,” including premium pricing and market allocations. As a result, “the most egregiously anticompetitive claims, such as naked agreements fixing price or reducing coverage, are virtually always found immune.” Concerns over the exemption’s effects are especially relevant given the importance of health insurance reform to our nation. There is a general consensus that health insurance reform should be built on a strong commitment to competition in all health-care markets, including those for health and medical malpractice insurance. Repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act would allow competition to have a greater role in reforming health and medical malpractice insurance markets than would otherwise be the case. The history here is that prior to the 1940s, insurance regulation was considered the sole province of the states. A Supreme Court case by the name of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters appeared to call that into question, in part on grounds of antitrust. As Varney explains in her testimony, "the McCarran-Ferguson Act was designed to return the legal climate to that which existed prior to South-Eastern Underwriters by specifically delegating to the states the authority to continue to regulate and tax the business of insurance." Insurance, however, is much more national now than it was then. The companies, for one thing, operate across many different states. They offer plans in competition with the national Medicare program. The House health-care reform bills contemplates quasi-national exchanges, the Senate Finance bill contemplates national health insurance plans, and all the bills contemplate interstate compacts that would allow insurers to sell a single product across an array of states. These moves are all likely to increase competition and make it less likely that antitrust enforcement is necessary, but they also make the presence of the exemption more dangerous. voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/why_are_insurers_exempt_from_a.html |
|
|
|
Post by packerconvert on Oct 16, 2009 9:32:00 GMT -5
Someones needs to disable Amoeba's "Ctrl-C" and "Ctrl -V" keys
|
|
|
|
Post by TMWight on Oct 16, 2009 11:14:12 GMT -5
LOL!
|
|
