Pelosi Joins Attack On Insurance Industry's Anti-Trust Exemption

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) increased Democratic pressure on the health insurance industry Thursday, telling reporters that there is "tremendous interest" in the House in revoking the industry's anti-trust exemption.

The insurance industry recently declared war on the Democratic health care reform proposal, releasing two reports claiming that the proposal would raise the cost of premiums. Democrats hit back hard and independent analysts said that the reports cherry-picked data and ignored relevant portions of the proposal.

Democrats are also fighting back legislatively. "There is tremendous interest in our caucus, and, in fact, the Judiciary Committee has had a hearing on ending the exemption to McCarran-Ferguson, the antitrust bill," Pelosi said, unprompted, at her weekly press conference.

The insurance industry gained the exemption in 1945; in most parts of the country, a single insurer has monopolistic dominance and the ability to set prices.

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave rare testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, speaking in favor of ending the anti-trust exemption. Reid is considering removing the exemption in the merged health care bill he is currently writing with other Senate leaders.

Pelosi's push from the other side of the Capitol ramps up the pressure. The House Speaker has consistently been the most direct in her anti-insurance industry rhetoric and Thursday was no exception, saying that "it is well known to the public that the health insurance companies are the problem."

Pelosi said those companies won't like the final House bill.

"Now, there are some things that we want to see happen to the insurance companies that they may not like. I mean, there are some things that we are considering. The Senate has a flat fee on the insurance companies, $40 billion. That may be something we want to look at for our bill in terms of our pay-fors. There is in our bill 85 percent a medical loss ratio. That means they must spend 85 percent of every dollar that they collect in premiums on benefits. Many of them don't come anywhere near that now. They are using the money for their own purposes, not as a return, as insurance should be, to the beneficiaries," she said.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[wildedge]

Ending the anti-trust exemption should have been part of the discussion and a goal of reform right from the beginning. In the current social reality, the exempption is anti-american and anti-capitalist. It was designed in a different America with a different marketplace, for a healthcare agency that would be not-for-profit - now it is only a free ride for the gamblers & vampires we have today.

[creolechild]

Please sign the petition repealing the McCarran-Farran antitrust exemption. It can be found by clicking on the following link: http://ga3.org/campaign/hcr_antitrust

[Lizaxyz]

The McCarran-Ferguson Act?

[Bonwell Parker]

I notice that even with all the trolls roving through HP, there is nobody arguing in defense of insurance companies having anti-trust exemption. Nobody.

Nobody.

If this isn't unanimously repealed by Thanksgiving, we can only hope that it at least comes to a vote, so we'll have a list of those who vote against the repeal– a list of our so-called representatives who unambiguously don't care about American people.

[Kamenskiy]

I've basically given up on Congress voting unanimously on anything when 30 Republican senators voted against Al Franken's amendment banning employee rape cover-ups by government contractors.

Some of these people will always vote the way their corporate masters tell them to.

[Tyrione]

Any self-proclaimed True Capitalist who scoffs at getting rid of this anti-competitive measure [That never should have overwritten the Sherman Anti-Trust Act] has to be a Republican. Anyone who believes Republicans are for True Competition are living in the early 1900s.

That party died when TR split and formed the first Progressive Bull Moose Party.

This exemption should have never happened.

Repeal it and enact the Public Option.

[Philclock]

Sure, soon as congress repeals the act that allows States to regulate insurance companies allowing only a select few to d business (California allows 6), thus resulting in mini-monopolies.

And how about getting rid of government agency (post office, medicare) protection under anti-trust law?

[gfs5541]

Hell yea! END THAT ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION! BREAK THESE COMPANIES UP!

[FreedomCorpse]

The derivatives bubble started with exemptions or waivers and look what happened. Its totally obvious to anybody but the biggest numbskulls that the entire healthcare industry is run and priced by monopoly and/or collusion.

[tmo7734]

Pelosi is the only congressional rep with b@lls in this debate. If the insurance industry won't like the bill, chances are that will be good for average Americans.

[creolechild]

She's not the ONLY one...

Thursday, October 8, 2009
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and 29 other senators signed a letter today urging the inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be considered on the Senate floor. An additional 14 senators have expressed support for the public option through a resolution, letter, or by voting for a strong public option during committee markups.
http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=318803

"....we've broken with our Blue Dog sisters and brothers over their lukewarm support for the public insurance option � a concept we think must be part of a successful health care reform package....we see the public option as a critical market mechanism that will drive down costs, foster competition and expand Americans' insurance choices.This is not just smart health care policy, it is smart economic policy."
http://www.sacbee.com/1190/story/2244004.html

Excerpt from Senate Judiciary Committee, Wednesday, October 14, 2009 “....As Congress debates the costs of health care, it is very much worth nothing that purchasers of these insurance policies are particularly susceptible to industry collusion leading to inflated prices....Without a repeal of the antitrust exemption, insurance companies will continue to have the power to gouge patients and doctors....I am pleased to cosponsor S. 1681, Chairman Leahy’s bill to fix this serious problem, and I commend him for holding this important hearing.” http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=318920

[3dtrix]

Anti-trust is an idea whose time came - generations ago. Had the concept not been mothballed by those at the public teat - who were flooded with unimaginable amounts money (which will NEVER be properly accounted for) in the too-big-to-fail debacle - the present socialism-for-the-rich status quo would never have arisen. When the same folks who spout nonsense about the "free market" - a religious concept, NOT an economic concept - argue against the break-up of monopolies, one knows one has entered the psych ward of voodoo economics.

The very bottom line argument against supply-side economics is no different than arguing with a two-year-old - no one - not anywhere, not any time - can have it both ways - you can't take a nap and play outside at the same time - and you can't promote the virtues of capitalism (chief among them the ordering and motivating value of competition) and allow anti-competitive entities to dominate their respective sectors of the economy.

EVERY time anti-trust has been applied to our economy - it surged. That is to say - everyone made money in the resultant bursts of fresh capital and competition. It happened in the days of the railroad barons, and it happened in the first flush of high-tech - remember the Baby Bells?

Being that everybody claims to want the economy to grow and everybody wants to make money - I just can't understand why the vast unproductive log-jams of capital aren't more regularly broken up...

[Kassandra]

Because it's the rich who govern US and they don't want to lose anything to the proles, be they Republican or Democrat.
I gotta gibe Pelosi an A+ tho. she knows she's in trouble but she's holding the line. Where as Reid: "whichever way the winds blows" has not an ounce of courage in his scrawny body. The only good thing about Reid losing his seat is that maybe we could get Schumer of someone else with some guts in there

I really hope the people don't fall for the Republicans in 2010 as they are to the right of Atilla the Hun, maybe Genghis Khan; and it's their policies over the years which have brought America to her knees.
What we need are more progressive, populists in government not a return to "running the country like a business" with the people getting fired.

[chlai88]

This should already have been repealed long ago. Demos & Repubs alike are both guilty of allowing the lobbies to keep this outdated act for 60 years. If not for Obama's push for health reform, I guess they will still be allowed to milk billions from us. We need lobby money reform next.

[3dtrix]

Bilk millions - milk billions. They'll take it either way...

[Miyake]

Go get 'em

[HowdyDoody]

Nancy Pelosi, you are steadfast in your commitment to the American people.

It's quite alright to play tough with her when it comes to issues, but the GOP, especially from the South, get a big kick out of battering Nancy Pelosi with personal attacks. It's so crude that I envision some of these guys going home and beating up their wives or kids. But this girl is tough, and she can take a punch, so spend your time on verbal abuse, right-wingers! It will just cost you more votes of the biggest constituency -- women!

[Playin Possum]

Good. Nanny "biggest balls in the caucus" Pelosi is in. May many more follow.

[JPHR]

Companies are not citizens. Lobbying on behalf of corporate interests in order to gain political influence ought to be outlawed.

[TeeLolly]

What rights companies have will largely be determined when the right-leaning US Supremes issue their decision in Citizens United v. FEC, No. 08-205, wherein the court itself raised the issue of whether McCain-Feingold campaign finance restrictions applicable to corporations are constitutional.

[Chernynkaya]

You got that right! And the SCOTUS ruled about 100 years ago that corporations are persons.

[Kassandra]

scary. that's why Roberts and Alito were put in there. They will be making policy fo ryears to come...moles for the corporatocracy.
I fought HARD against Altio along with Moveon when Kerry finally asked the nutroots to help, but it was too late.

[mtracy9]

I just signed a petition demanding that the U.S. Congress allow a public option --

Click here to sign: http://bit.ly/1MOpFS

[bigfated]

mtracy9: Thank you. I followed your lead.....read it....did it....and I guess this is how these things finally get done. I'll be leaving soon....been on Medicare since forever....but those I leave behind, particularly my grandkids, shouldn't have to be slaves to trhe Insurance Industry. Thanks again.

[TeeLolly]

Already signed this one (FireDogLake) a week ago. Here's another to sign, put up by Rep. Anthony Weiner:

www.countdowntohealthcare.com

[TeeLolly]

This is all well and good. My fear, however, is that Obama and Republidems will sieze on the elimination of the antitrust exemption, which should promote minimal competition, as an alternative to the public option.

Subjecting insurers to antitrust laws is no substitute for the public option. A robust public option, on the other hand, eliminates the need for antitrust regulation ...

[upriser]

That's what I've been saying. I think we're being played for fools. The White House hopes to have us jumping up and down for joy and ecstasy if they repeal the anti-trust exemption, even if they also abandon the public option. It won't work. The insurance companies will STILL make a profit and tax funded subsidies to insurance companies to help support their profits while strengthening the individual mandate will cause a HUGE backlash among progressives and the uninsured. Any progressive that buys this BS is fooling himself. WE NEED TO DO BOTH - INSTITUTE A STRONG PUBLIC OPTION AND REPEAL THE ANTI-TRUST EXEMPTION. If this puts the insurance companies out of business - so what? Who cares? They might stay in business if they revert to non-profits.

[Reader451]

Call your rep and senators. Demand both. Then email them with the same demand for both a strong public option, and an end to the monopoly of Health Insurance. Then you must write a letter withy the sdame demands, and mail it.

It is work to get these things, you are sure of what you want, whant we want, but it musdt be demanded. Contact and demanding works. Do it.

Call, then Email and then write a letter, on letterhead, make your own if you need to, make a neighbourhood association, the Albert Street Democratic Club, or the Twelfth Avenue Residents Association. But in any case write it and sign it.

It works, its just a few minutes.

Lets work for this as if our mother's health depended on it.

[MadamRoma]

Obama had better get his act together, he is just before losing everything, the American public have been played for fools long enough. He is proving to be the classic Chicago, tell them anything but the truth politician. I voted for him, campaigned for him and drove folks to the polls, I'm disappointed with what I am seeing. His behind has got to be sore from straddling the fence.

[take10]

AMEN!

[creolechild]

FEINGOLD AMONG 30 SENATORS SIGNING LETTER URGING INCLUSION OF PUBLIC OPTION IN FINAL HEALTH REFORM LEGISLATION

Thursday, October 8, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and 29 other senators signed a letter today urging the inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be considered on the Senate floor. An additional 14 senators have expressed support for the public option through a resolution, letter, or by voting for a strong public option during committee markups. The senators’ letter expresses concern that “absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment.”

It continues on to state that “the number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.”

http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=318803

[creolechild]

Excerpt from Senate Judiciary Committee, Wednesday, October 14, 2009

“....As Congress debates the costs of health care, it is very much worth nothing that purchasers of these insurance policies are particularly susceptible to industry collusion leading to inflated prices. But under current law, health and medical malpractice insurance providers are exempt from federal antitrust regulations. This is because, as we all know, the insurance industry was given a statutory exemption from antitrust laws over sixty years ago by the McCarren-Ferguson Act.

“Since McCarren-Ferguson was enacted, it has become clear that health and medical malpractice insurers have abused this exemption to the detriment of patients and doctors everywhere....Without true competition, patients and doctors have little choice but to continue paying whatever premiums the dominant insurers in their market decide to charge. Addressing this problem is crucial to health care reform and requires legislative action to ensure that health and medical malpractice insurance companies do not engage in anticompetitive behavior....Without a repeal of the antitrust exemption, insurance companies will continue to have the power to gouge patients and doctors."

“I am pleased to cosponsor S. 1681, Chairman Leahy’s bill to fix this serious problem, and I commend him for holding this important hearing.”

http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=318920

[GRuff86]

Even with a public option you still need to have them under an anti-trust law. They can't be allowed to control sometimes 85 - 90% of the market. Remember, we can't trust in the better angles of men.

http://gruff86.livejournal.com/