Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

White House: Obama backs repeal of health insurer antitrust exemption

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 06:08 PM
Original message
White House: Obama backs repeal of health insurer antitrust exemption
Source: CNN

<snip>

"President Obama strongly supports a repeal of the antitrust exemption currently granted to health insurance companies, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

Liberal Democrats in particular have pushed for a repeal of the exemption, which has been in place since the end of World War II, in order to inject new competition into the health care industry while lowering consumer costs.

The announcement came as the White House sought to rally key Democrats around Obama's new compromise reform plan before a high-stakes televised health care summit with congressional Republicans on Thursday.

"At its core, health reform is all about ensuring that American families and businesses have more choices, benefit from more competition and have greater control over their own health care," Gibbs said.

"Repealing this exemption is an important part of that effort. Today, there are no rules outlawing bid rigging, price fixing and other insurance company practices that will drive up health care costs and often drive up their own profits as well."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/23/obama.health.ant... /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. That would make a big difference.
Not as much as a PO would, but it's something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Probably far more
The PO was just a watered down shiny trinket
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. Seriously.
How can he back this and not once have even come close to backing a public option?

Head scratcher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Then WHY isn't this in Obama's Health Care Proposal?
...or does he "strongly support" this like he supported a "Public Option like Medicare"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. It's one of those "publicly" supports issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
troubledamerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. "Baiting the base"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. I think he needs us to push him, not just wants us to make him.
Even if I were to give him every benefit of the doubt, I still don't agree with Obama's tactics on HCR.

Not sure what you mean, tried to understand what you said in more than one way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #25
31. How do we push him--or anyone in D.C.? I've sent so many emails and made so many calls.
Nothing I did had any impact. The two things -- and the only two things -- that seem to have had an impact on this process as far as I can discern, were Obama's meetings with health insurers, PHRMA and big health care providers last year and the election of Scott Brown. And nothing I did had anything to do with either of those things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithreal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. There is truth in your statement. I keep pressuring and got some answers.
Edited on Wed Feb-24-10 01:36 PM by Mithreal
And the fight isn't over yet. President Obama may be immune or he may not.

I talked with Patty Murray's chief of staff for 30 minutes yesterday, no exaggeration there. She is on Senate leadership. They are feeling our pressure even if Obama isn't. I was told a Thursday meeting will be very important.

Believe me I am frustrated to extreme with Obama, so is Senate leadership. Obama is the one who keeps tripping up legislation. I tried to get a hint that it might be Rahm causing the trouble but he wouldn't go there. My take is President Obama doesn't plan on doing anything significant that we may want unless he is cornered by us. That he does SOME of the basic things we would expect of a Democrat is not enough. These are desperate times for average Americans.

The voice mailboxes for my senators' DC and local offices have been slammed. I was told during the start of the Iraq War they upgraded their systems to handle something like a 1000 calls an hour and the staff are supposed to clear them every hour but they stay full. The Seattle office of Patty Murray has become very upset with all the calls. We are sending a message. Cantwell's office said the calls were 98% in favor of signing the public option letter. Murray's CoS confirmed that number sounded right for them too. They know, they resist.

How often do we get a politician who does the right thing without the people standing up. We can't stop. The victory we take will be directly proportional to the investment we make. The only thing I know for sure about Obama is he wanted to be President. Does he even care if his marketing doesn't match his substance. Why should he, the "adults" know you can say anything you want to get elected. Who will hold you accountable. When the base screams, just ignore them, they have nowhere else to go. I am the frustration now, I won't be the despair.

The fight isn't over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #2
13. the small print title should be
*Phot-op support only.*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #2
29. You mean a public option like getting your medical care from the Post Office?
"Aug. 18 (Bloomberg) -- UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. Its the Post Office thats always having problems. -- Barack Obama, Aug. 11, 2009

No institution has been the butt of more government- inefficiency jokes than the U.S. Postal Service. Maybe the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The only way the post office can stay in business is its government subsidy. The USPS lost $2.4 billion in the quarter ended in June and projects a net loss of $7 billion in fiscal 2009, outstanding debt of more than $10 billion and a cash shortfall of $1 billion. It was moved to intensive care -- the Government Accountability Offices list of high risk cases - - last month and told to shape up. (It must be the only entity that hasnt cashed in on TARP!)

That didnt stop President Barack Obama from holding up the post office as an example at a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, last week.

When Obama compared the post office to UPS and FedEx, he was clearly hoping to assuage voter concerns about a public health-care option undercutting and eliminating private insurance.

What he did instead was conjure up visions of long lines and interminable waits. Why do we need or want a health-care system that works like the post office? "

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aJ0...



When discussing single payer health care, Medicare would certainly have been the logical thing to mention. Not only is it actually a single payer health care system, but it has public approval as way to go for health care reform.

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:http://abcnews.go.c...

But, as the Tea Baggers were forming their movement, the image of single payer the POTUS chose to raise in the minds of the American public was not Medicare, but the Post Office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Edweird Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. While supporting a government mandated monopoly. Is this some kind of joke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kall Donating Member (130 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hahaha!
"President Obama strongly supports a repeal of the antitrust exemption currently granted to health insurance companies."

Well thank God. Now we can wait until Presidents Lieberman and Nelson express reservations about repealing the antitrust exemption because the idea lacks bipartisanship and would make Republicans in Wyoming cry, just like the public option. Then we can jettison that "strong support" in order to sign any old piece of shit. Thanks for coming out, Mr. Change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. Strongly supports? I guess I will say, we'll see, and leave it that Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
change_notfinetuning Donating Member (750 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. I hope that wasn't too taxing on the brains at the White House. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Change Happens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. Then do it right now, no need for a bill, they can just put it into law with 51 votes!!!
Just fucking do it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Change Happens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. One thing in his pocket for Thursday's summit?
Ask for this and give the pukes the ability for companies to sell insurance across state lines?

A nice trade if you ask me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earcandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. I grow bored and tired of this lack of clear commitment to the health care of Americans.
We need single payer.  Don't settle for less.  Even Singapore
has it. 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlingBlade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. Oh Yea ? PROVE IT !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vaberella Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. How?
He supported the PO in speech after speech, so much so people were arguing on how strong or weak it was and if it was worse than single payer. Actually the contention was between those who supported the PO and those who wanted single payer. Now when the narrative changed because the Senate is a piece of shit, and the PO was dying people were claiming Obama didn't do enough, and forgot the two factions that developed out of Obama's push for the PO. Then it seemed there was no two factions and mainly those for the PO on the left and those against on the right.

I was there when I was getting bashed continously for favoring the PO over single payer. So when Obama supports something and proves it with speeches and thumping for it at rallies---the left forgets about it, if it's convenient for them. His support of Dorgan's drug reimportation bill met the same fate. And this will as well because the Senate won't support it, but then majority will say it was the President's fault.

When Rockefellar is a perfect example of the problem in the Senate. A man who supported the PO vehemently and so much so he was willing to do reconciliation---now he goes on the platform and says he won't support reconciliation for the PO. Now we have people on the left saying Obama is weak because he can't control his congress. WTF----he loses when he does things and when he doesn't...or not the way they want him too. Yet you want him to do it. All he can do is support----but he can't put a gun to people's head and make them vote his way---if that was the case the 7 repubs who signed a bill and he supported then said no when the vote went through congress would have voted yes despite his endorsement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Pres Obama supported the PO? Please give a link. He still isnt pushing for a PO.
If I am wrong, show me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #21
30. Poor guy. President of the United States and head of the DEMOCRATIC Party, yet
Edited on Wed Feb-24-10 09:22 AM by No Elephants
completely helpless against a DEMOCRATIC Congress.

Yes, he supported the public option in his speeches to the people--who strongly support it to this day, but he also referred to it as a "sliver," and "my liberal friends" started taking lot of crap from the WH.

As to Congress, however, he put the kibosh on single payer and refused to lead with public option. Obama started the process by meeting with health insurers, PHRMA and big health care providers. He refused to meet with doctors who advocated single payer, though. He even refused to meet with members of the House until after the Senate bill was all but finished.

He praised Baucus to the skies, both during the August town meetings and just after the Senate passed its bill on Christmas Eve. No bill from the WH until after Brown's election.


The WH seems to want to have it both ways on a number of issues. One is the public option. Another is a DEMOCRATIC President just washed the DEMOCRATIC Congress and can't do a thing with it--but he's not weak, and, further, whenever Congress does something perceived as desirable, the WH should get the credit.

BTW, he did lead on banning re-importation of drugs from Canada. And he got what he wanted. And PDQ, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoapBox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 08:07 PM
Response to Original message
14. Yes! Do it! And while they are at it...churches need that tax exmp. thing taken away
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
15. Oh Ya - that 1 lowered cost alright
Edited on Tue Feb-23-10 08:11 PM by FreakinDJ
They need to repeal the Anti-Trust exemption like yesterday
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
16. Does this anti-trust exemption also prevent consumers from suing insurance companies
for denials of care and rescissions? I seem to recall that being the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
28. That's ERISA premption- and neither Congress nor the administration
Edited on Wed Feb-24-10 08:41 AM by depakid
has any inclination to change that (in other words- it won't provide people with effective remedies for repeated abuses, which can and do result in preventable patient deaths and bankrupties). The only thing one can do under current law where preemption applies is for the patient or the family to pony up big money for an attorney and sue for breach of contract for the amount of benefits they ought to have received.

Yet another instance where corporate accountability isn't an issue on the radar screen for this administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. WOW. I did not know that. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. Thank you for that info, depakid. I was hoping something addressing this would
end up in the final bill. Looks like that's not going to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SnoopDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. That's all fine and dandy - but the government actually has to...
enforce antitrust laws. They have not done anything for decades...

Smoke and mirrors....again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
18. The NAIC sent this letter to Pelosi and Reid back in January.




The crux of their message:

"The most likely result of this repeal would therefore not be increased competition, but a series of lawsuits testing the limits of the state action doctrine, with associated litigation costs being passed along to consumers in the form of higher premiums.



January 6, 2010

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid:
We write on behalf of our fellow state insurance regulators, as represented by the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), to provide our thoughts on the health reform legislation adopted by the
House and Senate, and to provide our perspective as you work towards assembling final legislation to be sent
to the President.

We share your goal of enacting comprehensive legislation that will expand access to coverage, improve the
quality of care, and restrain the rapid growth of health care spending in the United States, and we applaud the
hard work by members of both chambers. As adopted, both bills would extend guaranteed issue protections
to the non-group health insurance market, eliminate pre-existing condition exclusions and annual and
lifetime limits, and end the practice of rating policies based upon gender and health. If paired with a truly
effective individual mandate and subsidies to mitigate the risk of adverse selection, the NAIC supports these
measures. In addition, the bills would initiate the creation of Health Insurance Exchanges that could
streamline the process of purchasing coverage and make meaningful comparisons of health insurance plans
much easier.

Of course, we all agree that unless health care spending is brought under control these reforms could shift the
financial burden from one group to another without addressing the threat to the nations fiscal picture. The
challenge moving forward will be to overhaul the delivery system to promote prevention, quality, and
results-based care, to encourage healthy lifestyles, and to eliminate waste and fraud in the system. We know
you and other federal legislators are well aware of this fact and we pledge our expertise to assist in any way
we can to help bend the cost curve in the future. To that end, we encourage you to grant states continued
flexibility to experiment and find solutions that work.

As you move into negotiations to determine the final shape of legislation, we offer the following comments
based upon state regulators' over 135 years of experience protecting consumers and promoting healthy
insurance markets:

remainder:http://www.naic.org/documents/testimony_100106_health_r...


** They will fight to the bitter end.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #18
33. Insurers are in all fifty states already, whether directly or through affiliates.
They want the ability to meet only one set of regulations--the set most favorable to them. From what I hear, that is Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. I read it to mean a threat, and yet just another reason for Obama to trample
them and support a robust public option, at the very least.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
20. Insurance companies only serve as middle men
and produce nothing tangible. Can anyone give a reasonable argument for giving them an anti trust exemption?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #20
34. Giving, yes. Continuing today, no. When they got the exemption, they were truly not for profit.
Supposedly, anyway. That changed long ago, but no one took away the exemption.

Corporations like their "entitlements," too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-23-10 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
23. If only. But Gibbs word is worthless. Show me. Tell me publically President. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #23
35.  I think he'd be happy to talk that talk in public, just as he was happy to talk
Edited on Wed Feb-24-10 09:45 AM by No Elephants
public option in public--when he wasn't belittling the public option in public, that is.

Please see Reply 30.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 03:19 AM
Response to Original message
26. Bullshit. Apparently "strongly supports" doesn't include putting it in your own Health Care Propoal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedInMN Donating Member (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
27. Excuse me.
Why should I believe anything Obama says today? When he's shown no hesitation to say just the opposite tomorrow?

Just how fucking stupid does this guy think we are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-24-10 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
36. Think I'll wait and see what actually happens before I squawk or clap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 26th 2014, 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC