House votes to kill antitrust exemption for health insurers

[ck4829]

The House voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to repeal the antitrust exemption currently granted to health insurance companies.

The vote was 406-19 to repeal the exemption, which has been in place since the end of World War II. The 19 who voted against the repeal are Republicans.

Liberal Democrats have said a repeal would help inject competition into the health care industry while reducing consumer costs.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday that President Obama strongly supports the repeal. "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.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/24/health.antitrust/

Now on to the Senate, where it will most likely be killed by Republicans and Joe Lieberman... Just don't say they're owned by the insurance companies though.

[dipsydoodle]

1. Don't affect me

given I'm over here in the NHS but I'm truly pleased for all of you over there.:thumbsup:

What exactly was the basis of the exemption at the end of WW2 ? Anyone know ? Odd that it coincides with the start of our NHS. :shrug:

[ck4829]

2. In 1944

The SCOTUS ruled that insurance companies were subject to antitrust laws because they were and are forms of interstate commerce. In response, Congress made an exemption for insurance companies to reorganize, for some reason, this exemption (Which, by the sound of it, wasn't supposed to be permanent) continues to this day.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=xLEKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UE4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4199,1260596&dq=antitrust+exemption+insurance&hl=en

[dipsydoodle]

3. Thank you.

I'da thunk anti-trust laws were anti-trust laws and so there should be no expemptions.

:hi:

[Selatius]

4. The deal was that states were supposed to regulate insurance, not the federal government.

Following the end of World War 2, there was a distinct rightward shift in political attitudes inside Congress. Massive social programs and heavy spending that accompanied both the New Deal and the waging of a major world war sort of created a backlash among Republicans and right wing Democrats (i.e. powerful Dixiecrats in the Senate) against further government intervention in the markets. As a result, soon after the SCOTUS case you cite, the deal was made that regulation would be the purview of the states. Incidentally, to note the rightward shift, the Taft-Hartley Act passed around the same time frame as well, against the veto of Truman himself.

As we obviously can see, except for some states, most of the states, such as mine (Mississippi), have adopted a very laissez-faire approach towards regulating insurance. This is an inadequate situation. States have obviously proven that they are not up to the task of regulation.