(POLITICS?) Interesting choice on Health Insurance.

[Guest guest]

At a time when the attention of the American people is focused on how the

decisions in Washington will affect their health care, two very different

approaches to the issue have emerged. On the one hand there are those who seek

to expand the role of government with what has euphemistically been

characterized as a “public option.â€

By contrast, there are those of us who are highly skeptical of the expansion of

government control over the nation’s health care system when it has

demonstrated an inability to manage its own finances even before the adoption of

health care legislation. At a time when government has mismanaged the $700

billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and decimated automobile dealerships

across the country with its regulation of the domestic auto industry, skepticism

regarding government regulation of health care is justified.

There is another way. Instead of looking at the growth of government as the

only solution for every problem, attention should be focused on what government

can do to knock down barriers to competition. This is of particular relevance

in light of the fact that many such barriers are in fact the creation of

government itself. There is no better example of this than the current

restrictions on the purchase of health insurance. Under current law, as a

resident of California, you are prohibited from purchasing health insurance from

companies which operate outside the physical borders of the state. Even if you

find a policy which contains the coverage you want at a more attractive price

than that available to you within our state, you are barred from exercising your

rights as a consumer to make the choice that is most advantageous to you and

your family.

Competition is the guiding principle in other areas of our economic life and

there is no reason why it shouldn’t apply to the purchase of health insurance

as well. It is for that reason that I cosponsored the Health Care Choice Act

(H.R. 3217). This legislation would remove the current restrictions on the

interstate purchase of health insurance. It would substitute the notion of

consumer sovereignty for the misguided idea that state sovereignty should

dictate the choices available to you in one of the most important decisions

facing American families.

In this same context I have been working to increase competition in the

insurance industry in my capacity as a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

At a time when we should be exploring all means of reducing the cost of health

care, we should start by looking at what Congress has done in the past that may

be contributing to the problem. In this regard, the Congress passed the

McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945 in response to a ruling by the United States

Supreme Court in U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association which held that

insurance contracts are a part of interstate commerce and thus subject to

Congressional regulation. A key element of the Act provided that where state

regulation existed, the Federal anti-trust laws would not apply to “the

business of insurance.†As a consequence, courts have been forced to dismiss

cases involving allegations of price-fixing or other types of collusion.

It is my belief that more competition rather than more government is necessary

to reduce the costs of health care which led me to vote in favor of the Health

Insurance Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3596) in our Judiciary

Committee mark-up. This legislation will repeal the anti-trust exemption for

health insurance and medical malpractice insurance in cases where insurers

engage in price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocation which acts to the

detriment of consumers.

The impact of the McCarran-Ferguson Act on competition in the insurance industry

is an issue on which I have worked since the 1980s. It was on this basis I had

concerns that the original language in H.R. 3596 needed changes to ensure that

it would not inadvertently prohibit agreements to share historical cost data.

As the General Accounting Office discussed in a 2005 report this could

potentially have an adverse impact on smaller insurance companies who depend on

the aggregation of historical cost data to price their products. The last thing

we would want to do is to add to the number of insolvencies among smaller

insurance companies and end up with a more highly concentrated insurance market.

Accordingly, I offered an amendment to H.R. 3596 which would allow agreements

concerning the compilation of historical loss data as long as it would not

constitute a restraint of trade. My amendment was adopted by the House

Judiciary Committee and the result is what I believe to be an important step

toward achieving greater competition within the insurance industry. It is now

imperative for the House Leadership to allow consideration of the other

necessary component to the creation of a competitive health insurance

marketplace. A vote must be allowed on the Health Care Choice Act to tear down

the barriers to interstate competition and to provide more choice for Americans.

Rather than reflexively assuming that government is the solution to every

problem let’s shift our focus to a paradigm of competition.

Sincerely, E. Lungren

Member of Congress

[Guest guest]

If history has taught us anything, it's that the privatization of any industry

in our country with an absence of regulation does not lead us to better

products or prices.

 

You must purchase health insurance from your state for a reason...duh...so

regulations are enforceable.  For example, pap smears and mammograms and other

preventative procedures that insurance companies must cover as per state

regulation.

 

All this was babble about less regulation and competition which is code word for

more money for the insurance industry and less coverage.  Ugh...does anyone buy

this?  I'm so sick of this debate.  Health care should not be a business so

the idea of running it like one sickens me more.

 

Joy

From: Holt <danthemanholt@...>

Subject: (POLITICS?) Interesting choice on Health Insurance.

Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2009, 8:57 PM

 

At a time when the attention of the American people is focused on how the

decisions in Washington will affect their health care, two very different

approaches to the issue have emerged. On the one hand there are those who seek

to expand the role of government with what has euphemistically been

characterized as a “public option.â€

By contrast, there are those of us who are highly skeptical of the expansion of

government control over the nation’s health care system when it has

demonstrated an inability to manage its own finances even before the adoption of

health care legislation. At a time when government has mismanaged the $700

billion Troubled Asset Relief Program and decimated automobile dealerships

across the country with its regulation of the domestic auto industry, skepticism

regarding government regulation of health care is justified.

There is another way. Instead of looking at the growth of government as the only

solution for every problem, attention should be focused on what government can

do to knock down barriers to competition. This is of particular relevance in

light of the fact that many such barriers are in fact the creation of government

itself. There is no better example of this than the current restrictions on the

purchase of health insurance. Under current law, as a resident of California,

you are prohibited from purchasing health insurance from companies which operate

outside the physical borders of the state. Even if you find a policy which

contains the coverage you want at a more attractive price than that available to

you within our state, you are barred from exercising your rights as a consumer

to make the choice that is most advantageous to you and your family.

Competition is the guiding principle in other areas of our economic life and

there is no reason why it shouldn’t apply to the purchase of health insurance

as well. It is for that reason that I cosponsored the Health Care Choice Act

(H.R. 3217). This legislation would remove the current restrictions on the

interstate purchase of health insurance. It would substitute the notion of

consumer sovereignty for the misguided idea that state sovereignty should

dictate the choices available to you in one of the most important decisions

facing American families.

In this same context I have been working to increase competition in the

insurance industry in my capacity as a member of the House Judiciary Committee.

At a time when we should be exploring all means of reducing the cost of health

care, we should start by looking at what Congress has done in the past that may

be contributing to the problem. In this regard, the Congress passed the

McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945 in response to a ruling by the United States

Supreme Court in U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association which held that

insurance contracts are a part of interstate commerce and thus subject to

Congressional regulation. A key element of the Act provided that where state

regulation existed, the Federal anti-trust laws would not apply to “the

business of insurance.†As a consequence, courts have been forced to dismiss

cases involving allegations of price-fixing or other types of collusion.

It is my belief that more competition rather than more government is necessary

to reduce the costs of health care which led me to vote in favor of the Health

Insurance Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 (H.R. 3596) in our Judiciary

Committee mark-up. This legislation will repeal the anti-trust exemption for

health insurance and medical malpractice insurance in cases where insurers

engage in price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocation which acts to the

detriment of consumers.

The impact of the McCarran-Ferguson Act on competition in the insurance industry

is an issue on which I have worked since the 1980s. It was on this basis I had

concerns that the original language in H.R. 3596 needed changes to ensure that

it would not inadvertently prohibit agreements to share historical cost data. As

the General Accounting Office discussed in a 2005 report this could potentially

have an adverse impact on smaller insurance companies who depend on the

aggregation of historical cost data to price their products. The last thing we

would want to do is to add to the number of insolvencies among smaller insurance

companies and end up with a more highly concentrated insurance market.

Accordingly, I offered an amendment to H.R. 3596 which would allow agreements

concerning the compilation of historical loss data as long as it would not

constitute a restraint of trade. My amendment was adopted by the House Judiciary

Committee and the result is what I believe to be an important step toward

achieving greater competition within the insurance industry. It is now

imperative for the House Leadership to allow consideration of the other

necessary component to the creation of a competitive health insurance

marketplace. A vote must be allowed on the Health Care Choice Act to tear down

the barriers to interstate competition and to provide more choice for Americans.

Rather than reflexively assuming that government is the solution to every

problem let’s shift our focus to a paradigm of competition.

Sincerely, E. Lungren

Member of Congress