Health insurance is exempt from anti-trust

[fultonfish]

There is a discussion as to whether healthcare is a right.

And some posters have said that we need more interstate competition among insurors.

Well here’s something I didn’t know.

Apparently, health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws.

socialworkblog.org/advocacy/index.php/2009/10/09/congress-reconsiders-anti-trust-exemption-for-health-insurance-industry/

Increasing the competition would certainly improve quality and reduce costs.

Just think how increased competition improved things for telephone and airline service

 

[aspawloski4th]

There is a discussion as to whether healthcare is a right.

And some posters have said that we need more interstate competition among insurors.

Well here’s something I didn’t know.

Apparently, health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws.

socialworkblog.org/advocacy/index.php/2009/10/09/congress-reconsiders-anti-trust-exemption-for-health-insurance-industry/

Increasing the competition would certainly improve quality and reduce costs.

Just think how increased competition improved things for telephone and airline service

The healthcare we are talking didn’t exist when our constitution was being hammered out. And if we want so bad to subject healthcare to that kind of scrutiny, then by the same token it would be immoral not to subject the corporate structure to the same scrutiny. There was no such thing as a corporation till well into the 1800s and many question whether liscensing a corpoarion which all insurance companies are, is constitutional.

 

[Ella]

There is a discussion as to whether healthcare is a right.

And some posters have said that we need more interstate competition among insurors.

Well here’s something I didn’t know.

Apparently, health insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws.

socialworkblog.org/advocacy/index.php/2009/10/09/congress-reconsiders-anti-trust-exemption-for-health-insurance-industry/

Increasing the competition would certainly improve quality and reduce costs.

Just think how increased competition improved things for telephone and airline service

The telephone and airline companies are all providing essentially the same service - telephone service, and airplane seats.

In health insurance however, it ain’t necessarily so. Each state has different rules, for instance mandates like one requiring insurers to cover pap smears and prostate cancer screenings. Opening up the insurance market to across state lines means I might be able to buy cheaper insurance in another state, but that state might not require coverage of pap smears. It would not be a case of getting the same coverage for a lower price. Does consumer protection have to be sacrificed to lower prices? It might be.

Also, from: tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/state-denial

"Insurance companies keep costs down by using their volume-based bargaining power to make agreements with doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers to get lower rates than any individual buyer could ever achieve.

But insurers operating from one state may have a difficult time, on their own, bargaining in states where they have relatively small market presence. It is unlikely that an insurer could ever get a doctor or hospital in Massachusetts to agree to the same fee schedule that is acceptable in Idaho.

Even Medicare, the largest single “player” in the healthcare market, hasn’t figured out a way to pay the same reimbursement rate to all health care providers across the country."

What solution would insurers have to offset the loss of this bargaining power?

 

[aspawloski4th]

The telephone and airline companies are all providing essentially the same service - telephone service, and airplane seats.

In health insurance however, it ain’t necessarily so. Each state has different rules, for instance mandates like one requiring insurers to cover pap smears and prostate cancer screenings. Opening up the insurance market to across state lines means I might be able to buy cheaper insurance in another state, but that state might not require coverage of pap smears. It would not be a case of getting the same coverage for a lower price. Does consumer protection have to be sacrificed to lower prices? It might be.

Also, from: tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/state-denial

"Insurance companies keep costs down by using their volume-based bargaining power to make agreements with doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers to get lower rates than any individual buyer could ever achieve.

But insurers operating from one state may have a difficult time, on their own, bargaining in states where they have relatively small market presence. It is unlikely that an insurer could ever get a doctor or hospital in Massachusetts to agree to the same fee schedule that is acceptable in Idaho.

Even Medicare, the largest single “player” in the healthcare market, hasn’t figured out a way to pay the same reimbursement rate to all health care providers across the country."

What solution would insurers have to offset the loss of this bargaining power?

There isn’t the same standard of payment throughout the country, because the cost of living isn’t the same throughout the country. Here in Grand rapids Michigan one could live very comfortabley in 60 grand a year, ain’t happenen in New York city

 

[aspawloski4th]

It angers me that healthcare has been reduced to a numberrs game andd who care about treating illness. Economics is America’s idoltry. I nerver once considered economics when voting for someone for office

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am not following your logic at all, however there are several factors 1) The whole medical industry is heavily, heavily regulated, and 2) if you sue across state lines the suite has to be in federal court. So the exemption allows things to be outside some of those requirements as state corporation commission to have authority in these cases and state courts to be available.