Insurance Industry Losing Antitrust Exemption

Feb. 24 - Congress finally had bipartisan cooperation today with the passing of HR 4626 by a vote of 406 in favor and 19 opposed. HR 4626 is legislation that would end the exemption of antitrust laws for the insurance industry.

The McCarren Ferguson Act of 1945 had basically exempted the insurance industry of most Federal laws that otherwise regulate almost every other type of business in the U.S. with the intent of protecting consumers. The Insurance industry was one of only two types of business that had an antitrust exemption, the only other being baseball.

The intent of the McCarran - Ferguson Act, according to Wikipedia (layman's terms) were;

"The McCarran-Ferguson Act does not itself regulate insurance, nor does it mandate that states regulate insurance. Federal acts that do not expressly purport to regulate the "business of insurance" will not preempt state laws or regulations that regulate the "business of insurance."

The Act also provides that federal anti-trust laws will not apply to the "business of insurance" as long as the state regulates in that area, but federal anti-trust laws will apply in cases of boycott, coercion, and intimidation. By contrast, most other federal laws will not apply to insurance whether the states regulate in that area or not."

Representative Lundgren, a Republican representing California, wanted the legislation recommitted (amended) to include such things as the ability of the insurance industry to be allowed to share historical data. House Republicans pushed for a vote on the proposed amendments but were unsatisfied until an electronic vote was made that defeated the amendment wanted.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, (D) NY, was extremely vocal in his opposition to the amendment, calling every Republican in the Congress "wholly owned subsidiaries of the insurance industry". Weiner was stopped in mid tirade and his words were "taken down". To have your "words taken down" is a disciplinary procedure in which your words are reviewed to determine whether or not they are appropriate, if determined not appropriate a speaker looses the ability to speak for the rest of the day. Weiner stood and withdrew his words before the ruling and then continued. He attempted to say the same thing while wording differently , saying, "every Republican I have ever known has been wholly a subsidiary of the insurance industry..." to which he was again called down. He again withdrew his words before the decision was made and then finished what he wanted to say with more restraint than he exercised in his first two attempts. It boiled down to the idea that the amendment offered would put loopholes (I.E. collusion, etc.) into the legislation in which the insurance industry could find a way to cheat the public and circumvent the rules.

It is once again demonstrated that the far right and the fringe elements are not the only people using offensive speech to belittle the other side and it should not be tolerated at all, especially from an elected official.

Rep Chellie Pingree, (D) ME, used her home state of Maine as an example of how the biggest insurance in Maine received record profits in 2009 after raising rates and are again seeking rate increases of 23%. According to Pingree, the insurer is suing the state because their 23% rate hike that they asked for has been knocked down to 11% by state officials. Her stance is that if the average citizen is barely scraping by and the insurance industry is still making record profits, it is absurd for the insurance industry to ask for exorbitant rate hikes.

Many within the insurance industry complain that it is healthcare costs that force them to raise rates but that is not how many health care providers see it.

When all was said and done after the Republican representatives saw that an amendment would not pass, the majority of Republicans made up their minds to vote to pass the legislation. Over 150 Republicans joined the Democratic majority on the vote with only 19 Republicans opposing.

Considering the trend across America for the insurance industry to hike their rates, it does not appear to be a good idea to side with them.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D) of Nebraska is not very happy with the idea of this new legislation but if it clears the Senate it will have no wait in getting the President's signature. There are several elected officials who will not be very happy with this legislation because of the campaign contributions that come in from the insurance industry (like Nelson), but to do the people's business they need to put personal gain behind the needs of the people that put them in office.