You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1784)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (2102)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

From Democracy Now:

Democrats say the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 has granted the insurance industry a captive market with no curbs on price fixing and other anti-competitive practices. Last week the Justice Department’s top antitrust regulator, Christine Varney, voiced support for a repeal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are also backing a repeal, and New York Senator Charles Schumer has called for including it as part of the healthcare reform bill. The House Judiciary Committee plans to vote on the issue on Wednesday.

This would be a welcome step in the right direction if it passes.

Transcript below the fold.

AMY GOODMAN: For more on this story, we’re joined from Washington, DC by Ryan Grim. He’s the senior congressional correspondent for the Huffington Post.

Welcome, Ryan, to Democracy Now! Can you just lay out what is being proposed here?

RYAN GRIM: Sure. Right now, the insurance industry is one of the only businesses that gets antitrust protection from the federal government. It’s basically them, Major League Baseball and National Football. It’s kind of an accident of history. In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could regulate insurance industries, and immediately Congress stepped in and said, “Well, we’re not going to do it.” So, what they’ve been able to do is set up these near monopolies throughout the United States.

The Department of Justice estimates that I think in 94 percent of the country, there is a—what they call a highly concentrated market, which means that it’s in danger of becoming a monopoly or it has already tipped over into a monopoly, and that allows insurers to collude legally with hospitals and with doctors and other providers to set prices. They set high prices that they pay to the hospitals, then they can raise premiums. And without any competition, there’s nothing that anybody can do about it, and it’s perfectly legal.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And why now is the support growing on Capitol Hill to repeal the law?

RYAN GRIM: It’s payback, pure and simple. There’s been a kind of truce that the Democrats have had with the insurance industry: you know, you guys don’t come out here with your Harry and Louise ads and just burn the town down, and we’ll give you, you know, 47 million new customers. But when the insurance industry, about two weeks ago, came out with a report that was very critical of reform, it was seen by the Obama administration and Democrats on the Hill as a declaration of war, so Democrats came back with what is their biggest weapon, probably, to shoot back at the insurance industry.

It’s strange that it took them so long to come up with this, because if choice and competition, the mantra that you always hear from Obama, is really the thing that you want here, then revoking the antitrust exemption—protection is the first thing that you’d want to do, after the public option, of course.

SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: And shouldn’t this have been part of healthcare reform legislation in any case? Why is it only coming as retaliation for the health insurance industry’s report a couple weeks ago?

RYAN GRIM: It’s kind of a nuclear issue. And so, if Democrats would have brought it up in the very beginning and made it part of the early bill, then the health insurance industry would have come guns blazing at healthcare reform. And the Obama strategy from the very beginning was to try to at least neuter, if not win over, the major healthcare players. That’s why they cut the big deals with PhRMA, with the medical device makers, with the hospitals. They cut another deal with doctors today about their Medicare cuts. So they’ve been trying to keep everybody at the table so that they won’t blow up the process. And they feared that if they revoked this exemption early in the process, that the health insurance industry would try to blow it up, and maybe they would see it implode over August, and we wouldn’t even be talking about healthcare anymore. That was their strategy, at least. Whether that’s right or not, nobody knows. But now that they’ve come into open war, you know, everything’s on the table.

AMY GOODMAN: Despite Obama’s comments in his radio address, the White House has refused to guarantee the President will back the repeal if it gets congressional approval. One day after Obama’s address, White House adviser David Axelrod was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: The insurance industry for the last sixty years has had an antitrust exemption. Was he saying that he would sign a bill that would take that away and open the door to premium caps by the Congress?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, Congress is reviewing that. He said it’s appropriate that they review that. But let’s talk about—

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Would he sign it, though?

DAVID AXELROD: Let’s talk about the insurance industry for a second, because most of the stakeholders in this healthcare debate are at the table. They’re trying to produce real reform, because everyone knows the current system is unsustainable. The insurance industry has decided now at the eleventh hour that they don’t want to go along with this. One of the problems we have is we have a healthcare system now that functions very well for the insurance industry, but not well for their customers. So what we need—

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So is he saying if they don’t play ball, they’re going to lose their antitrust exemption?

DAVID AXELROD: —what we—so we need these—we need these reforms. In the last year—in the last ten years, premiums have doubled. You’ve seen the insurance companies take—ten years ago, fifteen years ago, they spent 95 percent of their premiums on healthcare, now 80 percent. More of the money is going to bonuses, salaries, administrative costs. This is not a sustainable path for this country. So we need reform, and that’s what he is arguing for.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they don’t join the reform effort, will they the lose their antitrust exemption?

DAVID AXELROD: Well, we’ll see what Congress—we’ll see what Congress does. One thing we ought to do, the House bill has in it provisions that says that if they fall below a certain level of return of these medical-loss ratios, in other words, the amount of money that they spend on actual healthcare, that they need to rebate some of that money to consumers. That seems like a good idea.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s David Axelrod on ABC with George Stephanopoulos. Ryan Grim, do you think the repeal would actually happen?

RYAN GRIM: You know, it might. As Axelrod clearly stated there, it’s a nakedly political move that they’re making. And as this battle intensifies, if the insurance company ramps it up and Democrats are able to keep going forward, then they might just do it.

You know, you’re not going to hear it from the White House, because their strategy all along has been to refuse to say what they want. And their support among liberals and progressives in that Washington Post poll that you mentioned is dropping, in terms of how strong Obama is being on healthcare, because he refuses to say what he wants, and people up on Capitol Hill are getting frustrated. They’re saying, “Look, it’s been months now. Start demanding something. You know, tell us you want a public option. Not only do you want it, but you’re going to demand it. Tell us you want this exemption through. Not only do you want it, but you’re going to demand it.”

So it’ll be interesting to look to the White House over the next couple weeks to see if they do step up their rhetoric and realize that they might actually win.

AMY GOODMAN: And Ryan, this latest poll that just came out, the Washington Post-ABC News poll, has found 57 percent of all Americans want a public insurance option.

RYAN GRIM: Sure. And what’s amazing is that we’re now in the Senate talking about what kind of public option might be in the final bill, rather than whether or not we’re going to have a public option. That is just an extraordinary political achievement for the left over the last six months. Max Baucus just said the other day that there might be a, quote, “less pure public option.” Harkin said that there would be a public option in the final bill. Dodd and Harry Reid, who are in the room writing this final bill, have both said that they support a public option. It’s astounding to a lot of centrists and mainstream reporters and politicians that this is where the debate is. But something has changed out there, and there’s a very real possibility that the final package will include a real public option.

AMY GOODMAN: And the split between Harry Reid and Charles Schumer of New York, with Schumer saying Reid just has to put it in. Reid, actually facing a very serious challenge at home, could actually lose the next Senate race? And maybe—

RYAN GRIM: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: —Schumer would run for his position?

RYAN GRIM: Well, Reid—Schumer might. You know, he does seem like a natural majority leader. But Reid has been kind of all over the place on this. A couple weeks ago at a telephone town hall with constituents in Nevada, he said, you know, something like “I guarantee that we will have a public option in the bill that goes to the President’s desk.” That night I had a—Democratic advisers calling, saying, “Whoa, whoa, you know, he didn’t quite mean that. He said he wants to, you know, have choice and competition,” the Obama terms. So part of Harry Reid really wants to go to battle and get this done; the other part of him is, you know, hedging a little bit. So, you know, it’ll be up to the left and progressives over the next month or so to really put pressure on Harry Reid to do what it seems like he does want to do.



Login or Register to post comments.

28 comments

I can't shake the feeling that if congress repeal the anti-trust exemption for the insurance industry, its only because that is exactly what the health insurance industry wants them to do.

I know, I know it makes no sense, but that how bought and sold I think our congress is.

Besides, does anyone really know what would happen if they repealed anti-trust exemption? Couldn't it potentially act as a giant reset switch, screwing over countless policy holders the insurance cos deem, costly?

I largely share your skepticism about Congress, but I can't see any insurance industry angle to this at all. Anti-trust laws are explicitly pro-free-market and anti-megacorp. There is a very good reason why business love making monopolies and hate trust-busting: a monopoly lets them easily fund their golden parachutes.

Besides, how could overly-costly policy holders be screwed any worse than they already are? Those are the very people already being screwed with recisions and blatant refusals to actually cover their policies.

This *could* be a conspiracy to deliberately play right into AHIP's hands, but I just can't see how or why.

But my faith in congress worthlessness is greater than my faith in rationality!

Besides, there is no anti-trust exemption for the financial industry is there and they seem to be doing DAMN fine.

What does repealing the exemption really mean? It's not like the insurance companies can be punished for creating what were then legal monopolies. One could force them to break up concentrations of ownership but that might harm the economies of scale without really breaking up the monopolies. All they would have to do is trade their clients with companies in other jurisdictions until they get below the monopoly threshold which doesn't actually guarantee anything. Anybody feel like becoming a baseball card?

when they start playing this giant swap game they say need 'em instead of got 'em when they get to you. Your stats will be very important in assessing your value.

That's delusional... it ain't gunna happen!

In all other countries, it is actually illegal for basic health insurance plans to be provided by for profit providers. The profit incentive MUST be removed from equation.

If all of the countries that provide some type of universal health care coverage mandate insurers be non profit, it would seem this is a must have element. Oh I forgot, people in Congress say we need something "uniquely American."

I am so sick of Democrats "considering", or "threatening" to take action. Every day the Treasury bleeds red straight into fat cat coffers.

U.S. industry eliminates jobs because of health insurance costs, unions are cowed and branded, working citizens cornered into "every man for himself" isolation.

Wall Street gets billions, GM and UAW get the shaft. Geitner, Summers et. al. still running the show. McCoverUp McChrystal leaks insubordination. Liz Cheney is given TV credibility.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et. al. wring their hands, stamp their feet, "consider" action, "threaten" consequences, and DO NOTHING.

9 months in - guess what? Honeymoon OVER! Let's see that change we hoped for.

Obama - how about this? Put Howard Dean in charge of health care and make Alan Grayson Speaker!! Show both sides of the aisle who is boss! Tell Holden to issue indictments and schedule court dates for Wall Street theives and neo-con torture mongers.

MAKE SOME EXAMPLES. "strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers"

Did anybody else catch the PBS Frontline special tonight, "The Warning" regarding Brooksley Born's warning to Congress back in the late 90's about the danger of the "over the counter derivatives".

She was the head of the CFTC (Commodities Futures Trading Commission) and she had to fight Greenspan, Rubin, Lawrence Summers and Congress to try to have the derivative market regulated.

Obviously they got their way and she ended up resigning.

And what do we have now??

Barack Obama named Lawrence Summers, one of the architects of DEREGULATION IN THE 90'S as his chief economic adviser in The White House! Of course Timothy Geithner was involved in the Clinton Administration as well.

It's been a year since our Treasury was robbed by the Wall Street Banker Boyz and what has the Obama Administration done to date to regulate derivatives and other risky investment ploys?

Nada.

Something so stinks here....

Are we going to let them rob us AGAIN???

"let them rob us again?"

When did they stop? Now Obama puts a 29 year old Goldman puppy as enforcement division’s first chief operating officer???

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206010...

McGruff the crime puppy will be sure to put the bite on SEC violators (as long as they are not named Goldman or Sachs).

clusterfuck.

Wouldn't it make better sense that if the American public were to vote on whether to have a public option competing with private insurers instead of the house and senate doing it for us behind closed doors? Whatever happened to "We the people..." over the past 8+ year??

Also, I wonder if the 57% recently polled is an understatement of how much the American public most likely does want a competitive public option in order to drive down costs.

yesterday during this exchange with me at Crooksandliars:

Paul Krugman of the NYT:
Mon, 10/19/2009 - 15:21 — Abbybwood
in an op-ed entitled, "A Hatchet Job So Bad It's Good" suggested that EVERYONE (other than those who are eligible for Medicaid/Medicare) would be eligible for a Public Option.

There is so much confusion about The Public Option. My understanding is that if it is included in any bill at the MOST only about 17 million Americans would even be eligible for it.

Can either of you please explain WHO WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO JOIN A PUBLIC OPTION???

And, what are your positions on Conyers/Kucinich H.R. 676 Medicare for All???/

Thanks,
Abbybwood, R.N.

reply
Eligibility
Mon, 10/19/2009 - 15:27 — Joe Sestak

"The public option on the House side is open to any individual that is not working for a company of more than 15 people (or 50 people after three years). Those companies are mandated to provide health coverage." - Joe Sestak

I found this answer to be very interesting. This information is completely contrary to what I have been reading about "The Public Option".

I thought that there would only be about 17 million Americans who would be eligible to enroll in a Public Option and this would be based on their incomes. In other words, if you make a very low income you would qualify for Medicaid. Over 65? Medicare. Certain percentages above the Federal Poverty Level and you would be able to buy insurance in one of the Exchanges and that would include some government subsidies. Anyone NOT fitting into these categories would be mandated to purchase private health insurance.

Then Rep. Sestak says, from what I understood, that say a R.N. like me, who may work as an "Independent Contractor" where I could pull in around $80,000/year would be eligible for "The Public Option"!! I would be self-employed..."not working for a company of more than 15 people" etc.

It seems a little odd that someone making $80k/year would be allowed to join "The Public Option".

Does anybody have a better understanding of what the heck is going on here?

Boy...talk about confusion!!!!

that AIN'T gonna happen!!!!!!!!!

When was I projected back to the 1960s?? You mean, the neo-con/neo-liberal Milton Friedman, "the marketplace trumps the sovereignty of the citizens" return to the 19th century unregulated, laissez-faire era is over?? Well, I'll be damned. Some congresspersons finally grew a pair. Lord, Jebus, we are saved!!

In 1999 the last vote in the Senate this piece of garbage and his two buddies snuck the deregulation bill into the last Finance Bill to be Voted on, this Low life scum bag never said anything until after the break.

You know what, what goes around comes around, I truly believe these Scum sucking Racist Fascist Socialist Nazi republican TRAITORS should have the same done to them sneak the Sherman Anti Trust Act in and REPEAL this pukes profits see how MURDER Incorporated likes it when they have NO protection.

Oh yeah that piece of slim Phil Graham can we do anything to this piece of SH*T and his NAZI party.

You took the words right out of my mouth oldretire, of course I'm not as informed on the subject at you so thanks bro!

I'm all for it...

Yeah right , "they are talking about it" and are "considering it " , I'll believe it when I see it , until then it's just more BS from the bought off self serving whores in DC , if it happens I'll go into shock .

Who let this go on for so long?

Funny, how everybody's so pro-competition and free market until it actually involves creating a free market and encouraging competition.

Next up, you might take a look at the five or so media conglomerates.

...until we actually return to capitalism, before you go puttin' it down.

We don't have capitalism! ...and this is a great example.

to be an american is to believe in mega profits from the sick and needy.

indeed any profits off the sick and needy is a sign of a nation that has lost its bearings and immoral.

we elect those that support such a horrible idea.

we are a nation of selfish individuals

more darwin than christian

christianity died on the cross in america

every one of those people blocking those unemployment benefits considers themselves a christian.

wanna bet on that

)O(

Actually Xianity died in 70 CE with the Diaspora, and the resultant fall of the Church of Jerusalem, and all that was left were the Paulists (not to be confused with the heresy called Paulicians).

Which is why Xianity stopped being a Jewish sect and became a new religion - Paul believed that converting the Gentiles was the path to power (he was right about that.)

Not to mention the misogyny the Paulists embedded into the theology.

They should remove this exemption...How can the GOP argue against competition? MLB had to re-justify their exemption a few years back, why not health insurance?

...OT, but were these the sorriest-looking group we've seen in a while. Dude...find a comb and button your shirt. Anyway.

)O(

Hey who glued my fingertips together!

I didn't hear any naked political threats from Axelrod. All I heard was more of the same, tired, wimpy Obama administration indecisiveness. They are a perfect successor to wimps like
Daschle and a perfect match for Reid.

They are incapable, due to either a misguided political startegy or a weak, spineless nature to take a firm stand and LEAD on anything. I'm sick of them and their "lead from the rear" attitude.

The insurance industry is the only industry we are required by government to support. In casualty, far too many collision-for-profit rackets are protected by relatives who are agents, claims adjusters, police, and politicians. We are required to purchase auto insurance to subsidize this corruption.

Now we are to be required to subsidize a health insurance industry which has denied us coverage, in many cases, and denied claims payment in even more. Their employees may well be carrying life insurance on ill family members or the sickest of us, and they will be planning a sumptuous retirement on benefits paid for by our deaths. Ted Turner's cousins, at one time, ran this racket through a funeral home and through what is now UNUM Provident.

Honest industries don't need regulation. The insurance industry is begging for it. Give it to them, good and hard.

28 comments

Login or Register to post comments.