PDA

View Full Version : Why did Ron vote NO??




Paulfan05
02-24-2010, 04:15 PM
The house passed a bill to repeal health insuance anti trust exemption. Ron voted no, I want to know why, it sounds like a good thing right? :confused:

Knightskye
02-24-2010, 04:19 PM
RESTORING THE APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR INSURERS

Ron Paul knows antitrust laws are no good.

(PDF of the bill):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4626ih.txt.pdf

Paulfan05
02-24-2010, 04:20 PM
http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=2164

specsaregood
02-24-2010, 04:21 PM
Ron Paul knows antitrust laws are no good.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4626ih.txt.pdf

Nate-ForLiberty
02-24-2010, 04:23 PM
111th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 4626

To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 22, 2010

Mr. PERRIELLO (for himself, Ms. MARKEY of Colorado, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BOUCHER, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. CHU, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HOLT, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. KILROY, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LUJAN, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Mr. MASSA, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. PETERS, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. STUPAK, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. TEAGUE, Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. TITUS, Mr. TONKO, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. WELCH, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WU, Mr. BARROW, and Ms. HIRONO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act'.

SEC. 2. RESTORING THE APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR INSURERS.

(a) Amendment to McCarran-Ferguson Act- Section 3 of the Act of March 9, 1945 (15 U.S.C. 1013), commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(c) Nothing contained in this Act shall modify, impair, or supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws with respect to the business of health insurance. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `antitrust laws' has the meaning given it in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, except that such term includes section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the extent that such section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition.'.

(b) Related Provision- For purposes of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45) to the extent such section applies to unfair methods of competition, section 3(c) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act shall apply with respect to the business of health insurance without regard to whether such business is carried on for profit, notwithstanding the definition of `Corporation' contained in section 4 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

//

Knightskye
02-24-2010, 04:28 PM
"A Politically Incorrect Guide to Antitrust Policy":
http://mises.org/story/2694


If we drop the strict free-market assumption, however, a real monopoly problem is easy to visualize. Government could license only one supplier (e.g., a taxi cab company) in some city market and restrict entry to all other suppliers; the market would then be monopolized by law. Or government could establish a legal monopoly in telecommunications, electricity generation, telephone service, first-class mail delivery, and in many other areas; indeed, government in the United States has historically done precisely this. And, curiously, these monopolies have always been legally immune from antitrust law!

Clearly this is a monopoly problem since consumers, regardless of their preferences, would then legally be tied to only one supplier. In addition, would-be entrepreneurs with lower costs or with new products would legally be prohibited from offering those benefits to willing buyers.

And with competition prohibited by law, the monopoly supplier would have few (if any) incentives to innovate, to expand output and to lower prices.

But this monopoly problem ought never to be associated with "free markets" since its explicit source is the power of government to prohibit new supply. Removing all legal barriers to entry and competition (deregulation, correctly understood) would end this monopoly problem without antitrust intervention.

Elwar
02-24-2010, 04:29 PM
He is Dr. No.

MelissaWV
02-24-2010, 05:05 PM
For a hint, consider the "short title":


This Act may be cited as the `Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act'.

When the Government has to enforce "fair competition," it becomes neither fair nor competitive.

malkusm
02-24-2010, 05:11 PM
Ugh, figures that this bill was introduced by my rep (Perriello). We need to get McPadden in that seat so he can vote alongside Ron :D

RP4EVER
02-25-2010, 03:28 AM
I cant stand Perriello Malkusm; the lying little b*****d that he is; i so want to kick his rear myself; heres hoping McPadden gets the win!

Cant stand Boucher either; he was right in line with Perriello

Epic
02-25-2010, 11:03 AM
No, the problem is that doctors don't have an anti-trust exemption, so it's an uneven playing field.

http://mises.org/story/1616

As for the antitrust exemption for insurers, good. Antitrust is the mechanism whereby the largest companies get the government to do their bidding and hurt other companies. Government gets to go on a power trip and pretend they are doing something good.

There is nothing an insurance company can do to corner the market on their own - except provide amazing service at an amazing price. If you want to know why insurance industry isn't competitive, look to government regulations, state-based mandates prohibiting differentiation, and rules preventing consumers from buying across state lines.

Oh yeah, and the bill is unconstitutional. So RP's vote shouldn't be any surprise.

Jordan
02-25-2010, 11:14 AM
wrong thread