THE HILL
 

Insurance price-fixing

By Brent Budowsky - 11/23/09 06:18 PM ET

If any senator threatens to kill the healthcare bill unless the public option is removed, whatever that senator was given for voting to consider the healthcare bill should be removed from the bill.

Meanwhile, the proposal to repeal the antitrust exemption for the insurance industry, with strong Democratic and some Republican support, should be passed as separate legislation.

Exempting the insurance industry, which has a horrific record of punishing premium increases and monopolistic practices in state after state, is ridiculous.

The insurance industry should not be exempt from the laws that govern other industries. We have seen the result for consumers and voters. They are not happy.

Once the antitrust exemption is repealed and cases are brought, change comes. The legal process of discovery, subpoena of documents and questioning of insurance executives in depositions and court testimony under oath will reveal why premiums are so high and why so many consumers suffer monopoly-style abuse.

When evidence in antitrust cases is made public, the voter outrage will be so immense that the pending public option will be mild compared to the consumer protections voters will demand.

The healthcare bill will have little impact for years. Repealing the antitrust exemption will have impact within weeks on companies that continue aggressive premium increases.

Members of Congress fighting for the rule of law and lower premiums will reap huge rewards with voters. Members fighting to continue legalized price-fixing and market collusion will be punished. Their progressive opponents will have a powerful electoral weapon.

Here is the deal: Pass the public option and put aside the antitrust issue for now. Watch how the new system works. Kill the public option and Congress must end the legalized price-fixing and collusion, now and forever, to police a giant force-feed of 30 million to 40 million customers to private insurers with a long history of abuse.

Progressive members of the House and Senate should refuse to support any healthcare bill without a public option while Congress moves to pass the repeal of the insurance exemption. This prospect may inspire insurers to tell those they shower with campaign money to accept the public option.

Public option supporters have won the debate in a landslide. While other parts of the bill lost support after the onslaught by opponents, the public option support surges.

The American people support the public option. A majority of the House and Senate supports the public option. Four of five congressional committees that considered the bill support it. With mounting and widely despised deficits, the public option lowers the deficit. The stronger the public option, the lower the deficit.

The public option as written in the House or Senate bill must be included. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) can kill healthcare reform because of their fanatical opposition to a program that lowers the deficit, creates real choice and is supported by a majority of their colleagues and the nation.

When history calls, they will have to tell constituents why they killed reform, voting for higher premiums and deficits, less choice and more pricing-fixing, and put insurance lobbyists and campaign donors ahead of them.

Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Bill Alexander, then chief deputy majority whip of the House. He holds an LL.M. degree in international financial law from the London School of Economics. He can be read on The Hill’s Pundits Blog and reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/brent-budowsky/69205-insurance-price-fixing

Comments (13)

Brent: Might want to ask yourself why you're so all-fired interested in suppressing the Insurance Companies, and yet you mention NOTHING of the raping a pillaging which the American People suffer at the hands of their own government. At least when one gets screwed over by a PRIVATE Insurance Company, they have some recourse. We're expected to bend over and SMILE while we're brutalized by our elected officials, as they WILLFULLY IGNORE the voice of the people. What will it take for these arrogant elitist THIEVES to recognize the storm they are creating for themselves. Will they REALLY keep pushing and pushing until it comes to the ULTIMATE push back? Will they?BY Dusan on 11/24/2009 at 01:06
This is the type of disinformation that insurance industry haters love to perpetuate. There's nothing - NOTHING - in McCarran-Ferguson that allows insurance companies to engage in "punishing premium increases and monopolistic practices in state after state." You totally discount the entire state insurance regulatory system and the competition that exists in the insurance business.Surely your LL.M. taught you to read the law before you criticize it. Go read it. And while you're at it, contact me, and I'll tell you all about insurance regulation and the nature of the business.Finally, The Hill, it's pathetic to publish error-ridden tripe like this. Quit being taken in by the Looney Left.BY John Lobert on 11/24/2009 at 11:06
Hmmm… Dusan seems unable to understand that when you don't like what government does, you vote for another candidate (that being the recourse, DUH). On the other hand, Dusan is unable to fathom the idea - apparently - that the practice of insurance company recission of existing politics, that were paid in full by an insured, is something that customers DON'T have any recourse for. So you can pay your premiums for 8 months, get cancer, and the insurance company can rescind your policy because you didn't disclose you had acne (and that's not a "made up" scenario - that's one that actually happened in real life). What's your recourse then? You can't get coverage - you've got cancer. I guess you die - kind of like what Alan Grayson said Republican's health care plan is. And what exactly do you mean by the "ultimate push back"? Advocating violence?And John Lobert, reading a law, and understanding its implications are two entirely different things. You'd be well served to understand that, my friend.It DOES, in fact, allow monopolistic practices and conditions to exist. And in any for-profit industry where a monopoly exists, greed, unfortunately, has a way of rearing it's ugly head and causing…what? (All together now): Punishing premium increases!See, the competitive aspect of a capitalistic society is what keeps costs low, and helps suppress greed to levels that don't get out of hand to customer's detriment. Remove the competition (as McCarran Ferguson effectively does, for those who UNDERSTAND it), and the incentive to keep costs low is gone.Well written, Brent.BY Dave F. on 11/24/2009 at 13:14
The problem with the argument put forth here is that we indeed do know what is driving up health insurance premiums: Health costs are going up because demand for these services is not affected by the cost. If it were the "evil" insurance companies that were causing the inflation, why aren't we seeing the same thing happening in auto insurance, liability insurance, homeowners insurance, and in every other line of insurance? These insurance products are offered by insurance companies as well. The cost of cars are not increasing every year because we do not have third parties paying for our new cars through some car insurance intermediary. Of course, you don't need to believe me, you can investigate it yourself. Aetna and Cigna are large, publicly traded insurance companies: Their revenues, expenses, profit margins, and taxes are all publicly available to one and all. Apparently, Mr Budowsky and Dave F. are not aware of this. And one question: Does Mr Budowski and Dave F. really believe that people become evil when they go to work in the insurance industry? Because companies cannot be evil, only people can be. Companies (or corporations) do not do anything, only people do.BY Russell Reeve on 11/24/2009 at 18:54
Well done Brent! To bad that Reeve, Lorbert and Dusan do not have the first clue!BY Robert Alton on 11/25/2009 at 11:54
I've read about the clowns that are hired to post comments for criminals like the health insurance industry. And here they are-the willing and, I suspect, paid dupes for the death dealing, greedy, inhumane, lying insurance companies. Your damn right I hate them and the idiots that defend them.BY Geo on 11/25/2009 at 14:25
This is liberal philosophy at it's worst. The federal government just picked our pockets for 1.4 trillion between the failed stimulus and the failed bail outs. Brent ignores this waste of money and goes after private companies who have done a pretty good job. Typical liberal.BY Robert Rosencrans on 11/25/2009 at 17:57
This is a ridiculous argument. Although I have the utmost respect for Brent Budowsky's distinguished career, his brief retreat from politics has been his greatest public service since the late 1980's.It has been demonstrated over and over again that the insurance industry makes very little money relative to other industries. Over 85% of the premium dollar goes to paying claims, and it's as high as 90% in many markets. The remaining 10-15% goes to administration, which includes disease management, wellness programs, investigating fraud, etc. It's a commodity product with very few opportunities to convince employers to pay for a benefit contract when they can get the identical benefit contract from another carrier.If there's any monopoly in the healthcare business, it's the providers. Hospitals can frequently maintain local monopolies through Certificate of Need laws, and then demand incredible concessions from health plans. Even when competition exists, the nature of health insurance leads to consumers being oblivious to the cost of the care received. For example, Virginia Mason hospital, in Seattle, has put a tremendous amount of work into implementing quality control standards and Toyota-style process improvements to hold down costs and increase quality. The management at Swedish Hospital, on the other hand, have been more than happy to continue wasting money, and as the economy tanked, their solution was to simply demand a 32% increase in pay from the Blue Shield affiliate, in a deflationary market no less. This scenario is playing out in every big city across America, and can be easily verified with a glance at the annual reports from any major insurer or hospital system.BY John Bronsdon on 11/28/2009 at 17:39
The only way the public option will be palatable is if it is entirely self supporting. It cannot be coming back to Congress every few years asking for more money.The only way the public option can be reasonably expected to accomplish this, is to be able to compete on a level playing field with the private insurance industry. All involved parties should be competing for customers from the same nationwide risk pool. No one should have an advantage.We will never know if this would be of benefit to the people, as the option will never be allowed to be tried. The insurance companies (among others) have so much money at stake, they will pay any price to see that this does not come about. If the insurance industry was indeed paying out 85-90% as they claim, they should be able to compete with a government plan, as everyone seems to know just how inefficient government programs are. If the profit margin really is that low, they should be able to up sell their product. How many people drive the cheapest car available in America? If people really don't want the government plan, with less than 10% at stake they should be willing to pay that much more to deal with private companies on principle alone. Put a viable public option on the table and let the people of America decide which route they would rather take.BY Will on 11/28/2009 at 22:31
First of all, the 85-90% that the insurance industry claims to be paying out can be easily verified from their annual reports and quarterly financial statements. It's as easy as looking it up on the SEC's website or on Google.It's hard to fathom what the advantage would be for a "self-supporting" public option, especially when compared against the not-for-profits and cooperatives that already have significant market share in many regions of America.For example, Group Health Cooperative, in Seattle, is governed by its members. The health plan's members select the Board of Trustees, and can address the board directly during periodic open mic sessions. Group Health Cooperative of South Central Wisconsin and Health Partners in Minnesota both operate on a similar model, and there are countless other examples to draw from. In each case, the premiums charged by the self-supporting cooperatives have risen in a similar way to the for-profit plans. A public option that pays the same prices to providers as the current health plans will have to charge a similar premium to the current health plans. There is just very little potential for a public option so save money on the 10-15% of premium that goes to administration, especially when it's almost normal for providers to request price increases far above 15% in most of the United States. For anyone trying to learn more about the system, I'd recommend reading up on local companies' financials, and then consider serving on a community board for your local health plan or hospital.BY John Bronsdon on 11/29/2009 at 09:41

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.