Skip to main content

(Cross-posted from Think it Through)

Hypocrisy is once again on display in the United States Senate.  Creating competition in the health insurance industry is the one goal that Congressional Democrats and Republicans can say they agree upon, even if they disagree about how to bring about this competition.

Senators have been scrambling to create new and ever-more complicated systems - public insurance option, and cooperative exchanges - that only theoretically would infuse the health insurance markets with more competition.

But the truth is that we can lower insurance rates immediately by repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1952, which has allowed insurance companies to operate outside the federal antitrust laws for the past 57 years.   So far, the Senate has been unwilling to end the insurance industry's baseless exemption from the antitrust laws.

A recent statement by Senator Evan Bayh exemplifies the doublespeak that characterizes the Senate pronouncements on the health insurance industry.  "Normally in our country we like the free market system to operate and to efficiently allocate resources.  Now from time to time to where there is a problem with that if you have something called a natural monopoly, well then the government steps in to regulate that to make sure they don't gouge consumers and if you have to use the antitrust laws or other steps to make sure that there is robust competition, that people get the choices and the lower costs that they deserve, well you use the law for that purpose.  So I think we ought to try, first, aggressive market reforms to give that competition and lower price that the American people want.  I think that is what the President was alluding to in his speech.  If that does not work, well then there is an appropriate role for government to step in, but that should not be the first choice.  That should be only if the free market cannot be reformed sufficiently."

The clarity of remarks like those of Senator Bayh is one reason many Americans are indeed skeptical that Congress really means what it says about competition.  They have good reason to be skeptical.

The antitrust exemption for insurance left it up to each state to regulate insurance carriers.  Insurance commissioners and commissions in the states have been notoriously cozy with the insurance industry.  The result has given us health insurance monopolies in some states and price agreements among insurance companies in others to keep prices high. Ronald Brownstein recently reported in the National Journal "the American Medical Association reported recently that insurance markets lack robust competition in more than 90% of metropolitan areas; in 16 states one insurer writes at least half the policies."

I recently asked a Washington lobbyist who spent years on the Senate Banking Committee if anyone over the past two decades ever introduced legislation to repeal the McCarran Act.  His answer: "Sure a few senators, but never anyone on the banking committee."  In other words, the senators such as Banking Committee Chairman, Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who were in a position to change the laws, who could move a bill through the Senate, were too close to the insurance industry to want to upset the status quo.

Won't someone in the Senate step us and say: Let's do something simple that will reduce insurance rates immediately. Let's end the fiction and acknowledge that insurance companies are national businesses (one is even called "nationwide") that should be subject to the national antitrust laws.

Repealing McCarran-Ferguson would be a simple, effective solution to lower insurance rates.

It would be good for the public but a little unsettling for the senators who speak sanctimoniously of the promise of competition, but are unwilling to act to keep the promise.

John Russonello is a partner with Belden Russonello & Stewart: Public Opinion Research and Strategic Communications in Washington, DC. He writes the blog "Think it Through."

Originally posted to John Russonello on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 07:49 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Commonwealth (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Calamity Jean

    The Constitution declares natural rights that we all share as US citizens, a birthright that is true common wealth.  One shared wealth is the government itself, as a pool of risk that protects us all.  Government is conceived of as insurance, and if it does its job well, each citizen enjoys lower risk.

    Those tangible and intangible equities that we all share as commonly held wealth have been the feeding ground of corporate vampires for a long time.  If government takes on a true insurance role in health care, it does so by affirming the existence of common wealth, of rights beyond commerce.  Such an idea is terrifying to corporatist ideologues.

    The corporate realm can only be aggrandized by continued carving away at the public living flesh.  Any affirmation of public rights, including all forms of re-regulation, come a population crash to corporate beings.  This is the truth behind any role for government that actually protects people.

    Corporations are an alien life form, and we are at war with them for our own habitat.  They play as if this were life and death, a zero sum game.  It is.

    The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein -- best book ever, I nominate for a Nobel Prize!

    by xaxado on Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 08:45:45 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site