Thread: WHY are blacks protesting DACA? This makes no sense

I'm still trying to understand this - really I am.

Texas may continue to regulate it's companies and the premiums they can charge based on the cost of healthcare in Texas?

If other states, with higher premiums due to higher costs, want to purchase insurance in Texas, insurance companies will have to raise the premiums on Texas residents. The state governments will have to go along with insurance companies as they are going to be loosing money.

I am really trying to understand, not argue. If insurance companies are forced to pay claims in high costs states, but collect Texas premiums, they will loose money. The state will have to go along with higher premiums. They aren't going to force them to loose money.

Now they could try to force them to loose money, but the insurance company will simply withdraw from selling coverage in these states, where they are loosing money.

This seems like a way to force the people of the lower costs states to subsidize those who reside in high cost states.

Originally Posted by lorrie

WHY are blacks protesting DACA? This makes no sense

Of course it makes no sense. Black Americans are hurt the most from illegal immigration, but unfortunately, they are brainwashed into supporting these people, being completely unaware of the enormous destruction inflicted on the their communities by these illegals. If all illegals were deported today, most of those jobs would go to black people, with higher pay. It just goes to show how good liberals are at brainwashing people into doing their dirty work.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

I'm still trying to understand this - really I am.

Texas may continue to regulate it's companies and the premiums they can charge based on the cost of healthcare in Texas?

If other states, with higher premiums due to higher costs, want to purchase insurance in Texas, insurance companies will have to raise the premiums on Texas residents. The state governments will have to go along with insurance companies as they are going to be loosing money.

I am really trying to understand, not argue. If insurance companies are forced to pay claims in high costs states, but collect Texas premiums, they will loose money. The state will have to go along with higher premiums. They aren't going to force them to loose money.

Now they could try to force them to loose money, but the insurance company will simply withdraw from selling coverage in these states, where they are loosing money.

This seems like a way to force the people of the lower costs states to subsidize those who reside in high cost states.

There is nothing about "same rate" anywhere in any of this. Okay, think of it this way, an insurance company is no different than an oil company. Prices can vary from corner to corner, town to town, county to county, state to stay, neighborhood to neighborhood, person to person, repealing McCarran doesn't impact how companies determine their rates, their premiums, their risk pools. Repealing McCarran prevents them from anti-competition behavior, collusion, price fixing, plots, ans schemes to take advantage of consumers on a collective basis, which are strident violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Because of McCarran, all the insurance companies in a state can hold a big association meeting and discuss prices, costs, plots, schemes, and can include their hospital providers, doctors, lawyers, equipment providers, anyone and everything to do with charges at the hospital, lab and provider level to agree upon among themselves how to price fix and discount and pay and receive insurance monies, they invite the Commissioners of Insurance to their meetings, and they all walk out in complete agreement of what must be done to benefit themselves. When everyone in the industry or business is on the same page, there is no competition. That is why rates go up and up and up. Also, to avoid federal prosecution for these actions, the Democrats in Congress in 1945, after losing a US Supreme Court Ruling on the subject, passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 that EXEMPTED all insurance companies if regulated by a state from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Repealing McCarran has nothing to do with how or why insurance companies set a certain rate in a certain region or state or city or town or how they charge an individual. It has only to do with restoring the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to an industry that represents 1/6th of our economy and make them subject to the same federal laws as every other business in the United States.

Now, that said, beyond the obvious of why this should be done as a simple matter of principle, how does this help consumers overall? Well, by removing the exemption, you force all players in the insurance industry to compete, instead of collude, to work against each other instead of working together. That competition benefits consumers just like it does in every other business. Also, presently to confine themselves to an individual state to avoid Sherman Anti-Trust, the economies of scale are too small, the risk pools inadequate in size, number and demographics. There are also too many loopholes, too many unfair trading practices, too much deception, all of which is prohibited by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Insurance succeeds where there are plenty of good credit consumers in the pools. The pools are too small now, too limited, not enough enrollees to spread the cost. When you go national, you can not only enroll more good credit consumers, you can enroll more people overall to generate much larger risk pools with better demographics and thus make it all more affordable for everyone. I think when you repeal McCarran, rates and premiums will drop like rocks for everyone, no matter the age, health or circumstance, and so will the actual costs of medical care where the worst collusion actually prevails in all of these phony 501 C 3 not-for-profit hospitals.

Insurance companies serving high cost areas are still free to charge rates higher than lower cost areas. Repealing McCarran doesn't have anything to do with who pays what rates, repealing McCarran simply restores nation-wide legal competition to the health insurance industry, something we've not had in this industry since 1945 because of Democrats in Congress, who when the industry lost their ruling at the US Supreme Court said, "oh damn, they're ruining our little collusion game, oh I know, we'll just EXEMPT the whole insurance industry from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act". Dems controlled Congress, all Republicans opposed it, but it passed and Truman signed it into law. We've been stuck with it ever since.

Just repeal this inanity and see what fair trade subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act does to this industry. It will clean it up, it will shut down the plots, schemes, collusion, price fixing. It will end the games, the loopholes, the deceptions, unfair and deceptive trading practices, and will generate larger pools, legal aggressive competition, new companies, new and better ideas, it will all be good. McCarran has severely restricted new good ideas that streamline service, reduce cost and generate affordable reliable health insurance policies, and the much larger risk pools will drop premiums like a rock.