Paul Ryan’s repeal and replace allows restraint of trade and price fixing to continue

I found no repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act in Paul Ryan’s REPEAL AND REPLACE PLAN

Without a repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the State Legislatures and Insurance Companies will still be able to thwart competition across state lines and “legally” engage in price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing in the insurance industry within each State’s borders, which are indictable offenses under United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944),.

We all knew that Paul Ryan is the Washington Establishment's darling, and now we find his plan gives the Insurance industry a green light to thwart Congress’ power to regulate commerce among the states which was delegated to specifically insure “free trade” among the States.

JWK


Millions of citizens have lost their health-care under Obamacare, and many more millions cannot use Obamacare because of Obamacare’s outrageous premiums and deductible. Repeal and replace Obamacare with nothing, and repeal McCarran-Ferguson.

House Speaker Paul Ryan SAID the bill would "drive down costs, encourage competition…” Ryan is full of bull-crap-ski. There is no repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act which is necessary to restore competition in the insurance industry.

On the other hand, Sen. Rand Paul, said the bill "looks like ObamaCare Lite to me ... It's going to have to be better."

I agree with Sen. Rand Paul!

JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into taxslaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.

The fact is, Ryan's plan does nothing to introduce competition across state lines and allows the insurance industry to continue in its evil ways. If Trump supports this piece of crap he will have reneged on one of his big promises!

The proposal also does nothing to stop illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer financed health-care.


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.

I heard Louie Gohmert saying on CNN or Fox last night that they need to repeal McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, but that it has to be done separately but needs to be done right away. I've always thought it had to be done separately because the McCarran-Ferguson Act covers insurance other than health insurance, and there's some attempt here by Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare as part of a reconciliation method of passing it to avoid the 60 cloture vote requirement in the US Senate to bring the bill to a vote.

So Republicans are on top of the issue of McCarran-Ferguson, but Gohmert is the first person I've heard call the bill by name on television. I hope more do so, and I hope our new President tweets about repealing McCarran-Ferguson Act now. No need to wait, repeal it now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I heard Louie Gohmert saying on CNN or Fox last night that they need to repeal McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, but that it has to be done separately but needs to be done right away. I've always thought it had to be done separately because the McCarran-Ferguson Act covers insurance other than health insurance, and there's some attempt here by Republicans to repeal and replace Obamacare as part of a reconciliation method of passing it to avoid the 60 cloture vote requirement in the US Senate to bring the bill to a vote.

So Republicans are on top of the issue of McCarran-Ferguson, but Gohmert is the first person I've heard call the bill by name on television. I hope more do so, and I hope our new President tweets about repealing McCarran-Ferguson Act now. No need to wait, repeal it now.

---

Judy,

As I understand it, during the current Bill’s writing there was bi-partisanship support and passage of a provision to repeal a section of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 with respect to health insurance, and it was included in the current Bill while in committee. In fact, while the Democrats controlled the House during the 111^thCongress this desire to address McCarran-Ferguson passed with over 400 votes in favor! It also passed during the Republican control of the House during the 112^th Congress by a voice vote. But somewhere along the line it was removed from the current Bill and there was absolutely no reason to remove it because of its bi-partisan support. It appears there is evil afoot and someone is protecting the health insurance industry from cross-state competition.

If Trump does not come out and demand a repeal of McCarran - Ferguson be included with respect to health insurance, you can bet your bottom dollar Trump has deceived us or someone is flimflamming and conning Trump!

JWK




Millions of citizens have lost their health-care under Obamacare, and many more millions cannot use Obamacare because of Obamacare’s outrageous premiums and deductible. Repeal and replace Obamacare with nothing, and repeal McCarran-Ferguson.

I think this is the source of the evil that's afoot:

GOP Congress Should Stop the Competitive Health Insurance Act

DIARY / Dean Chambers // Posted at 12:29 pm on February 26, 2017 by Dean Chambers

While the American people grow increasingly frustrated with the GOP Congress’ slow pace at repealing Obamacare, some Republicans are now pushing a new regulatory scheme on health insurance companies that comes straight from the playbook of Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren.

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark-up H.R. 372, the so-called Competitive Health Insurance Act of 2017 introduced by Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), to make crony GOP donors’ regulatory dream a reality.

The Gosar bill would throw conservative principles to the wayside by amending the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 to bring health insurance companies under federal antitrust oversight.

Federalizing health insurance has been a long-sought liberal goal. In fact, a Democrat version of the Gosar bill passed in 2010 when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House. At the time, Politico said the legislation was an “attack on insurers.” Sen. Chuck Schumer said lack of federal control was “one of the worst accidents of American history,” that “deserves a lot of the blame for the huge rise in premiums that has made health insurance so unaffordable.” Pelosi said the bill was necessary because insurance companies needed to be “reined in.”

Rep. Gosar claims that the antitrust exemption given by McCarran-Ferguson to the health insurance industry was intended to assist newly established insurance companies, and that this exemption is no longer needed. While the bill would allow for selling insurance over state lines, it is completely unnecessary to repeal McCarran-Ferguson in order for this to occur.

Democrats have long endorsed bringing health insurance under the antitrust umbrella as a means of stopping the “obscene” profits they say are enjoyed by the health insurance providers. Democrats believe that repealing this exemption would lower costs by subjecting insurance industry profits to antitrust scrutiny under McCarran-Ferguson.

Gosar and his liberal cohorts couldn’t be more wrong. The CBO has reviewed past versions of this legislation and concluded that exemptions such as those in the Gosar bill “would have no significant effect on the premiums that private insurers would charge for health insurance.” The CBO also predicted that such provisions might lead to additional litigation that could result in higher premiums.

The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a markup on the Gosar legislation for this week. The GOP should push to stop these changes with all its might, because increasing the federal power to regulate health insurance would completely eliminate states’ rights in this area.

Thankfully, it appears that the big guns in the Republican Party are already onto Gosar’s statist games. When his bill originally passed under the Democratic controlled Congress, one of its chief opponents was Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Likewise, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a staunch supporter of the Tenth Amendment, should see that passing such legislation undermining states’ rights in health care policy clearly undermines what he so strongly stands for in regards to federalism and limiting the authority of the federal government.

Should the bill make it to the Senate, constitutional conservative Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) should take the lead in opposing this federal power-grab.

Last week at CPAC, Vice President Mike Pence called for the ability of consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines, comparable to what is already be done with auto insurance. This is a great idea that would increase consumer choice and lower premiums, but enacting legislation like the Gosar bill would make this nearly impossible.

Enacting legislation like the Gosar bill would likely create unintended consequences that will undermine the primary goals of the Trump-Pence administration. Eliminating the antitrust exemption is not only unnecessary, it is a corporatist giveaway that could lead to an anti-competitive oligarchy.

There are many issues and concerns that should be carefully examined before enacting legislation to eliminate the exemption to McCarran-Ferguson, and Republicans should send these bills back to be more thoroughly examined in committee hearings before rushing to railroad something this destructive through Congress.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/qstarw...insurance-act/

Here is Dean Chambers, "conservative blogger:

https://www.google.com/search?q=imag...mH2uFXQcnY6fM:

Quote:

---

Eliminating the antitrust exemption is not only unnecessary, it is a corporatist giveaway that could lead to an anti-competitive oligarchy. -- Dean Chambers

---

The complete opposite of what is actually true. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act when enforced PREVENTS oligarchy and anti-competitive behavior.

I've posted for 12 years about our Period of Ironies and Opposites and yes, we have it well-entrenched everywhere even in "conservative" circles. It's why there's a difference between a "conservative blogger" and the Republican Party. The Republican Party under Teddy Roosevelt passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to protect consumers, citizens and small to medium-sized businesses from being gobbled up or put out of business by mammoth companies seeking monopoly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

The complete opposite of what is actually true. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act when enforced PREVENTS oligarchy and anti-competitive behavior.

I've posted for 12 years about our Period of Ironies and Opposites and yes, we have it well-entrenched everywhere even in "conservative" circles. It's why there's a difference between a "conservative blogger" and the Republican Party. The Republican Party under Teddy Roosevelt passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to protect consumers, citizens and small to medium-sized businesses from being gobbled up or put out of business by mammoth companies seeking monopoly.

---

Judy,

We all know the very reason for granting power to Congress to “regulate commerce among the States” was to insure free trade among the states and prevent a State Legislature to impose discriminatory law upon out of state business entities doing business within a state which South Carolina did by imposing an annual tax of 3 percent on the premiums of out of state business entities doing business in South Carolina. Because of McCarran-Ferguson, our Supreme Court upheld this type of discriminatory law which is designed to disrupt free trade among the States and snuff out competition. See PRUDENTIAL INS.CO. vs. BENJAMIN (1946).

Why is Fox News not doing a segment on the history which ledto McCarran-Ferguson, and why it must be repealed in order to restore freetrade among the states with regard to insurance?


JWK

Very informative. Thank you.

I heard Louie Gohmert mention the McCarran-Ferguson Act yesterday, too.

Trump tweeted on Fox and Friends this morning that erasing the lines, repealing McCarran Ferguson, will be in stage 2 of a 3 step process they have lined up for repealing and replacing Obamacare with a better system.

Trump will do everything he can to repeal McCarran-Ferguson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Trump tweeted on Fox and Friends this morning that erasing the lines, repealing McCarran Ferguson, will be in stage 2 of a 3 step process they have lined up for repealing and replacing Obamacare with a better system.
.

---

That is a ruse! This is the same crap the Washington Establishment pulls every time when there is bi-partisan support to pass meaningful legislation which would actually withdraw power from powerful interests which is used to plunder the people. In this case, instead of having the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson in the original Bill, the Establishment ring-leaders in Congress are creating fake reasons to put off this important legislation for a future date which will never come!

I hope President Trump is not allowing himself to be conned by the sharks on Capital Hill, and he threatens to veto, if the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson is not added to the original bill before it is voted upon. Without this repeal, there is no competition across state lines when buying health-insurance, and this is one of the reasons why the cost of health insurance is so high!


Another reason [for insurance costs being so high] is the failure to reform tort laws which now allows frivolous law suits and extraordinary large settlements to avoid long and costly law suits in which the only winners are our slip-and-fall shyster law firms. Trump was right when he said, its time to drain the swamp, and that includes the countless blood sucking lawyers which cause so much of our nation's miseries.


JWK

Yes, I know. What I would do if I were Trump is go along to get along and then when Republicans all agree on the Phase I bill and it comes to him for signature or veto, he tells them, this is good but you need to pass the repeal of McCarran Ferguson immediately, 1 sentence bill, I'll sign them both at the same time and we'll have a big announcement, billS signing and nice reception following with delicious hor d'oeuvres to celebrate a great achievement for the American People.

I do not think "children" should be on their parent's plan until they are 26 years old...you are an adult.

I can see the cutoff to Age 21, especially if you are in college. But 26 years old is NOT a child.

These young people already have no sense of responsibility...the need to stand on their own two feet!

It's completely outrageous that this is going on, but it was apparently for the college kids who aren't graduating when they're 22 any more, they're not on average graduating until they're 26. That's why it was put into the bill to begin with, of course, the uppities only worried about college students didn't realize that adding this to Obamacare meant every child would be eligible for this coverage and since so many younger people can't find a job to get them out of their bedrooms they grew up in, it's the consequence of the unemployment problem, not an insurance problem. But it's really a false flag either way because kids in the ages of 18 to 26 rarely use any medical care, infections, viruses, flu, colds, stuff like that involving usually a doctor's appointment and a couple of prescriptions. The pregnancy issues at this age for females in this range would be the primary health care issue.

Judy,

Today [3/7/17], during the daily press briefing LINK,the five core principles of the House repeal and replace plan were given, and purchasing across state lines is no longer one of the principles. Spicer laid out the principles which did not include purchasing across state lines and repeal of McCarran- Ferguson. This shows they will give lip service to purchasing across state lines, but it is no longer one of the core principles which Trump promised.

We are being had and it appears Trump has been flimflammed!

JWK

Trump's original five core principles for repeal and replacement of Obamacare

Trump's outline for replacing Obamacare included:

Ensuring people with pre-existing health conditions areguaranteed "access" to health insurance, "and that we have astable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the health-careexchanges.

Giving people who buy their own health coverage tax creditsand expanded health savings accounts to help pay for their coverage, as well asflexibility about the design of their plans.

Give states "the resources and flexibility" intheir Medicaid programs "to make sure no one is left out." Medicaidcovers primarily poor people.

Legal reforms to protect doctors and patients "fromunnecessary costs" that drive up insurance costs, and to bring down theprice of high-cost drugs.

Creating a national insurance marketplace that allowsinsurers to sell health plans across state lines.


JWK

Health insurers are a very powerful group - it came out they influenced how aca should be written. Trump seems to be adjusting his promises in several areas due to pressure/compromise from the likes of ryan & industries - it is not a one man show.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artist

Health insurers are a very powerful group - it came out they influenced how aca should be written. Trump seems to be adjusting his promises in several areas due to pressure/compromise from the likes of ryan & industries - it is not a one man show.

---

It could be that Trump has been conned and flimflammed into believing the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson which would insure cross-state line purchasing of health insurance which is necessary for competition, cannot be done as part of the original bill, and it must be part of "phase two" which will never happen. This is how these weasels like Paul Ryan, who carry water for the Washington swamp creatures, operate.


JWK

I made several calls today on this healthcare legislation introduced by House Leadership. We must call and email. The swamp creatures are trying to hoodwink us.

If you missed the Congress members speaking out against Paul Ryan's bill - Congressmen Jim Jordan, Dave Bratt, Mark Sanders, Senator Rand Paul plan to introduce a "Clean Repeal" bill tomorrow. This is the same legislation to repeal Obamacare that was introduced and voted on by Republicans in the House and Senate not too long ago. They also talked about the House leadership bill, an all in one repeal and replace, in relation to taxes and other things similar to Obamacare.

Related:

https://www.alipac.us/f9/obamacare-2...ty-fra-344582/

Is ryan's bill obamacare 2.0? (easier to get benefits with fake id)
Obamacare 2.0 Guts Enforcement, Gives Illegal Aliens Health Care Through Identity Fraud

.

Paul Ryan and his swamp creature allies are perpetuating a big lie that they cannot include a repeal of McCarran – Ferguson in the House Bill ___ which would assure the purchase of health insurance across State lines and introduce competition in the insurance industry ___ because of reconciliation and the need to keep a simple majority 51 vote margin to get the Bill passed.


The reason this is a big-freaken-lie with regard to the purchase of health insurance across state lines is, while the Democrats controlled the House during the 111thCongress, the desire to address McCarran-Ferguson passed with over 400 votes in its favor! It also passed during the Republican control of the House during the 112th Congress by a voice vote. The fact is, there is bi-partisan support for repealing McCarran-Ferguson, but somewhere along the line it was removed from the current Bill, and there was absolutely no reason to remove it because of its bi-partisan support! As a matter of fact, keeping such a repeal would add to the attractiveness of Ryan’s repeal and replace Bill.


Unfortunately, it appears there is evil afoot and someone is protecting the health insurance industry from cross-state competition, and Paul Ryan is apparently doing their bidding and giving us, and probably President Trump, the business ___ that this issue [purchasing insurance across state lines and introducing free market principles] will be addressed in phase two of Ryan’s plan.

If Trump does not come out and demand a repeal of McCarran - Ferguson to be included in the original Bill, you can bet your bottom dollar President Trump has deceived us, or someone is flimflamming and conning Trump into accepting the “phase two” switch and bait BS which will never happen. I believe the latter is true and Paul Ryan and his swamp creature Establishment pals are behind stripping out a repeal of McCarran-Ferguson so price fixing, restraint of interstate trade and commerce, and monopolizing the insurance industry within the various state borders can continue. It is a very, very profitable way to do business.


Keep in mind repeal of McCarran-Ferguson restores Congress’ power and duty to regulate commerce among the States to ensure free trade among them, e.g., to prevent discriminatory laws put upon out-of-state business entities doing business within another state’s borders. But, restoring this power does not allow Congress to enter the states and meddle in the internal matters of the states which is forbidden by the Tenth Amendment. It would simply end the insurance industry’s antitrust exemption which other industries are subject to, and it would allow free trade competition to be introduced into the insurance industry.


Hopefully President Trump is simply being conned, and someone will open his eyes to what the swamp creatures are up to.

JWK




Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.

Trump is for big businesses - insurance companies are big businesses - he is not being conned and is overall trading one swamp for another. Not fulfilling another campaign promise, allowing cross state insurance buying.

Well, I disagree on that artist. It was in every one of his rally speeches and debates. They can't do the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson as an appropriation reconciliation issue which is how the Republicans are going to get their plan through, because otherwise they'll need 60 cloture votes in the US Senate which the Democrats will never allow. Democrats want to save the "Obama Legacy" which so far consists solely of a failing and collapsing Obamacare. So it has to be two separate bills. They could in this instance do it IF they weren't trying to pass it through reconciliation. It's similar to my my beloved FairTax which doesn't repeal the 16th Amendment, because it can't do that in that tax legislation. Separate legislation is required to Amend the US Constitution, so a separate constitutional amendment bill is required to repeal the 16th Amendment. This upsets a lot of conservatives who apparently don't understand that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Well, I disagree on that artist. It was in everyone of his rally speeches and debates. They can't do the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson as an appropriation reconciliation issue which is how the Republicans are going to get their plan through, because otherwise they'll need 60 cloture votes in the US Senate which the Democrats will never allow.

---

Judy,

I am surprised you bought into this reconciliation BS. Ryan definitely can include the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson in the original Bill. Did you read what I posted above Artist's last post? Ryan and his swamp creatures have no intention to repealing McCarran-Ferguson which would end the insurance industry’s antitrust exemption which other industries are subject to.


JWK

Johnwk, I buy into the budget reconciliation argument because I agree with it. I personally don't think you can or should even try to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act in a budget reconciliation bill on health insurance. The McCarran-Ferguson Act covers all insurance, not just health insurance, so you can't repeal the state exemption of McCarran-Ferguson for automotive or fire and casualty companies by repeals and replacements to Obamacare. It's not the right way to do it.

Furthermore, there are already too many issues they're trying to resolve, so why bog down the wanted repeals with a separate huge issue like McCarran-Ferguson? Almost every living adult in the United States has lived under this stupid law since 1945. It needs its own hearing by itself, its own debate, its own bill, its own studies.

We'll win that one, when people understand the horrible impact of McCarran-Ferguson on insurance costs, but it needs to be a separate game from the government control and funding issues they're trying to correct in Obamacare by doing it this way.

I've been calling for the repeal of McCarran-Ferguson for years and it didn't really sink in with anyone. It needs its own big huge PR, Debate, Separate Little Bill, that puts this huge insurance industry under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and Federal Trade Commission regulations. There will be a great deal of confusion on McCarran-Ferguson. For example, there are huge businesses within the states that thrive on "state licensing". Insurance agents are part of that. They want their business and jobs protected. They may fear that repeal of McCarran-Ferguson will hurt their businesses and their state territories. It won't, because states still have the right to regulate the insurance industry in their states and license sales people to sell the insurance whatever kind it is. But all this has to be explained, and that issue by itself is big enough to kill the whole repeal and replace bill if there isn't ample debate, hearings, studies, pro, con, fact and so forth on all the ramifications and benefits of repeal of McCarran-Ferguson.

The industry hysteria will be enormous and there will be huge resistance to it. Bills have been introduced into the US Congress to repeal McCarran-Ferguson for 15 years, almost as long as the FairTax legislation, but huge lobbies kill them. To take on those forces now would be overwhelming to most Americans and would likely result in the defeat of the Phase I portion of ending Obamacare. And we don't want that, do we? I want that individual mandate repealed, I want that mandate on businesses repealed, the rest of the Phase I issues I don't really care about personally, but I know the rest of it is important to lot of people with health issues or concerns and those issues are large enough and plenty enough to take up all the time and space that can be devoted to Phase I, without the additional burden of explaining McCarran-Ferguson at the same time. They need different times and space. Personally I think they're doing it right way, but certainly appreciate your desire to have it done now or as soon as possible.

Just my opinion.

Johnwk, read this Tweet direct from President Trump, hopefully it will relieve your concerns for now:

Quote:

---

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 15h15 hours ago

Don't worry, getting rid of state lines, which will promote competition, will be in phase 2 & 3 of healthcare rollout. @foxandfriends

---

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Scroll down at this time to 4th tweet from the top.

Sleep well, we're in good hands now, and it's not Allstate.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Johnwk, read this Tweet direct from President Trump, hopefully it will relieve your concerns for now:


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?...Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Scroll down at this time to 4th tweet from the top.

Sleep well, we're in good hands now, and it's not Allstate.

:)

---

I wouldn't exactly call Paul Ryan "good hands."

I wasn't talking about Paul Ryan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I wasn't talking about Paul Ryan.

---

This is his puppy. I seriously doubt President Trump really knows anything about what would or wouldn't constitute an acceptable replacement plan.

I'm a happy camper because it eliminates the individual and business mandates while preserving the prohibition of pre-existing conditions. If you're claiming Paul Ryan is responsible for that, then fine, I'll give him full credit for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

This is his puppy. I seriously doubt President Trump really knows anything about what would or wouldn't constitute an acceptable replacement plan.

---

I think Trump is being snow jobbed by Ryan with his "phase two" and reconciliation bull crap. Ryan has no intention to allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. He is bought and paid for by the insurance industry and he doing a rope-a-dope job on Trump!


JWK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

Johnwk, I buy into the budget reconciliation argument because .

---

Judy,

Have you forgotten how Obamacare, the entire ball of wax, taxes and regulations, was forced through Congress? Have you forgotten that Republicans now control both the Senate and House?

Additionally, if Paul Ryan were sincere about ending the health insurance industry’s antitrust exemption, which was one of Trump's original promises regarding "repeal and replace", Ryan would already have introduced a clean Bill to do so and have it voted upon before his repeal and replace Bill. This is not rocket science, Judy, Paul Ryan is flimflamming Trump, or, Trump is now part of the problem.


JWK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I'm a happy camper because it eliminates the individual and business mandates while preserving the prohibition of pre-existing conditions. If you're claiming Paul Ryan is responsible for that, then fine, I'll give him full credit for it.

---

Do you have a problem with those with "preexisting conditions" having to pay a higher premium?


JWK

Johnwk, I don't know what Paul Ryan's position is on McCarran-Ferguson. I've never heard him speak of it one way or the other. I personally don't think he's the driver on this deal. Trump, Price and and Kevin Brady are the ones driving this bill to get it through quickly so employers are freed from the mandate and can start hiring and expanding and individuals are free of the personal mandate and can stop paying that tax penalty.

We'll just have to keep the pressure on and hope for the best. I know from the campaign that Trump is committed to doing everything he can to repeal McCarran-Ferguson. I hope it happens, because it will make a very positive difference in how consumers and citizens are treated by all insurance companies in all 50 states. The administrative savings alone for insurance companies now operating 50 little subsidiaries of their companies to avoid Sherman Anti-Trust is very expensive and convoluted and these silly costs are passed on to all consumers, employers as well, in the premiums they pay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnwk

Do you have a problem with those with "preexisting conditions" having to pay a higher premium?


JWK

---

No, I'm not. I don't think it's fair to consumers with health issues or their families, and it doesn't make any business sense to do that to begin with. The whole health care industry exists because of sick people. If you didn't have any sick people, there would be no health insurance industry. To me it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's a really stupid policy by insurance companies that has led to the present situation we're in. I think this stupidity is an outcropping of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the smaller state by state pools. When the pools are national and enormous in size, it's just a competitive numbers game. Whatever it is, it is, without individual victims to punish or exclude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

I know from the campaign that Trump is committed to doing everything he can to repeal McCarran-Ferguson.

---

Then why has this commitment disappeared from the core principles of Trump’s repeal and replace?

During the daily press briefing on 3/7/17, https://youtu.be/Y9L49P6UkqM?t=1889 the five core principles of Trump's repeal and replace plan were given by Spicer, which did not include purchasing across state lines.

Now, here are Trump's original five core principles for repeal and replacement of Obamacare

“Ensuring people with pre-existing health conditions are guaranteed "access" to health insurance, "and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the health-care exchanges.

Giving people who buy their own health coverage tax credits and expanded health savings accounts to help pay for their coverage, as well as flexibility about the design of their plans.

Give states "the resources and flexibility" in their Medicaid programs "to make sure no one is left out." Medicaid covers primarily poor people.

Legal reforms to protect doctors and patients "from unnecessary costs" that drive up insurance costs, and to bring down the price of high-cost drugs.

Creating a national insurance market place that allows insurers to sell health plans across state lines.”


Judy,

We are being had and it appears Trump has been flimflammed by Paul Ryan and his swamp creatures which includes Brady who I have found to be giving inaccurate information on a number of occasions!

JWK

Take Medicare as an example of a huge national pool. Medicare is funded with payroll taxes and small retiree premiums depending on income. Medicare hasn't needed a funding increase in 30 years. No payroll tax increase to cover the "rising cost of health care" over 30 years. Why can Medicare manage its pool costs better than private insurance companies when Medicare is serving the most elderly, disabled, fragile and sickest population of insureds and private insurance companies are selling the same services to the healthiest members of society?

Size. Volume. No discrimination. No "pools". No games that lose. No tricks that back-fire. No corruption. No excess administrative costs to try to dodge Sherman Anti-Trust Laws or comply with income tax laws. No nonsense. It just is what it is.

Private insurance companies need to study the Medicare model and understand for themselves how national underwriting with a nationwide customer base will not only streamline their business, simplify and improve their services, increase their ability to negotiate rates with vendors, reduce costs and result in higher more sustainable profits and companies while still serving a contented customer base that is treated like a valued client instead of an enemy.

Additionally, the whole medical costs issue which is a separate cost matter needs to examine the negative impact of 501 C 3 hospitals pricing schemes. I just don't think that's worked out well at all for the American People. There may have been a time when these facilities were needed, were proper, were somehow in our best interest, but today, I just don't see that at all. I think we should pass the FairTax which treats all businesses including 501 C 3 businesses the same.

I think repealing McCarran-Ferguson will end many of the schemes that have led to this total disaster that's robbed Americans of so much. Health care spending should not be 17.8% of the US GDP. That is just outrageous and so off the mark of what it should be. It should be half of that, certainly no more than 10%.

Judy, I don't know if Medicare is a good example. Medicare does not cover everything and a lot of doctors will not take Medicare patients. I have Senior Advantage on top of my Medicare to cover everything. I know I had been quoted a $90 premium for Senior Advantage, but as soon as Obama Care kicked in that premium jumped to $250 a month. So my husband and I each pay $120 for Medicare and $250 each for Senior Advantage for a total of $740 with a $20 co-payment.

Having dealt with my mother and mother in law's Medicare I have seen a lot of games played by Medicare, so I wouldn't use them as a model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnwk

Do you have a problem with those with "preexisting conditions" having to pay a higher premium?

JWK

---

I certainly don't! Many of these "preexisting conditions" were brought on by a lifestyle choice, i.e., smoking, overeating, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, homosexuality, etc. Why shouldn't those people pay more? Why should you or I be punished because of someone else's lifestyle choice?