Something Liberals don't seem to realize in the healthcare debate...
- Thread starter shagdrum
- Start date
I didn't post a tidbit of information from any one website.
I'll ask again, do YOU know anything about McCarran-Ferguson that would enable you to actually discuss it? The bill has been all over the news lately and there's another thread regarding the Democrats desire to overturn parts of it (the limited repeal being of significance.)
If not, I'd suggest you do some research on it. What it is, its stated intention, and some of the unintended consequence are readily understood and observed.
The "how and why" part much more complicated and important to fully understand.
I will ask... although it apparently deals with the insurance industry in 2 ways - one - is to allow states to independently regulate the industry (even though insurance does deal with interstate commerce), and two - it sets a limited anti-trust exemption for the industry, i.e., it allows for limited monopolies to occur.
It "allows"?! Monopolies generally do not occur naturally. Anti-trust laws are typically not used to break up monopolies (though they always claim to do so). You really are trying to ignore and distract from the whole point I raised in this thread, aren't you...
Shag - have you read the law - I just tried - wow - once again - you need to be a lawyer to muddle your way through all the crap. That is why I am asking...
The 'quick' two part overview was from a 'quick' message on my voicemail... I am sure it is much more involved than that... But allowing limited monopolies might run from allowing collusion to allowing something just this side of a true monopoly. I did say 'limited' shag. There are lots of ways to have monopolies. It isn't just one company has all the peanuts. It could be one company has the entire peanut production & distribution within a set geographic area.
Oh, Teddy Roosevelt might beg to differ with you about using anti trust laws...
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
We should just abolish "for profit" health insurance.
So we define down monopolies until it fits our preconceived notions? You do realize that your views don't dictate reality, right?
And Teddy can debate it with Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek. If you are going to try and play the authority card, those two easily trump Teddy.Oh, Teddy Roosevelt might beg to differ with you about using anti trust laws...
Yeah, that makes economic sense...
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually, it's not absurd, bro.
April 17, 2006
Consolidation among health insurers is creating near-monopolies in virtually all reaches of the U.S. - with the most dominant firms grabbing more market share by several percentage points a year - according to a study released Monday.
Data from the American Medical Association shows that in each of 43 states, a handful of top insurers have gained such a stronghold that their markets are considered "highly concentrated" under Department of Justice guidelines, often far exceeding the thresholds that trigger antitrust concerns.Consolidation among health insurers is creating near-monopolies in virtually all reaches of the U.S. - with the most dominant firms grabbing more market share by several percentage points a year - according to a study released Monday.
The study also shows that in 166 of 294 metropolitan areas, or 56%, a single insurer controls more than half the business in health maintenance organization (HMO) and preferred provider networks (PPO) underwriting.
"This problem is widespread across the country and it needs to be looked at," said Dr. Jim Rohack, an AMA trustee and physician in Temple, Texas. "The choices that patients have now are more difficult."
The AMA study cited a Justice Department benchmark in citing antitrust concerns, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, or HHI. A score above 1,000 shows "moderate" concentration. Those scoring above 1,800 yield a "high" concentration.
Figures show that 95% of the 294 HMO/PPO metropolitan markets studied were above 1,800. Raise that HHI bar even higher to 3,000 and yet more than half, or 67%, rise above it.
The AMA study is the latest piece of evidence -- and most comprehensive to date -- showing the market power of a few companies, and a large number of regional non-profit Blue Cross operations, is formidable and growing. And it comes at a time when premiums continue to grow at near double-digit rates.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-confirms-health-monopoly-fears
You should read what I wrote in it's entirety. None of what you posted is inconsistent with what I said.
More misdirection, it seems.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Health insurance is an Oxymoron!
Let's step back from the health reform debate and look at "health insurance." IT'S NOT INSURANCE!!!
Insurance is "the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium, and can be thought of as a guaranteed and known small loss to prevent a large, possibly devastating loss." Insurance "indemnifies," or makes whole, the policyholder after a large loss in excess of some deductible.
Our health insurers don't indemnify. President Obama has described his mother's anguish on her death bed that her insurance company wouldn't pay. We all know of similar stories. Health insurers avoid covering the poor, the elderly, those in poor health, and the unemployed - some 47 million at last count out of 305 million Americans. They only cover the healthy and charge exorbitantly for that. They don't negotiate lower prices on our behalf from hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and other health providers. They limit our choices of doctors, tests, treatment, and access to new medical technology, worsening our health outcomes. They are driving many doctors to leave the profession just when we need them most, and those that remain are overspecialized. Our health insurers have a lot of power over our political leaders and regulators as Business Week wrote recently, and, in the middle of the worst recession since the Depression, our health insurers are one of the few industries to remain profitable. If you describe such an industry, without naming it, to any economist, the first word that would pop to mind is MONOPOLY.
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/pete-davis/1025/health-insurance-oxymoron
So we define down monopolies until it fits our preconceived notions? You do realize that your views don't dictate reality, right?
And Teddy can debate it with Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek. If you are going to try and play the authority card, those two easily trump Teddy.
Yeah, that makes economic sense...
Shag - there are 3 or 4 (depending on the economic school of thought you are currently following) types of monopolies - you might want to brush up on them...
Ask Northern Securities about Teddy and the monopolies - ah, that is right - you can't, they aren't around any longer. And Teddy didn't have to debate with Hayek (he was just a child when Teddy was President) or von Mises (I believe in his early 20s), he just broke up the monopoly. Trumping? I don't think so...
Can you say "circumstantial evidence"? Or more accurately, circumstantial speculation. It doesn't prove anything. But it does confuse the issue.
More circumstantial evidence aimed at indirectly supporting the assertions made in the presentation of the evidence (that Northern Securities was, in fact, a monopoly; which would also make your claim circular) and more subtly supporting the rejection of my point instead of confronting it.
Teddy's Nothern Securities situation was (a) an unconstitutional trampling of economic liberty, (b) was based on a fabricated "threat" of a monopoly (as opposed to an actual monopoly) and (c) was motivated primarily by political ambition and the thirst for power that seemed to be characteristic of Roosevelt's in the White House. Can you name one actual monopoly (not a supposed "potential" monopoly) that TR broke up?
Here is an interesting view of his "trustbusting"...
Although Roosevelt promised not to rush into a progressive agenda, his character quickly overwhelmed his assurances to the Republicans. In 1902, he ordered the U.S. Justice Department to enter antitrust proceedings against John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company. While the move was politically popular--and Roosevelt the "trustbuster" still garners the praise of leftist historians--it had no economic justification whatsoever.
Standard Oil had become the single dominant producer of oil not because it had used coercion, but rather because it was by far the most efficient petroleum firm in the world. Furthermore, by the time the government took action, Standard's market share had already begun to fall, as other producers followed Rockefeller's lead in making their operations more efficient. Those facts meant nothing to Roosevelt, however, who was looking to further his reputation at the expense of U.S. companies, and the U.S. Supreme Court gave the president what he wanted: an order to split the giant company into smaller geographical entities.
The year 1902 was significant on other counts. First, the Justice Department also successfully sued the Northern Securities Company, a stock holding company which supposedly suppressed competition of western railroads. And note: Roosevelt's "trustbusting" always had an explicit corollary: there were "good trusts" and "bad trusts," the good ones being those politically aligned with him.
While there was no justification for the Northern Securities case, Roosevelt committed an even worse act of violence in 1902 against private property rights in his war against business owners. The United Mine Workers struck the Pennsylvania coal fields in May of that year, and six months later, with fuel supplies dwindling, the miners and owners held firm. Although Roosevelt had no legal authority to intervene, he called a conference between UMW leaders and the mine owners.
The miners agreed to arbitration, but when the owners refused, the president went into a tirade. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution, he threatened to have the U.S. Army seize the coal mines and operate them with soldiers. The owners, brutalized by the chief executive, backed down. The following March, the workers received a pay raise.
Praising these actions is about as absurd and disrespectful of individual liberty as praising Obama's actions concerning GM and Chrysler.Standard Oil had become the single dominant producer of oil not because it had used coercion, but rather because it was by far the most efficient petroleum firm in the world. Furthermore, by the time the government took action, Standard's market share had already begun to fall, as other producers followed Rockefeller's lead in making their operations more efficient. Those facts meant nothing to Roosevelt, however, who was looking to further his reputation at the expense of U.S. companies, and the U.S. Supreme Court gave the president what he wanted: an order to split the giant company into smaller geographical entities.
The year 1902 was significant on other counts. First, the Justice Department also successfully sued the Northern Securities Company, a stock holding company which supposedly suppressed competition of western railroads. And note: Roosevelt's "trustbusting" always had an explicit corollary: there were "good trusts" and "bad trusts," the good ones being those politically aligned with him.
While there was no justification for the Northern Securities case, Roosevelt committed an even worse act of violence in 1902 against private property rights in his war against business owners. The United Mine Workers struck the Pennsylvania coal fields in May of that year, and six months later, with fuel supplies dwindling, the miners and owners held firm. Although Roosevelt had no legal authority to intervene, he called a conference between UMW leaders and the mine owners.
The miners agreed to arbitration, but when the owners refused, the president went into a tirade. Ignoring the U.S. Constitution, he threatened to have the U.S. Army seize the coal mines and operate them with soldiers. The owners, brutalized by the chief executive, backed down. The following March, the workers received a pay raise.
And nothing in either of these posts confronts anything I claimed in the original post. All they do is serve to confuse the issue. That is becoming a pattern...
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Explain why you believe State Medical Practice Acts take the health care industry into the public ownership of the state.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Dude, concentration of the health insurance market isn't massively regulated.
Loaded question based on a straw man misrepresentation. Go read what I said instead of quoting me out of context.
Again, not what I said or implied.
FYI: Concentration alone does not lead to high costs.
Northern Securities (a horizontal monopoly Shag - once again, you might want to brush up on your economics - monopolies 101)
Standard Oil
American Tobacco
How's that for starters -
Oh, I know - 'they aren't monopolies'. Muddy the landscape with your incorrect definition of monopoly - all three were monopolies... All broken up because of suits brought against them by TR when he was in power.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
Dude, you said Medical Boards have effectively Nationalized health care by getting each state to enact, "a Medical Practice Act."
Dude! I was simply repeating what an article claimed and I used the word "effectively". That means it wasn't a literal nationalization but it had the effect of nationalizing.
Mick Jagger
Dedicated LVC Member
You sound like one of those right wing laissez faire whack jobs who equate a little regulation with Communism.
In the Northern Securities case, there never was an actual monopoly in play. There was a trumped up "threat" of a monopoly, but there never was an actual monopoly. Also, if you look back to the history of railroads, the government created de facto monopolies by granting land to certain companies. Therefore, you cannot claim that any potential monopoly or "threatened" monopoly came about through purely free market forces. In fact, this series of articles documents the history of regulation in the railroad market. This, of course, serves to confirm my point that monopolies cannot exist without government. Amtrak is another great example of a government monopoly.
Standard Oil also never had a monopoly. They had, at one point around 85%-90% of the market share but they never had a monopoly (which would entail 100% market share). In fact, at the time that Teddy went after them, their market share had been declining for decades due to more competitors flooding the market. If anything this is an example that serves to confirm what I said in that first post about monopolies in the free market. Thanks.
American Tobacco is the same thing as Standard Oil, they never were a monopoly but were simply accused (through economic ignorance, and foolish ideals) of trumped up "uncompetitive practices" leading to a "threat" of a monopoly and dissolved by the government.
Simply because suits were brought against them does not mean that they were an actual monopoly. Maybe you should read the cases and see what the actual charges were.
I have shag - and they were monopolies, had been in the past, and could, if allowed rise again to be very strong. Before Teddy got to office they saw which way the wind blew, and started to divest their holdings into trusts - that is what happened with Northern Securities.
95% shag - that isn't a monopoly? It is the writing on the wall... Would you be happy if McDonalds had 95% of the restaurant market - it is for all intents and purposes a monopoly.
And oddly they were broken up by the courts - someone else certainly thought they were monopolies - ahhhh, but that court decision would be incorrect - correct?
95% shag - that isn't a monopoly? It is the writing on the wall... Would you be happy if McDonalds had 95% of the restaurant market - it is for all intents and purposes a monopoly.
And oddly they were broken up by the courts - someone else certainly thought they were monopolies - ahhhh, but that court decision would be incorrect - correct?
:sleep: :sleep:
Do you have anything other then mere assertions that contradict reality?
Oh yeah, weak circumstantial evidence (the fact that they were "busted up" in a suit which doesn't prove that they were a monopoly and is exceedingly ignorant of the actual charges in the suit).
You are also ignoring parts of my argument to facilitate your distortion of reality. Again.
Your distortions here are clear for all to see and you've been reduced to repeating yourself. No point wasting any more time on your dishonest propagandizing.
eat 95% of your meals out at the same place - then you can perhaps grasp the concept of what a monopoly is outside of your ivory tower... remember in the future all restaurants are Taco Bell...
The companies mentioned were monopolies... they were broken up by TR... review history Shag... You might want to explore how the supreme court sees unreasonable monopolies...
Until you show you understand how the supreme court sees and defines monopolies (which is far different that your continued usage of some idealistic textbook definition) it is silly to continue this - you are right...
Someday shag, we will all welcome you to the real world.. until then, enjoy the textbooks..
The companies mentioned were monopolies... they were broken up by TR... review history Shag... You might want to explore how the supreme court sees unreasonable monopolies...
Until you show you understand how the supreme court sees and defines monopolies (which is far different that your continued usage of some idealistic textbook definition) it is silly to continue this - you are right...
Someday shag, we will all welcome you to the real world.. until then, enjoy the textbooks..
Last edited by a moderator:
JohnnyBz00LS
Dedicated LVC Member
Dang Fox, you are "rushing" to this conclusion after only 2 pages of debate? I salute you!
Quite frankly, I don't give a hoot what "name" you call the market in which the health insurance industry operates, ANYTHING that constrains free competition amongst ALL players removes it from the realm of a truly "free market". If Shag could show ONE PERSON in this nation who actually can CHOOSE BETWEEN ANY AND ALL of those aledged 1700 insurance companies, he might have some basis in reality for his argument. But he can't, so he doesn't. But a fool doesn't let facts stand in the way of his opinion.
You really don't understand my claim at all, do you...