DECIDE TO BE HEALTHY . . . BUT AT WHAT COST?

On Wednesday the House Republicans finally joined the Democrats in a rare accomplishment of voting together on a bill that would repeal a sixty-five (65) year old law allowing insurance companies to have virtual monopolies (oligopolies) over health care insurance. Known as the McCarran-Ferguson Act of (1945), the former anti-trust legislation was designed to give states the power to determine which insurance companies could operate in their states, and investigate collusion by those companies to fix prices and prevent competition.

The reasoning behind repealing the former law was that proponents of the bill believe it allowed a few companies in each state to work in concert to control health insurance, given that the health insurance industry is now dominated by a handful of major players due to consolidation through mergers.  Those that opposed the bill – including insurance industry companies and their industry associations – claim that the regulatory agencies in the various states that have oversight of insurance companies already limit the amount of premium increases the companies can charge customers.  Of course “limit” is a relative term – particularly when the recent health insurance premiums increases demanded by insurance companies in the various states are projected to rise at alarming rates.

The problem with that argument – that state insurance commissions can adequately regulate the insurance industry – is that there is overwhelming evidence that state insurance regulatory commissions are a revolving door for insurance industry insiders.   Want to guess who’s side they are on?  It’s like asking the fox to guard the chicken coop.

Thus, it makes sense that Republicans went along with the repeal of the previous legislation given that recent spate of news regarding substantial increases in health care premiums.  Republican leaders said that this was a just a political-motivated ploy by the Democrats in a memo circulated to their members just before the vote took place.  The exact language from the memo was ”[for] political calculations, rather than substantive reasons.”  So why did they then turn right around and vote for it if it was a “politically-motivated ploy”?   Will Senate Republicans do the same thing?

Republicans cannot have it both ways.  Maybe their vote is politically-motivated to ensure that they are re-elected in the November 2010 mid-term elections (yes, the one coming up this Fall)?  

What a bunch of hypocrites!