Prev: Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
Next: Insurance companies are there to help us. Yeah, right.
From: Howard Brazee on 18 Oct 2009 11:23
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:43:12 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com>
wrote:

>The insurance business would love to get out from under 50 different
>state regulatory agencies and become federally regulated. Of course,
>this wont happen because it would put too many lawyers out of
>business.

Some of this argument is whether we're better off with states doing
the regulation or whether the states are continuing to be more
irrelevant. It was just in the last decade or two that my state
(Colorado), legalized branch banking. Big businesses likes having
only one place to spend their lobbying dollars, and don't care for
small business competing with them.

Those in favor of federal power should vote against states making
their own choices.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison
From: Jack Hollis on 18 Oct 2009 11:23
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:03:58 -0400, "Kommienezuspadt"
<NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net> wrote:

>"Jack Hollis" <xsleeper(a)aol.com> wrote in message
>news:63okd5tudb28007mnfd5lsci5fc8avdedc(a)4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:13:31 -0400, "Kommienezuspadt"
>> <NoSpam(a)NoThanks.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I will rephrase -- have you seen a single elected Repub say he/she
>>>supports
>>>tossing this law out?
>>
>> If insurance companies were allowed to sell across state lines they
>> would come under federal anti-trust laws. Most Republicans favor
>> allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines.
>>
>> However, I don't think you would find many Republicans who would
>> support a law imposing federal anti-trust laws on a business that does
>> not engage in interstate commerce.
>>
>> It's not a big deal because it would just give the federal government
>> the right to do what the state regulatory agencies already do.
>
>I'll take that as a no.

I would take that as a yes and a no.
From: Jack Hollis on 18 Oct 2009 11:25
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:12:11 -0700, "gray asphalt"
<dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>This is why there isn't real competition in the
>health care business. It has a government sanctioned
>monopoly. Look it up? You've got to be kidding. And
>you're for legitimate competiton in the "free market"?
>
>Did you know there was an exemption against monopoly
>for health care companies?

Complete nonsense. There are over 1000 companies selling health
insurance in the US.
From: Jack Hollis on 18 Oct 2009 11:27
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:15:52 -0700, "gray asphalt"
<dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Didn't you say that your wife works in the health care
>industry? And you are willing to state that there is no
>anti-trust exemption for health care, along with major
>league baseball, the only two exemptions in the entire
>US?

The insurance industry are subject to state anti-trust laws.
From: Jack Hollis on 18 Oct 2009 11:36
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:19:54 -0700, "gray asphalt"
<dontwrite(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>I think you are absolutely wrong. But I hope not,
>because if you are right then I can leave this subject
>and never concern myself with politics. With Jack
>Abraboff as my witness.

I can assure you that staes insurance regulations include unfair
competition laws.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Prev: Health care - thanks for reading this +++ : -) +++
Next: Insurance companies are there to help us. Yeah, right.