I will rephrase -- have you seen a single elected Repub say he/she supports
tossing this law out?

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:13:31 -0400, "Kommienezuspadt"
NoSpam at (no spam) 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.

So - you are saying theunions are too tough.

When's the last time you saw the government do anything that reduced
the size of the public workforce?

military reductions.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:15:11 -0400, "Kommienezuspadt"
NoSpam at (no spam) NoThanks.net> wrote:

So - you are saying theunions are too tough.

When's the last time you saw the government do anything that reduced
the size of the public workforce?

military reductions.

I'll give you military reduction after WW2, Korea and after the Cold
War. Other than that, reductions in the size of the government are
rare.

You also have to remember that the government hires lots of private
contractors who are not counted on the official rolls of civil
servants. At one time, there were more federally funded private
contractors in Iraq than US military personnel.

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 4518 (20091017) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

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.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:15:52 -0700, "gray asphalt"
dontwrite at (no spam) 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.

My point is that the libertarians here go on and on about the magical
properties of free-market capitalism as it applies to big healthcare,
when in fact big healthcare is completely free to game the system at no
risk to itself. Obviously there is no legitimate competition in the US
healthcare system. It's a cartel.

I'll take that as a no.

Why does this matter so much? Republicans have no power to stop any of this
legislation in the house, senate, or white house. Why does the left care so
much about what Republicans are doing when they don't need a single
Republican vote to implement their policies?

Where can we find a copy of the law?

change the
tax code so that the only realistic way for insurance to be provided is
through employers

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:27:41 -0400, Jack Hollis <xsleeper at (no spam) aol.com
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:15:52 -0700, "gray asphalt"
dontwrite at (no spam) 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.

Columbia? English major I presume. :-)

BK

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:21:24 -0700, "gray asphalt"
dontwrite at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Where can we find a copy of the law? If you are right we
can all right off MSNBC, if we haven't already.

It's not that hard to find.

"Carbon" <nobrac at (no spam) nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4adb28cf$0$5083$9a6e19ea at (no spam) unlimited.newshosting.com...

My point is that the libertarians here go on and on about the magical
properties of free-market capitalism as it applies to big healthcare,
when in fact big healthcare is completely free to game the system at
no risk to itself. Obviously there is no legitimate competition in
the US healthcare system. It's a cartel.

The problem is that you apparently think we have a true free market
system in healthcare. We don't, we have bits and pieces of a free
market operating underneath massive regulations and protections.
Remove the laws that interfere with free market functioning of the
healthcare system, let me as the consumer buy any level of health
insurance I want from any company willing to sell it to me (you know,
like we do with auto insurance, homeowners insurance, disability
insurance, life insurance etc), change the tax code so that the only
realistic way for insurance to be provided is through employers and
you will be closer to a true free market. You will have better health
care as well.

The current proposals all just heap on loads of new regulations
further removing the healthcare system from market forces.

With your comment that we don't have legitimate competition, are you
implying that you wish government to enter into the game to compete
with the private sector insurance providers?