Filibusters and Reconciliation

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Interesting claim. Do you have evidence to back up your timeline?

Unless they fall under anti-trust laws, there is no competitive advantage for the consumers. The corporations did not want to lose that anti-trust exemption.

Too bloody bad.

I never heard a Republican argue for ending the anti-trust exemption.

[FarmallMTA]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Unless they fall under anti-trust laws, there is no competitive advantage for the consumers. The corporations did not want to lose that anti-trust exemption.

Too bloody bad.

I never heard a Republican argue for ending the anti-trust exemption.

You've never heard of a lot of things, Lefty. Including that Democrats confirm lunatics like Thomas Eagleton to government offices.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then why am I only hearing Republicans advocating it? If the Democrats want it too, then why aren't they pushing that as a talking point?

They did. I don't think you kept up with the news on this.

House Democrats passed a bill that included an end to the antitrust exemption. The only Republican to vote for this bill was Rep. Cao (LA).

ETA: Here's the bill. Section 262, titled RESTORING APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR INSURERS starts on page 151. I could quote the section, but it's fairly long since it amends existing laws (so there's a lot of stuff like "change line number such and such to say 'this new text'" and so on). But the net effect is ending the antitrust exemption to health insurance companies that was part of the McCarron-Ferguson Act of 1945.

My understanding is a similar measure was in the Senate bill*, but had to be taken out to get enough votes from the Blue Dogs (or to appease the insurance industry lobbyists). Even with it in, I doubt any Republicans would have voted for the healthcare reform bill in the Senate.

*ETA: It seems it was never in the Senate version. Apparently Reid was trying to hold that out as something that could be added back in if the insurance lobby didn't go along with that version of the healthcare bill.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Interesting claim. Do you have evidence to back up your timeline?

What are you talking about? The House and Senate both passed healthcare bills with one of the main goals being to approach universal coverage. Both plans would have addressed the issue of the uninsured.

That happened a few months ago.

When did the Republicans do anything to address the uninsured? The Republican proposal I have seen would actually further restrict access to healthcare in an effort to reduce costs.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by parky76

why should health-care be a state and not a federal issue?

it seems to me that only the Federal government has the power and resources to deal with such a monster. wouldn't u agree?

If you were smart enough to spell the word “you”, then you might also be smart enough to understand the Tenth Amendment, which basically prohibits the federal government from claiming any power or authority that is not delegated to it in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to the federal government to take over the health care industry.

Of course, it's probably rather pointless to try to explain such points of Constitutional law to someone who isn't even smart enough to spell the word “you”.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

If you were smart enough to spell the word “you”, then you might also be smart enough to understand the Tenth Amendment, which basically prohibits the federal government from claiming any power or authority that is not delegated to it in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to the federal government to take over the health care industry.

Of course, it's probably rather pointless to try to explain such points of Constitutional law to someone who isn't even smart enough to spell the word “you”.

Well it's a damn good thing no one is proposing that then! It's good to have your support for this bill Bob.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by FarmallMTA

You've never heard of a lot of things, Lefty. Including that Democrats confirm lunatics like Thomas Eagleton to government offices.

Nice attempt to change the subject, but Ziggurat is claiming that this is a Republican idea. I've spelled out exactly where language that would remove the health insurance antitrust exemption was passed by House Democrats (plus one lone Republican).

And several of us pointed out that the Republicans never even addressed this issue when they controlled Congress. So, unless you have something tangible to offer, it seems you haven't heard of it either, and this is not a Republican idea.

They can't even claim to have jumped on the bandwagon because they've done just about everything in their power to prevent revocation of the antitrust exemption.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Nice attempt to change the subject, but Ziggurat is claiming that this is a Republican idea. I've spelled out exactly where language that would remove the health insurance antitrust exemption was passed by House Democrats (plus one lone Republican).

Your numbers are off.
"The vote was 406-19 to repeal the exemption". That's a lot more than one lone Republican.

But you seem to think that eliminating this antitrust exemption is the be-all and end-all of allowing cross-state competition. It isn't. The activities antitrust laws prohibit (such as price fixing) are already outlawed under other laws, and the CBO predicts that the repeal will have "no significant effect on premiums".

The primary problem is state regulations which vary so much from state to state that even if an insurer operates in two states, they can't generally offer the same plan in those states. The cost of compliance with such vastly different regulations means that there's a huge threshold of customers that an insurer needs in order to break even. This is a gigantic barrier to entry for insurers, and the democrats are doing nothing about it. They haven't even talked about doing something about it. Republicans have. So I'm not buying your argument.

Quote:

They can't even claim to have jumped on the bandwagon because they've done just about everything in their power to prevent revocation of the antitrust exemption.

Except, of course, most of them voted for it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your numbers are off.
"The vote was 406-19 to repeal the exemption". That's a lot more than one lone Republican.

I was talking about the healthcare reform bill that passed the House with only one Republican voting in favor. (It too, as I've said, included elimination of the antitrust exemption.)

At any rate, even from this vote, it clearly wasn't a "Republican idea".

Quote:

But you seem to think that eliminating this antitrust exemption is the be-all and end-all of allowing cross-state competition. It isn't.

I agree. But you can't achieve any meaningful cross-state competition (across the country) as long as the antitrust exemption is in place.

And you certainly can't claim this reform is a Republican idea. That's preposterous.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

What are you talking about? The House and Senate both passed healthcare bills with one of the main goals being to approach universal coverage. Both plans would have addressed the issue of the uninsured.

That happened a few months ago.

Your claim was that the Republicans came up with this idea after the Democrats included these measures in their bills.
That's the timeline I asked if you could defend with evidence.
I find this unlikely, because I remember a White House representative arguing against these reforms on Fox News the night of Obama's health care speech last year.
If you're right that the Republicans only came up with this after the Democrats were already doing it, back it up with evidence.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And you certainly can't claim this reform is a Republican idea. That's preposterous.

Again, where's your evidence that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who first pushed this idea? Because, again, I remember the White House opposing this idea on the night of Obama's health care speech last year. This is just my memory, of course -- not real evidence -- but I'm looking for your evidence that the timeline is as you claim.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I was talking about the healthcare reform bill that passed the House with only one Republican voting in favor. (It too, as I've said, included elimination of the antitrust exemption.)

Then you cannot reasonably consider the vote as indicative of Republican disapproval of that specific idea.

Quote:

At any rate, even from this vote, it clearly wasn't a "Republican idea".

Ending the limited antitrust exemptions isn't. But again, that's not the primary problem.

Quote:

I agree. But you can't achieve any meaningful cross-state competition (across the country) as long as the antitrust exemption is in place.

I disagree. As I've pointed out, other laws which they were never exempted from already prohibited much of what the exemption allowed for, and the repeal will have very limited effect. Lowering the regulatory barriers would have a significant effect with or without the antitrust exemption (which was always limited to begin with). I'm not arguing for keeping the exemption, merely for recognizing that it's state regulations which create the biggest barriers to competition between insurance providers.

Quote:

And you certainly can't claim this reform is a Republican idea. That's preposterous.

I'm not. I'm saying that lowering the regulatory barriers between states is a Republican idea. And I stand by that.

[ZirconBlue]

Originally Posted by The Painter

You are naive. You act as if the Democrats have never done this. Do you really want to change the rules? The Democrats won't be in power forever, you may need these tools in the future. Filibusters are as American as apple pie. Davy Crockett even filibustered. Now you think reconciliation is OK here's what the Democrats thought about it just 4 or 5 years ago. Completely opposite of what they think now.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-i...unders-intent/

The Republicans are using the filibuster a lot more than it has historically been used. At least, according to this guy:

Quote:

Ira Shapiro is a former Senate staffer, later a Clinton administration official and now a Washington lawyer who has written about the Senate a great deal. And first Ira Shapiro, just to validate or dismiss a widely held impression, are Senate Republicans in fact forcing a lot more cloture votes now than ever before?

Mr. IRA SHAPIRO (Lawyer, Former Clinton Administration Official): Robert, its clear that since the Senate went back to Democratic control, there has been a large spike in cloture votes. They are much higher since 2006 than they had ever been before, and by orders of magnitude higher.

SIEGEL: Orders of magnitude, meaning you used to get how many cloture votes?

Mr. SHAPIRO: Used to be you would have seven or eight in a Congress and now you can have as many as 80 in a year. Its a fundamental change. And frankly put me among those who think it is making the Senate dysfunctional.

Source:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=123287741

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

If you were smart enough to spell the word “you”, then you might also be smart enough to understand the Tenth Amendment, which basically prohibits the federal government from claiming any power or authority that is not delegated to it in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to the federal government to take over the health care industry.

Wel, DUH! like they were going to include referrences to a business that did not yet exist?

Of course, it's probably rather pointless to try to explain such points of Constitutional law to someone who can't get his head around the concept of "regulate interstate commerce."

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Your claim was that the Republicans came up with this idea after the Democrats included these measures in their bills.
That's the timeline I asked if you could defend with evidence.

And I did.

Sorry, you're just wrong on this.

Quote:

If you're right that the Republicans only came up with this after the Democrats were already doing it, back it up with evidence.

I did.

You can keep pretending I didn't, but that doesn't change things.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then you cannot reasonably consider the vote as indicative of Republican disapproval of that specific idea.

You're moving the goalposts. You claimed it was a Republican idea. I said that's false.

ETA: If you're addressing my position that Republicans haven't jumped on the bandwagon (based on their voting against the comprehensive healthcare reform bill the House passed), I will rescind that statement. I fully admit that some Republicans have jumped on the bandwagon on this issue. But it's certainly not a "Republican idea".

Let's consider the bill the House passed whose only votes against were 19 Republicans and no Democrats (the one you referred to).

Here are the bill's sponsors:

Quote:

N THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 22, 2010

Mr. PERRIELLO (for himself, Ms. MARKEY of Colorado, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BOUCHER, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. CHU, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HOLT, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. KILROY, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LUJAN, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Mr. MASSA, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. PETERS, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. STUPAK, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. TEAGUE, Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. TITUS, Mr. TONKO, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. WELCH, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WU, Mr. BARROW, and Ms. HIRONO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Notice a party trend?

Quote:

I'm saying that lowering the regulatory barriers between states is a Republican idea. And I stand by that.

Despite the evidence to the contrary.

Again, what did the Republicans do about this when they controlled Congress? And don't imagine healthcare reform hadn't already been raised to the national stage in a big way. That happened under the Clinton administration.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Quote:

If you're right that the Republicans only came up with this after the Democrats were already doing it, back it up with evidence.

I did.

You didn't.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You didn't.

Did so!

Please read the thread. This measure was part of the comprehensive healthcare reform the Democrats have been trying to pass since Obama was elected. Republicans consistently opposed it.

More recently, as Zig pointed out, House Democrats introduced a specific bill that focused narrowly on just this issue (repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers). The only votes against the measure were Republicans.

Republicans did not introduce any such legislation when they controlled Congress.

You can live in your own fantasy world where Republicans have been trying to reform health insurance if only those obstructionist Democrats would cooperate, but that's not the real world.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Did so!

Please read the thread. This measure was part of the comprehensive healthcare reform the Democrats have been trying to pass since Obama was elected. Republicans consistently opposed it.

Yes, but that's not your claim. Your claim is that the Republicans didn't start touting this idea until AFTER the Democrats included it in their bill. Where's your evidence for that?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

You're moving the goalposts. You claimed it was a Republican idea. I said that's false.

You keep saying that -- and yet you still haven't produced evidence showing when Republicans started talking about this idea, and comparing that to when Democrats first introduced legislation about it.
In other words, you have yet to present sufficient evidence to figure out who promoted the idea first.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

You're moving the goalposts. You claimed it was a Republican idea. I said that's false.

That's because you keep equating removing antitrust exemption with opening up competition across state lines. They are not synonymous. I never said that removing the antitrust exemption was a Republican idea. But it's also less important to opening up competition across state lines than reducing the regulatory barriers. That HAS been a Republican idea, not a Democratic one, and you have not addressed that. I haven't moved any goalposts, I've had a different one than you from the start.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, but that's not your claim. Your claim is that the Republicans didn't start touting this idea until AFTER the Democrats included it in their bill. Where's your evidence for that?

I just repeated it. What kind of silliness are you playing?

By the way, you claimed the White House opposed this idea. I'd like to see evidence of that claim.

__________

Above, in post number 83, I forgot to include the link where I intended to (where I said "Here's the bill"):

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

See pages 151 and following. The repeal of the antitrust exemption here is longer and more specific than the later one. Both of these bills were sponsored by House Democrats and passed with the only votes against coming strictly from Republicans.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I just repeated it. What kind of silliness are you playing?

I'm waiting for evidence.
You're claiming Event A (the Democrats including healthcare anti-trust reform in their legislation) predates Event B (the Republicans touting the benefits of inter-state healthcare accessability).
You apparently believe that showing that Event A occurred at some point is evidence of your claim. It's not. You need to establish the timing of Event A and Event B, which you haven't even attempted to do.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's because you keep equating removing antitrust exemption with opening up competition across state lines. They are not synonymous. I never said that removing the antitrust exemption was a Republican idea. But it's also less important to opening up competition across state lines than reducing the regulatory barriers. That HAS been a Republican idea, not a Democratic one, and you have not addressed that. I haven't moved any goalposts, I've had a different one than you from the start.

And the House healthcare reform also included measure to increase competition, including a public health insurance option (at the federal level--which is, of course, "across state lines"). These ideas met with fierce opposition from the Republicans.

Sorry, you can't now claim that taking measure to improve competition among insurers was a Republican idea. Most of the Republican proposals (which, by the way, only happened after the Democrats brought the issue of healthcare reform back to the national stage following Obama's election) seek to resolve all these issues at the state level.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm waiting for evidence.
You're claiming Event A (the Democrats including healthcare anti-trust reform in their legislation) predates Event B (the Republicans touting the benefits of inter-state healthcare accessability).
You apparently believe that showing that Event A occurred at some point is evidence of your claim. It's not. You need to establish the timing of Event A and Event B, which you haven't even attempted to do.

Already answered--repeatedly.

I'm waiting for evidence of your claim that the White House spoke against these measures.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

By the way, you claimed the White House opposed this idea. I'd like to see evidence of that claim.

I don't have any. Like I said, I remember someone from the Obama administration on September 9, 2009, after Obama's speech, arguing against it as part of the rival Republican plan, using a States' Rights argument. I think it was Emanuel speaking.
Even if my memory is correct, I have no idea how to get hold of this transcript. Any help out there?

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Already answered--repeatedly.

Apparently I've missed it each time.
When did Event A occur?
When did Event B occur?

[JoeTheJuggler]

On this site, you can select various reform proposals and compare them on various topics.
I just selected all the plans, and compared them on the topic "changes to private insurance".

The only plan to include a repeal of the antitrust exemption is one the House passed.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

For grins, I selected all plans and all topics. The only plan to include the words "competition" was the House version, and it only referred to enhancing competition in the pharmaceutical industry.

I don't believe there has been any Republican-proposed bill to repeal the anti-trust exemption, and this is certainly a requirement to improving interstate competition. (For the record, this exemption allows some states to set up effective insurance monopolies and to prohibit interstate competition.) As far as I know, there isn't some other federal regulation that is obstructing interstate competition among insurers. If there are either of these things, it should be easy for you guys who claim this is a "Republican idea" to provide some examples.

So far all we've seen is that the only people voting against repeal of the anti-trust exemption have been Republicans, and the only sponsors of a repeal have been Democrats.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I don't have any. Like I said, I remember someone from the Obama administration on September 9, 2009, after Obama's speech, arguing against it as part of the rival Republican plan, using a States' Rights argument. I think it was Emanuel speaking.
Even if my memory is correct, I have no idea how to get hold of this transcript. Any help out there?

I think that's your burden. It's your claim.

ETA: And I suspect you're misremembering what was said. I can't imagine anyone saying they're opposed to reform that would encourage interstate competition. (By the way, there is no states' right argument that would promote interstate competition. States' rights arguments tend to see states as sovereign units that can pass any legislation they want--including laws that establish effective monopolies for insurers.)

Quote:

Apparently I've missed it each time.

Apparently.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Apparently.

And yet you continue to provide zero evidence. Well-done.
Since you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence as to the date the Republicans began advocating an increased-competition reform to healthcare, I conclude you have no idea when they began advocating it. Your claim has no support. You fail.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's your timeline, since you seem unable to understand what I've been saying.

During the 108th and 109th Congress (2003 and 2005), the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. No legislation was introduced on this subject.*

During the 110th Congress, Democrats had a slim majority in both houses, but the White House was Republican. No legislation was introduced on this subject.*

During the 111th Congress (2009 through now), Democrats controlled both houses and the White House. They made health insurance reform a big issue at the national level. They got bills passed in both houses, but ran into a Republican filibuster preventing further progress (short of reconciliation, the nuclear option or the House giving in and passing the Senate version). The House version which passed included the repeal of the antitrust exemption, and all but one Republican voted against it. Later, House Democrats introduced a smaller bill that would only repeal the antitrust exemption. It too passed in the House with opposition only coming from Republicans.

None of the Republican proposals introduced during the current (111th) Congress (see the kff link above) include a repeal of the antitrust exemption (a bare minimum if anything is to be done to increase interstate competition among insurers). And these proposals were only started after Democrats forced the issue into national prominence.

*With the exception of the perennial Dingell health reform proposal. The Dingell bill called for a true universal healthcare system. I don't think it proposed insurance reforms so much as a true overhaul, but it also never had much support.

I have made all these points already, but used language that referred to "the House bill" and "when Republicans controlled Congress" and so on, assuming you knew the dates of these events.

[AvalonXQ]

So, you admit that you've provided no information as to when Republicans started advocating inter-state healthcare competition, and how that relates to when antitrust reform enters into the Democrats' bill? Only information as to the fact that Republicans never introduced legislation with their policies?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Since you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence as to the date the Republicans began advocating an increased-competition reform to healthcare, I conclude you have no idea when they began advocating it.

This is absurd reasoning.

To my knowledge, Republicans have never advocated it, at the national level. At best, their proposals would kick those issues back to the states (as I mentioned, this is tantamount to saying they're fine with the status quo at the national level). Even so, none of these proposals were introduced before the Democrats made this in an issue (again--they first did so during the Clinton administration when they were roundly smacked down by Republican opposition) in the current session of Congress.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

And the House healthcare reform also included measure to increase competition, including a public health insurance option (at the federal level--which is, of course, "across state lines").

Considering that the federal government can game the system as it pleases, that's hardly competition. And it does NOTHING to create more competition between insurers.

Quote:

Sorry, you can't now claim that taking measure to improve competition among insurers was a Republican idea. Most of the Republican proposals (which, by the way, only happened after the Democrats brought the issue of healthcare reform back to the national stage following Obama's election) seek to resolve all these issues at the state level.

You're simply wrong. Republican plans have indeed tried to address problems at the federal level.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5510731.shtml
"Instead, the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines."
You can find the plan referred to here:
http://thehill.com/images/stories/wh...oor_01_xml.pdf
Page 126:
"The covered laws of the primary State shall apply to individual health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in the primary State and in any secondary State, but only if the coverage and issuer comply with the conditions of this section with respect to the offering of coverage in any secondary State."
There's more if you care to read it, but that there is EXACTLY what I'm referring to. And the Democrats have proposed nothing of the sort.

As for the Republican's failure to do this earlier, see post #80. There's really no point in trying to bring that up with me any more.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

So, you admit that you've provided no information as to when Republicans started advocating inter-state healthcare competition, and how that relates to when antitrust reform enters into the Democrats' bill? Only information as to the fact that Republicans never introduced legislation with their policies?

No. My position is that Republicans have not been advocating reforms at the national level that would improve competition among health insurers. At best, some of them have hopped on the bandwagon (somewhat reluctantly at that). Most have actively opposed efforts by Democrats to pass these reforms.

Now, the evidence for your claim that the White House opposed reforms to improve competition?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

This is absurd reasoning.

To my knowledge, Republicans have never advocated it, at the national level.

Then you need to get better informed.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You're simply wrong. Republican plans have indeed tried to address problems at the federal level.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n5510731.shtml

The first sentence in this article:

Quote:

After months spent criticizing Democrats' health overhaul plans, House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own.

So again, this is a "Republican idea"? Or did some Republicans jump on the bandwagon?

And when I search the comparisons in the kff site, I don't see any of the Republican proposals either repealing the antitrust exemption or saying anything about encouraging competition across state lines.

The proposal you're citing is actually an amendment to the Democrat-proposed healthcare reform plan. That is, it's an amendment to HR3962.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So again, this is a "Republican idea"? Or did some Republicans jump on the bandwagon?

It's a Republican idea, Joe, because the Democrats have never advocated for it. It is completely different than the removal of antitrust exemptions.

Quote:

And when I search the comparisons in the kff site, I don't see any of the Republican proposals either repealing the antitrust exemption or saying anything about encouraging competition across state lines.

I GAVE you the proposal, Joe. I told you what page number to look on. Read a page or two, and if you still can't understand why that would open up competition across state lines, come back and ask.

Quote:

The proposal you're citing is actually an amendment

And it's a Republican proposal, Joe. That they tried to get it tacked onto a Democratic bill doesn't change that.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And it's a Republican proposal, Joe. That they tried to get it tacked onto a Democratic bill doesn't change that.

It's a Republican proposal of an amendment to the Democratic bill in an attempt to obstruct passage of the Democratic bill.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It's a Republican proposal of an amendment to the Democratic bill

So you finally admit that this idea is the Republicans' idea? Good.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's a Republican idea, Joe, because the Democrats have never advocated for it. It is completely different than the removal of antitrust exemptions.

You can't get increased interstate competition as long as you allow the antitrust exemptions to remain in place. States are free to pass their own laws that set up effective monopolies (and bar purchasing insurance across state lines).

You're trying to pretend you can address interstate competition without the repeal of the antitrust exemption, but you cannot.

So, it seems you're ceding the point that repeal of the antitrust exemption was a "Democratic idea".

What did the Republicans propose to do to increase interstate competition while allowing states the right to pass monopolistic laws?

That is, if these are two distinct issues, how can you tackle the one you say is the "Republican idea" without first doing what you seem to be ceding is a "Democratic idea"?

And again, the Republicans didn't address any of this until it was forced onto the national stage by the Democrats following Obama's election.