[Peace-discuss] Re: marketplace mythologies was:InsuranceCompanies
Should Compete
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigs.ag
Sun Dec 6 15:38:18 CST 2009
Actually while insurance companies do seek to control the rate of cost
increases, they are not really opposed to increased costs, and indeed
favour cost increases, just so long as they are able to pass along the
costs to others. They make a percentage on the money that passes
through their hands, and the more money they handle, the larger is their
take.
Supply and demand effects are alive and well. Regulation restricts the
supply of medical care and drives up the price. The public is told that
they high price is because of the high quality, and by and large this
particular and particularly foul lie seems to be broadly accepted. Most
Americans The follow-on falsehood is that pumping in more money will
cause more medical care to spring forth in abundance to those who are
under-served (and in the eyes of the well-off, the Pharisees, and the
America-first-ers, undeserving).
I believe that the fundamental problem with medical care in the US has
to do with the way that it is delivered not who pays. Further, all the
yipping and snarling about who pays is just another slight-of-hand
distraction from the real pathologies within the system itself.
If Americans really cared about serving the underserved with medical
care, they would look at ways to increase the supply. It's an almost
impossible challenge because of the strength of those presently holding
the castle of medical care.
Remove the superfluities of bureaucracy that add turbulence to medical
care and add inefficiency. Streamline the system. Give more
responsibility to the lower ranks, and build a new sub-class of medical
servants, medics who are able to deal with minor problems like setting
bones, sewing up cuts, treating colds and the like.
Abolish the concept of prescription drugs and allow everything and
anything except for narcotics and truly dangerous drugs (like digoxin
and succinylcholine) to be sold over the counter. Abolish FDA oversight
of nutritional supplements,
Elevate the penalties for genuine fraud and disingenuity. Establish
severe penalties for scalping of captive patients (such as charging $1
each for aspirin tablets, and exorbitant markups on saline). Treat
genuine malpractice as criminal activity, and dismiss negative
outcomes. There are no guarantees... Tax malpractice lawyer fees at
95%. Attack the monopolized medical industrial complex in the courts.
On Day 2, the remaining problems could be addressed. All jokes aside,
it will take quite some doing to gear up for the training of the corps
of medics needed.
On 12/6/2009 1:00 PM, ls1000 at live.com wrote:
> It may be very well true that in practice, it is a sort of a Nash
> Equilibrium, which by the way is not restricted to a game that only
> has two players but can also be found in multi-player gamers with more
> than two entities playing the game. However, since a significant part
> of the players' rationale and justification for their actions is the
> myth that they are competing with each other in a free and open
> marketplace, the notion of competition does come into play in
> situations where the actors make that claim in a marketplace where
> there are limited scarce clientele to serve, a profit motive, and an
> unregulated duplication of offered services, equipment, and facilities
> coupled with a lack of regional control and planning governing the
> coordination of the acquisition of new and/or expanded services,
> equipment, and/or facilities within the region based on need within
> and benefits for that local region as well as the ability of the local
> regiojn to support and pay for the acquisition of the new and/or
> expanded services, equipment, and facilities.
>
> I seriously question that the insurance industry assures that adequate
> funding for hospitals is available in such situations other than to
> help the hospitals lobby for more public money rather than to seek
> greater efficiencies. I seriously doubt that the insurance industry
> is willing to voluntarily increase their payouts to the hospitals to
> assure that the hospitals can pay for unneeded duplication of
> services, equipment, or facilities that get under the justification
> that they need them to remain competitive with the other players in
> the marketplace.
>
> Nevertheless, I was not attempting to address the rising costs of
> hospital or medical equipment. I agree with your assessment
> concerning this. I was addressing the rising costs of medical care in
> hospitals, clinics, and even doctor's offices due to the
> inefficiencies of economically unjustified duplication of services,
> equipment, and facilities that exists independent of the community's
> needs or the benefits that the community would derive from the
> additional new or expanded services, equipment, or facilities. Of
> recent, there has been a trend toward outsourcing under contract some
> of the services to external private sources as contrasted to the
> healthcare givers purchasing, operating, and paying for these things
> in-house, leaving the contracted out-of-house providers to bill
> separately from that of the hospital, clinic, or doctor for the
> services provided. While this trend may lessen duplication and cut
> hospital costs for the hospitals, it does not in any way reduce costs
> to the consumers of heath care; in fact, it often increases the costs
> to the consumer. If, however, the profitability of these for-profit
> private external contracted sources for what have been in-house
> services become less profitable due to new government regulations and
> controls , changes in the availability of funding, etc., then we might
> see a reversal in the outsourcing trend and a return to the
> duplication of services trend.
>
>> Part of the problem with the amerikan health care system is the aura
>> of magic they build around themselves
>> which allows for the Lie that "these costs are beyond our control", etc.
>
> It is true that the health care system and the medical profession has
> successfully built an aura of magic and deification around themselves
> which have permitted them to get away with much and justify or defend
> many unjustifiable positions, practices, and policies. However, I am
> not sure that costs being beyond their control is one of those
> things. I think that, in fact, many of the costs are beyond their
> control but are due mainly to the myths as to (1) the workings and
> desirability (as well as the necessity) of free enterprise
> capitalism,(2) the benefits of competition and incentives as
> motivations for innovations and technological or scientific advances
> as well as a preventative for continually increasing costs, and (3)
> the role of supply and demand in regulating the marketplace and prices.
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "E.Wayne Johnson" <ewj at pigs.ag>
> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 5:26 PM
> To: <ls1000 at live.com>; "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: marketplace mythologies
> was:InsuranceCompanies Should Compete
>
>> two entities in one market is not competition but is a sort of Nash
>> Equilibrium
>>
>> the insurance industry assures that "adequate" funding for the
>> hospitals is available in such a situation.
>>
>> What is driving the cost of such equipment?
>>
>> Nothing intrinsic except the captive market and regulation of
>> medical instruments.
>>
>> Part of the problem with the amerikan health care system is the aura
>> of magic they build around themselves
>> which allows for the Lie that "these costs are beyond our control", etc.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <ls1000 at live.com>
>> To: "peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 1:41 PM
>> Subject: Fw: [Peace-discuss] Re: marketplace mythologies
>> was:InsuranceCompanies Should Compete
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It is interesting how one factor keeps being ignored - namely that
>>> competition in the hospital industry is a primary cause of increased
>>> medical
>>> costs independent of patent protection for drugs and limitations on
>>> foreign
>>> doctors. In an economic environment where hospitals within a given
>>> local
>>> are in competition with each other, they all have to have the newest
>>> latest
>>> and greatest of facilities, equipment, and range of offered services to
>>> remain competitive in the marketplace with the other hospitals in that
>>> market place. If the marketplace is small and unable to produce a
>>> population of consuming patients to support all the existing
>>> hospitals 24/7
>>> with enough users to make them profitable and/or attractive to
>>> staffs, the
>>> resulting duplication of services and equipment and facilities which
>>> each
>>> hospital sees as necessary to their survival in a competitive
>>> marketplace
>>> means that each hospital will have to raise their prices and charge
>>> more in
>>> order to pay for the non-fully utilized services, equipment, and
>>> facilities.
>>> Thus, in Champaign-Urbana, both Provena and Carle claim that they
>>> each need
>>> to have not only but the latest and most current MRI facilities, for
>>> instance, to be competitive with the other; but it is questionable if
>>> Champaign county and the surrounding areas have a large enough
>>> population to
>>> support full time utilization of two MRI facilities - not to mention
>>> the
>>> costs of those facilities, their operations, and the maintaining of
>>> them as
>>> current and up-to-date facilities - such as to allow the hospitals to
>>> retrieve their costs for the equipment and facilities and staffing
>>> as well
>>> as for their maintenance and upgrading. As a consequence, each
>>> hospital
>>> raises its prices in order to artificially support their being
>>> competitive
>>> with the other such that competition increases the costs of healthcare
>>> rather than reducing it as the Capitalist theory and myth suggests.
>>>
>>> The hospitals in an attempt to survive under these competitive
>>> marketplace
>>> conditions have been trying to expand their geographic territories
>>> so as to
>>> cover larger populations. However, apart from the increased costs of
>>> additional equipment, staffing, facilities, and administrative
>>> management
>>> requirements involved, this expansion into new and larger
>>> territories in
>>> searh of increasing the customer base puts additional competitive
>>> pressures
>>> on the hospitals who have to compete with the existing hospitals in
>>> the new
>>> territories as well as on the existing hospital facilities that
>>> already are
>>> in the new territories by now dividing up the existing population
>>> base of
>>> those new territories among the old and new hospital facilities,
>>> which -in
>>> turn - generates a predisposition and need for additional
>>> duplications of
>>> services and equipment to be competitive and the further increase in
>>> prices
>>> for service due to their not being enough customers to support the
>>> increased
>>> duplicate services, equipment, and facilities in those locals.
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>>> Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 12:39 PM
>>> To: "David Green" <davegreen84 at yahoo.com>
>>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: marketplace mythologies was:
>>> InsuranceCompanies Should Competemost
>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 10:35:32AM -0800, David Green wrote:
>>>>>> Economist Dean Baker repeatedly argues that two (anti-market) things
>>>>>> artifically raise the cost of healthcare: Patent protection for
>>>>>> drugs and
>>>>>> limits on foreign doctors in the U.S., keeping doctors' earnings
>>>>>> artificially
>>>>>> high. I would add to that that medical schools should be open to
>>>>>> all comers
>>>>>> with basic undergraduate coursework. Drastically expand medical
>>>>>> school
>>>>>> capacity, and let anyone who wants to sink or swim. Maybe we can
>>>>>> learn
>>>>>> something from Cuba in this regard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DG
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, that's a good point. i'm uncomfortable with Baker's simply
>>>>> lowering
>>>>> limits on foreign doctors -- not because we'd suffer, but because
>>>>> it'd drive
>>>>> a brain drain -- our overinflated health costs will draw doctors
>>>>> from places
>>>>> that need them more than we do. but i really like the idea of
>>>>> wider access to
>>>>> medical school to increase the supply of trained medical people
>>>>> here (whether
>>>>> doctors or not).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>> From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> To: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
>>>>>> Cc: Peace-discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>> Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 12:07:46 PM
>>>>>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Re: marketplace mythologies was:
>>>>>> Insurance Companies Should Compete
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And Leahy deserves it, but it's not necessarily timely on the
>>>>>> occasion of his being right about something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I happen to think, I'm afraid, that it is you who are not
>>>>>> digging deep enough into the problems with competition or health
>>>>>> care. Single payer certainly does actually cut costs - hugely.
>>>>>> I'd read up on it again if I were you. It does this mainly by
>>>>>> eliminating an entire layer of bureaucratic nonsense that
>>>>>> insurance companies thrive on - that's right, bureaucracy isn't
>>>>>> just for the government; in fact not even mostly - and by
>>>>>> eliminating the profit necessity on the insurance side. That is,
>>>>>> an insurance company always has to charge more simply because
>>>>>> they have to turn a profit. That money has to come from
>>>>>> somewhere. It mainly comes from labor, as profit normally does,
>>>>>> but holding labor costs constant you can assume the consumer pays
>>>>>> more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do we care about labor costs? Well, if we work for a living
>>>>>> the answer is fairly obvious. That's us. We are the labor cost.
>>>>>> Lowering labor costs means we get paid less. I don't work for an
>>>>>> insurance company, you say. But it doesn't matter, because the
>>>>>> economy is not a loose association of little budget-islands; it's
>>>>>> an interconnected system. One company lowers labor costs, the
>>>>>> others need to as well. That's back to that "competition" idea
>>>>>> again. This is another one of the ways competition is enormously
>>>>>> destructive: because it privileges profit over human needs -
>>>>>> specifically it privileges the increasing concentration of
>>>>>> profits over the supplying to people of what they need to live.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no denying that the effects of some regulations have the
>>>>>> effect that Wayne describes. It's just that it's not the whole
>>>>>> picture, and not even the most important part of it. For one
>>>>>> thing, as I said before, the shutting out of competitors is not
>>>>>> solely - or even primarily - an effect of regulation; it's mainly
>>>>>> a direct consequence of "market" forces themselves. Different
>>>>>> regulations simply work differently, so it really doesn't make
>>>>>> sense to generalize in the way you're doing - which I realize is
>>>>>> the way we are often taught to do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not that competition doesn't exist (the way the so-called
>>>>>> "free enterprise" system doesn't exist), or that regulation is
>>>>>> always good or bad. It depends on the effects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, another (related) golden icon is the Law of Supply and
>>>>>> Demand, which as Marx famously noted, works - like the Law of
>>>>>> Gravity works when your house falls in on you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ricky
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Thu, 12/3/09, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
>>>>>> >Subject: Re: marketplace mythologies was: Insurance Companies
>>>>>> Should >Compete
>>>>>> >To: "Ricky Baldwin" <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> >Cc: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>, "Peace-discuss"
>>>>>> ><peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>> >Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 9:14 PM
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Ricky,
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >I guess I really was poking fun at Leahy's doublespeak and the
>>>>>> >ideologic play on words
>>>>>> >it puts him in. Patrick Leahy has contributed as much to the
>>>>>> >bureaucratic morass that
>>>>>> >characterizes the highly regulated practice of medicine in Amerika.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >You are not digging deep enough into the
>>>>>> medical-industrial-legal >complex
>>>>>> >and the web of rules and regulations that prevent competition.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Single-payer only changes who pays. It doesnt change the cost.
>>>>>> >Single-payer just ensures the foxes of the medical industry that
>>>>>> the >hens are plump and well-fed.
>>>>>> >I want to stomp on the foxes.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >One not need to call upon the dark annals of history to refute
>>>>>> your >argument against the
>>>>>> >benefits of competition. A few days ago I became leery that my
>>>>>> auto >insurance was getting more and more expensive.
>>>>>> >A few clicks on the internet last night...now I am saving $126
>>>>>> per >month without having
>>>>>> >to speak with any insurance salesman at all. Competition in the
>>>>>> >marketplace is a good thing.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Surely you are not so semiotically inflexible that you can't
>>>>>> engage >in metaphor about the marketplace.
>>>>>> >Perhaps you prefer to have Big Sibling make all of our choices
>>>>>> for >us? Or just for the rest of us?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >*
>>>>>> >Regulation serves abusive corporations because it raises the bar
>>>>>> for >new entrants.
>>>>>> >It's another case of the collusion of the "left" at its worst
>>>>>> >("stupid") and the
>>>>>> >"right" at its worst ("evil"). The "do-gooders" want more
>>>>>> >regulations because they think that more regs will make
>>>>>> >their miserable and pathetic fear-driven lives "safer". The
>>>>>> >greed-driven corporate plutocrats accept more regulations
>>>>>> >with glee, because for them it represents a way to slime their
>>>>>> >competition out of the market.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >The great bulk of the work of the FDA is no longer to provide
>>>>>> >consumer protection but to
>>>>>> >provide a competition free shelter for the entrenched companies
>>>>>> who >produce materia medica.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Even the Obots bumped up against an impediment with their own
>>>>>> goofy >regs in delivering the flu vaccine,
>>>>>> >and the government had to declare an emergency to bypass its own
>>>>>> >competition limiting rules.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >The insurance companies paid a lot of money to their lobbyists
>>>>>> to get >those exempting regulations passed.
>>>>>> >Practically No one in America seems to be serious about
>>>>>> providing >decent medical care at a reasonable price.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >On 12/3/2009 5:15 PM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>>>>> >Um ... REMOVING their EXEMPTION from anti-trust laws is "getting
>>>>>> the >government out of the way"???
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>This is a common misconception of how the famous "marketplace"
>>>>>> (a >>ridiculous name, anyway - as if Exxon and GM were just
>>>>>> tables at >>Lincoln Square). But this misconception is at the
>>>>>> very heart of >>the fog that keeps the economic emperors (clothes
>>>>>> or not) in power. >>It is the insidious myth that, but for the
>>>>>> interference of >>"government", free competition would keep
>>>>>> businesses honest, >>efficient and meritorious, even serving
>>>>>> humanity, etc.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>In fact the reality, as long history shows repeatedly, is quite
>>>>>> >>different, and often opposite. Left to their own devices (or
>>>>>> the >>devices they can creatively acquire) profitable businesses
>>>>>> engage in >>ruthlessly destructive wars, the very least result of
>>>>>> which is >>anything resembling "efficiency" -- with the possible
>>>>>> exception of >>human needs (such as clean water, air, land, food,
>>>>>> etc.) -- and very >>quickly consolidate themselves horizontally
>>>>>> and vertically into >>monopolies that act as they please with the
>>>>>> lives of the puny humans >>trespassing on the surface of their
>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>It is against this trend, as a block and tackle against
>>>>>> gravity, >>that the government enforces (when it does) anti-trust
>>>>>> laws. But >>there are always opponents, who stand or believe
>>>>>> they stand to >>benefit from monopolizing trends. There are
>>>>>> others who believe this >>trend is so powerful that anti-trust
>>>>>> laws are by nature inefficient >>(working against gravity), and
>>>>>> the proper response of a people >>organized ought to be not just
>>>>>> to allow monopolies to form, but in >>fact to aid them, with the
>>>>>> eventual goal of then using the >>government to take them over
>>>>>> and run them in the community interest. >>This of course assumes
>>>>>> better government than we ... have ... have >>had ... in ...
>>>>>> forever.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>(Even when opportunities arise, i.e., the bailouts, our
>>>>>> government >>smiles and announces that the problem was the
>>>>>> biggest corporations >>hadn't stolen enough yet, fast enough, so
>>>>>> we'll just give it to >>them - poor, little, inefficient thieves.)
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>Others say - as in the case of the proposed merger between NBC
>>>>>> and >>Comcast - they are already too big; bust 'em up. They are
>>>>>> given >>permission (by us) to run these shell games, er,
>>>>>> enterprises on our >>land, our airwaves, using our waters and
>>>>>> forests, etc., and we have >>the right to set some parameters.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>But even proponents of this view often assume that competition
>>>>>> is >>inherently good. It isn't. It's often incredibly
>>>>>> destructive and >>wasteful, besides being inhumane. It leads
>>>>>> sweatshops in New York >>and Indonesia, slavery in Florida's
>>>>>> fields and in the homes of the >>well-to-do, the brothels of LA
>>>>>> and Thailand, etc.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>On a more mundane level, it's competition that meant that when
>>>>>> we >>lived in Champaign on a certain morning of the week every
>>>>>> week we >>had to be awakened repeatedly starting at 2am by
>>>>>> THIRTEEN garbage >>trucks going up and down our street, each
>>>>>> collecting a can here and >>there and moving on. This uses
>>>>>> several times the fuel, produces >>several times the pollution,
>>>>>> etc., as a city service - and as a >>result raises the price to
>>>>>> the "consumer" (funny term when you mean >>throwing away trash,
>>>>>> isn't it?). Examples of this type are nearly >>infinite. Yet we
>>>>>> persist in the belief that competition somehow >>helps us.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>But lest we (ok, I) digress too far, the issue here is health
>>>>>> care. >>Do these bozos deserve exemptions from anti-trust laws?
>>>>>> Did Al >>Capone? But the real answer to our health care woes is
>>>>>> complex, >>surely, but just as surely includes some form of
>>>>>> universal plan that >>covers everyone - single payer, national
>>>>>> health, something. I don't >>say its perfect in places like
>>>>>> England and Canada - the people there >>complain about it all the
>>>>>> time - but when they hear about "our" >>system, they react as if
>>>>>> you just proposed cannibalism. That's how >>barbaric it is.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>We'd all know it if we weren't scared stiff of the Jews,
>>>>>> Commies, >>atheists, gays and immigrants hiding under our beds
>>>>>> and in our >>bedroom closets.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>Ricky
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>--- On Thu, 12/3/09, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>>From: E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag>
>>>>>> >>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Fw: Insurance Companies Should
>>>>>> Compete
>>>>>> >>>To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> >>>Cc: "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>>>>>> >>>Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 3:42 PM
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>Yes!
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>Get government out of the way (by removing the nanny-state
>>>>>> >>>corporate-welfare protection)
>>>>>> >>>and let the Free Market Operate.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>Amen, Sister!
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>"a free and fair marketplace. "
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>That's the stuff!
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>On 12/3/2009 3:25 PM, Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>--- On Thu, 12/3/09, Patrick Leahy <info at leahyforvermont.com>
>>>>>> >>>>wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>From: Patrick Leahy <info at leahyforvermont.com>
>>>>>> >>>>>Subject: Insurance Companies Should Compete
>>>>>> >>>>>To: "Jenifer Cartwright" <jencart13 at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> >>>>>Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 1:55 PM
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Dear Jenifer,
>>>>>> >>>>>On Tuesday, I took to the Senate floor and formally filed my
>>>>>> >>>>>amendment to repeal the antitrust exemption for health
>>>>>> insurance >>>>>companies.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>I look forward to debating this critical measure during our
>>>>>> >>>>>deliberations on the broader health care reform bill. After
>>>>>> all, >>>>>to bring insurance costs down, we've got to introduce
>>>>>> more >>>>>competition in the marketplace -- and my amendment will
>>>>>> do just >>>>>that.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Already, nearly 40,000 members of our Leahy online community
>>>>>> -- >>>>>including you -- have emailed their Senators urging
>>>>>> support of >>>>>this amendment, and 18 of my colleagues have now
>>>>>> co-sponsored it.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>But we need more Senators to join us to get this critical
>>>>>> >>>>>amendment passed.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Click here to invite your friends & family to forward an
>>>>>> email to >>>>>their Senators too -- and urge them to support our
>>>>>> amendment to >>>>>repeal the antitrust exemption for health
>>>>>> insurance companies!
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Our amendment will introduce antitrust oversight to the
>>>>>> health >>>>>insurance industry, ruling out of bounds egregious
>>>>>> >>>>>anti-competitive conduct like price fixing that harms
>>>>>> >>>>>hard-working American families and raises costs. It's an
>>>>>> >>>>>outrageous loophole that must be closed.
>>>>>> >>>>>The health insurance industry should compete on a level
>>>>>> playing >>>>>field just like every other business in America,
>>>>>> large and small, >>>>>so that consumers know that the price
>>>>>> they're being quoted is the >>>>>product of a free and fair
>>>>>> marketplace.
>>>>>> >>>>>That's why our amendment repealing the health insurance
>>>>>> >>>>>industry's antitrust exemption is so important -- but I need
>>>>>> your >>>>>help, right now, to get it passed.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Click here to invite your friends & family to forward an
>>>>>> email to >>>>>their Senators too -- and urge them to support our
>>>>>> amendment to >>>>>repeal the antitrust exemption for health
>>>>>> insurance companies!
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>As we move forward with debate on the health care reform
>>>>>> bill, >>>>>much of our discussion will be about bringing costs
>>>>>> down while >>>>>expanding and improving insurance coverage.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>This amendment is a vital part of that effort, and we've got
>>>>>> to >>>>>do everything we can to get it passed. Please invite your
>>>>>> friends >>>>>& family to email their Senators now.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Thanks so much for your help.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Patrick Leahy
>>>>>> >>>>>U.S. Senator
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>P.S. A vote on our amendment could come in a matter of days,
>>>>>> so >>>>>please take a few seconds, right now, to make your voice
>>>>>> heard. >>>>>Please invite your friends & family to email their
>>>>>> Senators now.
>>>>>> >>>>>Visit LeahyForVermont.com
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Paid for by Leahy for U.S. Senator Committee, Inc.
>>>>>> >>>>>PO Box 1042
>>>>>> >>>>>Montpelier, VT 05601
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>Visit the address below to tell your friends and family
>>>>>> about >>>>>this message.
>>>>>> >>>>> Tell-a-friend!
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up
>>>>>> for >>>>>Leahy for Senate.
>>>>>> >>>>>This message was sent to jencart13 at yahoo.com. Visit your
>>>>>> >>>>>subscription management page to modify your email
>>>>>> communication >>>>>preferences or update your personal profile.
>>>>>> To stop ALL email >>>>>from Leahy for Senate, click to remove
>>>>>> yourself from our lists >>>>>(or reply via email with "remove or
>>>>>> unsubscribe" in the subject >>>>>line).
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>>Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> >>>>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>> >>>>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>> >>>Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> >>>Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>> >>>http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list