View Full Version : Study shows insurance Cos cheat their customers
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 02:46 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2008/01/11/BUEIUD5T0.DTL&type=politics
Its how they make the big bucks.
This is your economy on Republicans.
5stringJeff
01-12-2008, 03:35 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2008/01/11/BUEIUD5T0.DTL&type=politics
Its how they make the big bucks.
This is your economy on Republicans.
There is no connection between the business practices of insurance companies and the Republican Party - that is, unless you've got some actual evidence of it somewhere that you'd like to link to.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 03:38 PM
Its called ovesight.
5stringJeff
01-12-2008, 03:46 PM
Its called ovesight.
Oversight of what? How does the GOP have any more oversight over the insurance industry than any other industry?
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 04:04 PM
Just like they could have investigated the Loan abuse to head off this current economic disastor they could have done the same with the Insurance Co abuse of their customers.
Congresses in the past have done these types of investigations and developed legislations to stop the abuse.
Its part of what congress does buddy.
Kathianne
01-12-2008, 04:07 PM
Just like they could have investigated the Loan abuse to head off this current economic disastor they could have done the same with the Insurance Co abuse of their customers.
Congresses in the past have done these types of investigations and developed legislations to stop the abuse.
Its part of what congress does buddy.
Segue from insurance to home loans, without any connections other than, GOP fault. :cool::lame2:
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 04:13 PM
Its called government oversight.
That is the connection.
jimnyc
01-12-2008, 04:15 PM
Its called government oversight.
That is the connection.
Show a definitive connection to Republicans. Don't just say it, or state oversight, show a definitive connection. You made the claim, now please back it up.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 04:19 PM
The republicans had complete control of the US government for years.
They did none of this type of oversight the entire time in office.
It is part of what their job is.
jimnyc
01-12-2008, 04:20 PM
The republicans had complete control of the US government for years.
They did none of this type of oversight the entire time in office.
It is part of what their job is.
In other words, you have no definitive connection. Now please state the oversight committees in charge for the past 20 years, and what political affiliation they were made up of to backup your claim...
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 04:22 PM
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6694932/Congressional-investigations-politics-and-process.html
please read the laws about thier powers of investigation.
http://www.bingham.com/PracticeDetails.aspx?PracticeID=42
Industry sure seemed to know the changes of the guard mean something.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?2006ciii
The people had been requesting it be investigated.
jimnyc
01-12-2008, 04:27 PM
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6694932/Congressional-investigations-politics-and-process.html
please read the laws about thier powers of investigation.
http://www.bingham.com/PracticeDetails.aspx?PracticeID=42
Industry sure seemed to know the changes of the guard mean something.
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?2006ciii
The people had been requesting it be investigated.
Sorry, not what I asked of you. WHICH oversight committees, specifically, would have oversaw all of this over the past 20 years. In other words, you made a claim, now back it up by showing us that these committees were all republicans. For all we know they were predominantly democrat committees.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 04:32 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2008/01/11/BUEIUD5T0.DTL&type=politics
If you would read the report you would realise this is a development over the last few years while Rs have been in complete control of the government.
Going back 20 years is not touching this issue.
You are just deflecting as usual
jimnyc
01-12-2008, 04:34 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2008/01/11/BUEIUD5T0.DTL&type=politics
If you would read the report you would realise this is a development over the last few years while Rs have been in complete control of the government.
Going back 20 years is not touching this issue.
You are just deflecting as usual
It's not deflecting. Who the president is or who has majority control of congress does not assure who is in a specific committee. It could be 75% democrats and yet you are already blaming republicans while at the same time refusing to look up the REAL facts for clarification. You are like arguing with a rock!
jimnyc
01-12-2008, 04:35 PM
Hell, I'll tell you what, TM - tell me the specific committees in charge of this oversight and I'll do the research that you refuse to do...
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 04:38 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_House_committees
why do you people always ask me to do your research for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Financial_Services_Subcommitte e_on_Capital_Markets%2C_Insurance%2C_and_Governmen t-Sponsored_Enterprises
PostmodernProphet
01-12-2008, 04:38 PM
Its called government oversight.
That is the connection.
insurance companies are overseen by state governments, not federal....therefore blue states would be overseen by Democrats and red states would be overseen by Republicans.....
from your link....
The Consumer Federation urged state regulators to require insurance companies
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 04:43 PM
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-house-committee-on-financial-services
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2008/01/11/BUEIUD5T0.DTL&type=politics
"We saw record profits in 2004 and 2005 despite significant hurricane activity. Profits in 2006 rose to unprecedented heights, with pre-tax profits likely to increase by over $30 billion for property/casualty insurers, a jump from the previous record of more than $100 for every man woman and child in America.
Meanwhile, the amount that insurers paid in claims and expenses as a percentage of the premium collected in 2006 plummeted to a 50-year low," he said. "Unfortunately, a major reason why insurers have reported record high profits and low losses in recent years is that they have been methodically overcharging consumers, cutting back on coverage, underpaying claims, and getting taxpayers to pick up some of the tab for higher risks," said Hunter.
jimnyc
01-12-2008, 05:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_House_committees
why do you people always ask me to do your research for you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Financial_Services_Subcommitte e_on_Capital_Markets%2C_Insurance%2C_and_Governmen t-Sponsored_Enterprises
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-house-committee-on-financial-services
TM - You are speaking that it is FACTUAL that the republicans are somehow responsible for this problem. It is up to you to show us this, and how. You shouldn't just blurt something out for the sake of it unless you are willing to backup your claims. You should specify the committees that were at fault, and who the members were of said committees. If you can't do that, or refuse to, then you are simply guessing and playing a blame game with zero facts - as usual.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 05:06 PM
This is a recent development of a few years.
You asked for things from me that have no bearing on the issue and insisted I do your research.
If you have some point to make it is pretty much up to you to do your own reseach to prove your point.
Now will you deal with the information I have given you or will you ask me for the price of tea in China?
The facts are that this current level of profits in over the last couple of years.
The people who could have addressed the issue did not and they were the R party of the last 7 or so years.
Citizens had requested they look into it and they declined.
These are facts.
Its a very good case even if your bias makes it impossible for you to face the facts.
PostmodernProphet
01-12-2008, 05:06 PM
.....state regulators, truth......deal with the information I have given YOU......
jimnyc
01-12-2008, 05:08 PM
This is a recent development of a few years.
You asked for things from me that have no bearing on the issue and insisted I do your research.
If you have some point to make it is pretty much up to you to do your own reseach to prove your point.
Now will you deal with the information I have given you or will you ask me for the price of tea in China?
So you claim the republicans are at fault and in the same breath admit fully you have no clue whatsoever who was in the committees supposedly in charge of this oversight. Gotcha! You're an ignorant idiot! LOL
I believe PMP has showed once again that you are clueless anyway! :laugh2:
PostmodernProphet
01-12-2008, 05:11 PM
lol.....shucks....this article also complains about insurance companies....it's dated in 1996....I wonder if typo will conclude the Democrats are responsible now.....
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1996/08/01/215477/index.htm
Missileman
01-12-2008, 05:14 PM
This is a recent development of a few years.
You asked for things from me that have no bearing on the issue and insisted I do your research.
If you have some point to make it is pretty much up to you to do your own reseach to prove your point.
Now will you deal with the information I have given you or will you ask me for the price of tea in China?
The facts are that this current level of profits in over the last couple of years.
The people who could have addressed the issue did not and they were the R party of the last 7 or so years.
Citizens had requested they look into it and they declined.
These are facts.
Its a very good case even if your bias makes it impossible for you to face the facts.
Ever hear of the Insurance Commisioners? They work for the governors of each state. Give ya a nickel if you can guess what their job is.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 05:15 PM
lol.....shucks....this article also complains about insurance companies....it's dated in 1996....I wonder if typo will conclude the Democrats are responsible now.....
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/moneymag_archive/1996/08/01/215477/index.htm
who controled the congress in 1996?
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 05:16 PM
Ever hear of the Insurance Commisioners? They work for the governors of each state. Give ya a nickel if you can guess what their job is.
Does that mean congress is less powerful than them and should do nothing without their permission?
Agian you forgive the Republicans anything and search and search for a way to shift blame.
Why not just make your party live up to your ideals instead?
Trigg
01-12-2008, 05:17 PM
Its a very good case even if your bias makes it impossible for you to face the facts.
Lord, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
TM if you make a claim and present it as fact be prepaired to back it up with some sort of facts.
Those are the rules, please attempt to play by them.
jimnyc
01-12-2008, 05:19 PM
Lord, if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
TM if you make a claim and present it as fact be prepaired to back it up with some sort of facts.
Those are the rules, please attempt to play by them.
She hasn't done so since the day she joined this board even though she's been asked to backup claims she has made hundreds of times. She seems to think if she doesn't do so that somehow her accusations against the GOP will stand. You're debating with a child, and one that's been lobotomized at that.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 05:25 PM
So far I provided many facts here in this thread.
The fact is this huge profit shift has happen with republicans at the helm of government.
The congress under Republicans over the last decade or so has performed very little oversight. It was at historic lows.
Citizens had petitioned this government to look into the problem and this Republican government declined.
Please prove any of those three statements unture?
Missileman
01-12-2008, 05:37 PM
Does that mean congress is less powerful than them and should do nothing without their permission?
Agian you forgive the Republicans anything and search and search for a way to shift blame.
Why not just make your party live up to your ideals instead?
No, it means that oversight of the insurance companies rests with the Insurance Commisioners and the states.
You have yet to provide a single smidge of evidence that Republicans were derelict as it pertains to insurance companies. All you've posted so far is an accusation. Post some info about Democrats proposing legislation to prevent insurance company abuses that was squashed by Republicans.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 05:44 PM
http://www.petitiononline.com/2006ciii/petition.html
there citizens were asking them to look into it.
jimnyc
01-12-2008, 05:46 PM
http://www.petitiononline.com/2006ciii/petition.html
there citizens were asking them to look into it.
Yeah, all 56 of them! You are such an asswipe sometimes! :laugh2:
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 05:56 PM
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/9000a.htm
That was but one example
Missileman
01-12-2008, 05:59 PM
Yeah, all 56 of them! You are such an asswipe sometimes! :laugh2:
Yeah...56...sounds like a mandate! :lmao:
Missileman
01-12-2008, 06:02 PM
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/9000a.htm
That was but one example
At the top of your link:
State Attorney Generals And Others Investigate Insurance Industry Charging "Widespread Fraud And Corruption"
The states are working the problem...Congress has more pressing business.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 06:16 PM
At the top of your link:
State Attorney Generals And Others Investigate Insurance Industry Charging "Widespread Fraud And Corruption"
The states are working the problem...Congress has more pressing business.
Nov 16 2004 NY Attorney General Spitzer Testifies Before U.S. Congress To "Widespread Corruption And Illegal Practices In The Insurance Industry", Characterizes Investigations Findings To That Of A "Pandora's Box Of Unethical Conduct" ... "Urges Congress To Investigate". CT Attorney General Blumenthal Testimony Before Congress Concurs With The NY Attorney General's Testimony.
I guess you missed this part huh?
Missileman
01-12-2008, 06:42 PM
Nov 16 2004 NY Attorney General Spitzer Testifies Before U.S. Congress To "Widespread Corruption And Illegal Practices In The Insurance Industry", Characterizes Investigations Findings To That Of A "Pandora's Box Of Unethical Conduct" ... "Urges Congress To Investigate". CT Attorney General Blumenthal Testimony Before Congress Concurs With The NY Attorney General's Testimony.
I guess you missed this part huh?
Why should congress get involved if the states are pursuing it?
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 06:53 PM
So the situation can be fixed.
Spitzer sure thought it would help.
Is it fixed yet?
pegwinn
01-12-2008, 07:01 PM
TM. I just read thru three pages of point/counterpoint yadablahetc.
I have some questions for you.
First: Under what specific authority is congress empowered to investigate anything at all?
I might end up taking your side if you can walk me thru some of my questions.
PostmodernProphet
01-12-2008, 07:09 PM
who controled the congress in 1996?
lol, who controls it today?.......
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 07:13 PM
TM. I just read thru three pages of point/counterpoint yadablahetc.
I have some questions for you.
First: Under what specific authority is congress empowered to investigate anything at all?
I might end up taking your side if you can walk me thru some of my questions.
http://www.answers.com/topic/congress-of-the-united-states?cat=biz-fin
Hint for pmp, it was the republicans.
Congress's constitutional powers include the setting and collecting of taxes, borrowing money on credit, regulating commerce, coining money, declaring war, raising and supporting armies, and making all laws necessary for the execution of its powers.
to regulate fairly and create laws that work you must be able to investigate the facts.
Missileman
01-12-2008, 07:19 PM
So the situation can be fixed.
Spitzer sure thought it would help.
Is it fixed yet?
Still waiting for links to Democrat sponsored bills to reform the insurance industry and evidence that the Republicans hindered the enactment of said legislation.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 07:34 PM
http://www.democrats.com/node/8862
this is the type of shit the dems were fighting.
http://www.insuranceredlining.com/stop.html
The Senate Democratic Caucus believes no one should have to worry about unaffordable insurance.
Access to reasonably priced home and automobile insurance, protection against identity theft, medical information privacy, credit scoring and redlining are just a few of the issues that thousands of Michigan residents deal with every day.
Democrats have sponsored a host of bills addressing unfair insurance pricing. The chairman of the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions committee has not taken up one piece of our legislation.
We’ve submitted Senate Bills 23, 25, 26, 29, 38, 39 and 200, just to name a few.
These bills address good faith dealings on insurance claims, credit scoring, rate setting, claims data reporting, and rate increases.
We held redlining hearings across the state and found that residents in Detroit , Muskegon , and Saginaw were almost evenly split on their insurance concerns.
They were most concerned with redlining (39 percent) and access to affordable insurance (35 percent).
Nearly 8 out of 10 (78 percent) people felt that they did not have enough information about their insurance options.
Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of respondents stated that they have had to go without home or auto insurance coverage at one time because they could not afford it.
More than half (56 percent) were not satisfied or very unsatisfied with their insurance carrier or carriers.
Sixty percent of respondents said they received most of their insurance information from insurance agents, while 31 percent get most of their information from friends and coworkers.
5stringJeff
01-12-2008, 07:51 PM
At the top of your link:
State Attorney Generals And Others Investigate Insurance Industry Charging "Widespread Fraud And Corruption"
The states are working the problem...Congress has more pressing business.
And the states are supposed to oversee the insurance industries within their states. That's the states' purview, not Congress's.
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 08:16 PM
Bullshit there is NOTHING saying the congress should not get involvede.
Missileman
01-12-2008, 08:56 PM
http://www.democrats.com/node/8862
this is the type of shit the dems were fighting.
http://www.insuranceredlining.com/stop.html
The Senate Democratic Caucus believes no one should have to worry about unaffordable insurance.
Access to reasonably priced home and automobile insurance, protection against identity theft, medical information privacy, credit scoring and redlining are just a few of the issues that thousands of Michigan residents deal with every day.
Democrats have sponsored a host of bills addressing unfair insurance pricing. The chairman of the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions committee has not taken up one piece of our legislation.
We’ve submitted Senate Bills 23, 25, 26, 29, 38, 39 and 200, just to name a few.
These bills address good faith dealings on insurance claims, credit scoring, rate setting, claims data reporting, and rate increases.
We held redlining hearings across the state and found that residents in Detroit , Muskegon , and Saginaw were almost evenly split on their insurance concerns.
They were most concerned with redlining (39 percent) and access to affordable insurance (35 percent).
Nearly 8 out of 10 (78 percent) people felt that they did not have enough information about their insurance options.
Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of respondents stated that they have had to go without home or auto insurance coverage at one time because they could not afford it.
More than half (56 percent) were not satisfied or very unsatisfied with their insurance carrier or carriers.
Sixty percent of respondents said they received most of their insurance information from insurance agents, while 31 percent get most of their information from friends and coworkers.
So you post a story about Dems blocking Republican legislation and some crap about Michigan's legislature. That all ya got?
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 09:01 PM
oopps your right its a state example.
Why dont you show me an example of a law the Rs put forth?
I will continue to look for anything the dems sponsered.
BTW the Rs shut the dems out of almost every activity in the congress that they could while they were in the majority.
Its called ovesight.
which party has the most members in the senate and house?
truthmatters
01-12-2008, 09:14 PM
At the time it was republicans.
pegwinn
01-12-2008, 09:43 PM
Congress's constitutional powers include the setting and collecting of taxes, borrowing money on credit, regulating commerce, coining money, declaring war, raising and supporting armies, and making all laws necessary for the execution of its powers.
to regulate fairly and create laws that work you must be able to investigate the facts.
New question. Just because there is a constitutional authority to do it, has it been demonstrated that the fed (vice state or local agencies) has a compelling interest?
At the time it was republicans.
And just what have your lovely dems done? Did the dems ever try to pass a bill that would make you happy? Me thinks not. You are whining about republicans, when in fact, your dems share equally in --your-- blame.
Missileman
01-12-2008, 11:09 PM
Why dont you show me an example of a law the Rs put forth?
The Republicans are wisely willing to let the states' Insurance Commissioners do their (the Commissioners') job.
The Republicans are wisely willing to let the states' Insurance Commissioners do their (the Commissioners') job.
stupid post and stupid does...
what exactly is the point you are making here?
the dems can/will also pass your socialist "checks" stop being so petty and start being more pragmatic.....
Missileman
01-12-2008, 11:25 PM
stupid post and stupid does...
what exactly is the point you are making here?
the dems can/will also pass your socialist "checks" stop being so petty and start being more pragmatic.....
WTF are you babbling about...been hiitin the hooch?
WTF are you babbling about...been hiitin the hooch?
no, you? can't even try to answer a question? you know exactly what i am saying, but you, throw "hooch" (whatever that is) in there as if this "hooch" somehow diminished my thinking.
try again big boy
Missileman
01-13-2008, 12:09 AM
no, you? can't even try to answer a question? you know exactly what i am saying, but you, throw "hooch" (whatever that is) in there as if this "hooch" somehow diminished my thinking.
try again big boy
You think letting the states' Insurance Commissioners do their job without interference from the feds is stupid?
You need to re-read my posts...you're either very confused or very drunk.
Joe Steel
01-13-2008, 07:38 AM
Show a definitive connection to Republicans. Don't just say it, or state oversight, show a definitive connection. You made the claim, now please back it up.
Read about Racicot.
AIA Names Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot as President
June 13, 2005
The American Insurance Association (AIA) has selected Marc Racicot, former governor of Montana, as president of the organization.
Racicot joins AIA after serving as chairman of the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign; in 2002, Racicot was elected chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC). Prior to his tenure at the RNC, Racicot was a partner in the law firm of Bracewell and Patterson (now Bracewell and Giuliani), where he focused on government relations and public policy resolution.
Racicot served as Montana's governor (1993-2001) and attorney general (1989-1993). Born and raised in Montana, Racicot is a graduate of Carroll College in Helena, and the University of Montana Law School. He worked in the Judge Advocate General's Corps and as state assistant attorney general, as well as the state's first special prosecutor before running for attorney general. position in January 2002."
AIA Names Former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot as President (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2005/06/13/55908.htm)
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 08:13 AM
Read about Racicot.
And this has WHAT to do with congressional oversight of insurance companies and TM's claims? And it has WHAT to do with individual states being responsible for the oversight? Nothing? That's what I thought!
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 10:46 AM
GREAT IDEA!
Lets just have all the rebuplicans just run on that platform?
Republicans promise not to do any oversight of any industry even though it is part of the constitution.
That should get you a lot of votes huh?
http://www.answers.com/topic/congress-of-the-united-states?cat=biz-fin
Congress's constitutional powers include the setting and collecting of taxes, borrowing money on credit, regulating commerce, coining money, declaring war, raising and supporting armies, and making all laws necessary for the execution of its powers.
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/9000a.htm
Nov 16 2004 NY Attorney General Spitzer Testifies Before U.S. Congress To "Widespread Corruption And Illegal Practices In The Insurance Industry", Characterizes Investigations Findings To That Of A "Pandora's Box Of Unethical Conduct" ... "Urges Congress To Investigate". CT Attorney General Blumenthal Testimony Before Congress Concurs With The NY Attorney General's Testimony.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 11:10 AM
GREAT IDEA!
Lets just have all the rebuplicans just run on that platform?
Republicans promise not to do any oversight of any industry even though it is part of the constitution.
That should get you a lot of votes huh?
http://www.answers.com/topic/congress-of-the-united-states?cat=biz-fin
Congress's constitutional powers include the setting and collecting of taxes, borrowing money on credit, regulating commerce, coining money, declaring war, raising and supporting armies, and making all laws necessary for the execution of its powers.
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/9000a.htm
Nov 16 2004 NY Attorney General Spitzer Testifies Before U.S. Congress To "Widespread Corruption And Illegal Practices In The Insurance Industry", Characterizes Investigations Findings To That Of A "Pandora's Box Of Unethical Conduct" ... "Urges Congress To Investigate". CT Attorney General Blumenthal Testimony Before Congress Concurs With The NY Attorney General's Testimony.
Look, asshole, is it really necessary to post the same links over and over? You're like a retarded broken record. It's already been shown to you that the oversight belongs to the states. So how about showing specifically which states have the issues, and who was responsible for overseeing the problematic areas? Funny how NY is one that you are showing has an issue, and I can attest to that, and it's democrats that are supposed to be overseeing the issue. See how the facts make you look like a dipshit again?
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 11:19 AM
Its called government oversight.
That is the connection.
Government IS NOT in charge of oversight for insurance, it's strictly a state issue as explained to you by multiple people.
Insurance is regulated by the states under a remarkable delegation of authority in the McCarran- Ferguson Act. There is no insurance oversight by the federal government, nor are there standards for effective regulation, but there is an exemption from the antitrust law, which very few other American industries outside of major league baseball enjoy. Thus, for example, insurers routinely use rating organizations to jointly project inflation costs into the future.
So your bellyaching about the republicans failing at their oversight is 100% proven incorrect. You once again have been found to be placing blame on things you are absolutely clueless about. You are simply and idiot that has little to no knowledge at all. I suggest you read this:
http://216.109.125.130/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=federal+government+insurance+oversight&fr=yfp-t-501&u=www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/Insurance%2520RegulationSenatetestimony10-03.pdf&w=federal+government+governments+insurance+oversig ht&d=e85LyrXiQGC_&icp=1&.intl=us
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 11:33 AM
Jiminy you just quoted the industries head from 2003 who gave the Republicans there marching orders not to bother them with oversight.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
The constitution tasks the congress with regulating commerce. The insuraance industry IS commerce. They dont get to tell the people they have no control over them. The constitution trumps their silly asses.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 11:37 AM
Jiminy you just quoted the industries head from 2003 who gave the Republicans there marching orders not to bother them with oversight.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
The constitution tasks the congress with regulating commerce. The insuraance industry IS commerce. They dont get to tell the people they have no control over them. The constitution trumps their silly asses.
Can you not read you stupid old hag? THERE IS NO OVERSIGHT MANDATED BY CONGRESS. It is up to each state to oversee their own insurance. Are you truly fucking illiterate? The constitution giving congress the power to deal with commerce DOES NOT mean they are mandated to oversee insurance companies! It's a state issue, YOU WERE OUTRIGHT WRONG in your assertions and nothing will change that.
And nobody ever said the insurance companies can state nobody can oversee them, it's just simply the job of the state governments.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 11:39 AM
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
I implore everyone to look at the link I provided and the depth of the article. This LOSER opened my post at 11:32 and starts replying at 11:33 and laughs. She hardly had enough time to read and realize the article proves her very assertions in this thread clearly out of the water. An illiterate AND ignorant buffoon! :laugh2:
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 11:40 AM
http://www.naifa.org/advocacy/irr/mf.cfm
No silly little boy it was this law taht makes it so. It was the republican congress who reupped it back in 1999.
You see to take it back all they have to do is write a law adn regulate them from the federal position.
They had the power at any time they chose to write a new law.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 11:42 AM
http://www.naifa.org/advocacy/irr/mf.cfm
No silly little boy it was this law taht makes it so. It was the republican congress who reupped it back in 1999.
You see to take it back all they have to do is write a law adn regulate them from the federal position.
They had the power at any time they chose to write a new law.
From your own link, dumbass!
Basing primary regulation with state governments was reaffirmed when Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945 and again when Congress enacted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. By declaring the states as the primary regulator, Congress also has exempted insurers -- like other regulated financial institutions -- from the Federal Trade Commission's unfair trade practices authority.
It's been this way for over 60 years!
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 11:45 AM
No silly little boy it was this law taht makes it so. It was the republican congress who reupped it back in 1999.
With MAJORITY APPROVAL from the democrats as well! Do you even think or research at all before you make asinine assertions?
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 11:52 AM
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. By declaring the states as the primary regulator, Congress also has exempted insurers -- like other regulated financial institutions -- from the Federal Trade Commission's unfair trade practices authority.
Now why dont you read the whole thing?
You see just because its an old law does not mean it was a that should stay in place when the insurers start abusing the lack of oversight entrusted to them by congress.
The law inacted by a republican congress in 1999 further excempted them from oversight and caused the problem which was ignored by the next couple of republican congresses.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 11:53 AM
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. By declaring the states as the primary regulator, Congress also has exempted insurers -- like other regulated financial institutions -- from the Federal Trade Commission's unfair trade practices authority.
Now why dont you read the whole thing?
You see just because its an old law does not mean it was a that should stay in place when the insurers start abusing the lack of oversight entrusted to them by congress.
The law inacted by a republican congress in 1999 further excempted them from oversight and caused the problem which was ignored by the next couple of republican congresses.
I did, and it was voted YES by MAJORITY of democrats in 1999, and yet you want to blame it on the republicans for re-upping the act!
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 11:56 AM
I give up here, I'm going downstairs to discuss it with my 7 year old who has better comprehension skills. :laugh2:
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 11:59 AM
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999
Why dont you read about the law its self?
The law was a banking law and was dressed up to look like a consumer issue. It is also very likely responsible iat least in part for the Sub prime problem.
Yeah for your side huh?
Do you know why it has the name it does?
Its named after the Three people who wrote and sponsered the law. Guess what party they all belong to?
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 12:49 PM
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999
Why dont you read about the law its self?
The law was a banking law and was dressed up to look like a consumer issue. It is also very likely responsible iat least in part for the Sub prime problem.
Yeah for your side huh?
Do you know why it has the name it does?
Its named after the Three people who wrote and sponsered the law. Guess what party they all belong to?
And yet the MAJORITY of all democrats voted YES to it, ignoramus.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 12:58 PM
http://www.askergoworks.com/gramm_leach_bliley_act.aspx
Go read how it was dressed up to look like a consumer issue.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 01:02 PM
And yet the MAJORITY of all democrats voted YES to it, ignoramus. And you are trying to blame it on republicans for re-upping the act when the dems did the same damn thing, ignoramus.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 01:12 PM
You see nothing wrong with them presenting the law as a consumer issue when they wrote ,sponsered it and discussed it as a consumer issue to cover its true effects?
Damn you forgive anything in the name of party huh?
hjmick
01-13-2008, 01:24 PM
You see nothing wrong with them presenting the law as a consumer issue when they wrote ,sponsered it and discussed it as a consumer issue to cover its true effects?
Yes, presenting the bill as a consumer issue is misleading. Bad Republicans, shame on them. The majority of Democrats voted yes for the law. This means that the Democrats, the self proclaimed party of the people ( actually, this would apply to both parties :rolleyes: ) were either (a) not interested in doing the work necessary to discover what was truly in the bill and voted in complete ignorance or (b) knew what the bill was really about and voted "yes" anyway, making them complicit in the conspiracy.
Joe Steel
01-13-2008, 01:43 PM
And this has WHAT to do with congressional oversight of insurance companies and TM's claims? And it has WHAT to do with individual states being responsible for the oversight? Nothing? That's what I thought!
Got me. I was just pointing-out the degree of Republican involvement in this ripoff as you demanded. You asked for it. Now you have it.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 01:46 PM
Got me. I was just pointing-out the degree of Republican involvement in this ripoff as you demanded. You asked for it. Now you have it.
Try reading properly next time then. I asked her to show me how the republicans were complicit within their duties for congressional oversight, which duties they don't have. Further, showing a former republican heading an independent agency doesn't show anything about a ripoff at all.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 01:50 PM
They will hold republicans responsible for nothing they do.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 01:52 PM
They will hold republicans responsible for nothing they do.
Because they haven't done anything improper as you assert. You're just a twit throwing out accusations about things you have no clue about, and you proved that to us all by your little self! Don't you care even a little bit about your credibility? Do you not care that 90% of the stuff you post is pure garbage and proven to be outright false almost every time?
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 01:57 PM
I did not say anything about it being illegal.
It is doing what they always do.
They are the party of the 1% wealthiest people in the country and do their bidding. They just are able to fool you enough to get your vote and yet do nothing for you.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 01:59 PM
I did not say anything about it being illegal.
It is doing what they always do.
They are the party of the 1% wealthiest people in the country and do their bidding. They just are able to fool you enough to get your vote and yet do nothing for you.
You blamed the republicans for the issue. You have nothing to back that up. You claimed it was them in charge of congressional oversight of the issue - and it doesn't even exist!
Joe Steel
01-13-2008, 02:03 PM
Try reading properly next time then. I asked her to show me how the republicans were complicit within their duties for congressional oversight, which duties they don't have. Further, showing a former republican heading an independent agency doesn't show anything about a ripoff at all.
Take you own advice:
There is no connection between the business practices of insurance companies and the Republican Party - that is, unless you've got some actual evidence of it somewhere that you'd like to link to.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=185371
Show a definitive connection to Republicans. Don't just say it, or state oversight, show a definitive connection. You made the claim, now please back it up.
http://www.debatepolicy.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=185417
The claim is proven.
If it slithers like a Republican and stinks like a Republican, it is a Republican.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:07 PM
Take you own advice:
The claim is proven.
If it slithers like a Republican and stinks like a Republican, it is a Republican.
Take my own advice and then you quote Jeff? LOL
And you simply posted an article, I saw no claim whatsoever of any proven wrongdoing. Care to give it another whirl, with proof this time? I know the thread is a few pages long, and likely confusing for you, but TM is claiming that the republicans in congress are responsible for the insurance problems for lack of oversight. Many of us countered with the fact that oversight comes from the individual states. I merely tried to corner her by asking for the proof of which committees existed in congress that did this oversight and who they were comprised of. I also asked for undeniable proof of wrongdoing thinking I would reel her in like a dead fish when she couldn't come up with anything. Lo and behold, I got 2 fish for the price of one. Thanks, Joe!
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 02:07 PM
Nothing to back it up huh?
Jiminy when do you start acting as if you are really discussing something and quit being a pouting child?
The insurance profits have skyrocketed over the last decade. FACT!
The Republicans were in control for the majority of that time.FACT!
The Republicans wrote, sponsered and fought for a law which gave them even more leaveway over the laws which are designed to protect the public. FACT!
The Republicans who sponsered ,wrote and fought for the law dressed it up to look like a consumer issue law.FACT!
That is more facts than you provided to counter my assertions on the issue.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:09 PM
That is more facts than you provided to counter my assertions on the issue.
The only thing necessary to counter your assertion that the republicans in congress were somehow wrong within their oversight is by showing what a dolt you are when we show that this is in the states, not congress. I need no further proof. Take it to the state level, then show us how the individual state republicans are responsible for the issues.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 02:12 PM
I have Proven that all they had to do to avoid this problem was to write another law.
Why do you ignore this fact?
Why do you ignore the fact that the constitution gives the congress the duty of overseeing commerce?
Do you dislike the constitution?
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:14 PM
I have Proven that all they had to do to avoid this problem was to write another law.
Why do you ignore this fact?
Why do you ignore the fact that the constitution gives the congress the duty of overseeing commerce?
Do you dislike the constitution?
This old asswipe doesn't give up!
What laws have the democrats written? Oh, that's right, the majority of them voted to reup the earlier act we spoke of!
Joe Steel
01-13-2008, 02:14 PM
Take my own advice and then you quote Jeff? LOL
And you simply posted an article, I saw no claim whatsoever of any proven wrongdoing. Care to give it another whirl, with proof this time? I know the thread is a few pages long, and likely confusing for you, but TM is claiming that the republicans in congress are responsible for the insurance problems for lack of oversight. Many of us countered with the fact that oversight comes from the individual states. I merely tried to corner her by asking for the proof of which committees existed in congress that did this oversight and who they were comprised of. I also asked for undeniable proof of wrongdoing thinking I would reel her in like a dead fish when she couldn't come up with anything. Lo and behold, I got 2 fish for the price of one. Thanks, Joe!
Just read what's been posted and don't try to spin it. The demand in the first few postings was only for a connection to Republicans not for a detailed explanation of government's regulatory oversight. Focus on that, Dizzy.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:16 PM
Just read what's been posted and don't try to spin it. The demand in the first few postings was only for a connection to Republicans not for a detailed explanation of government's regulatory oversight. Focus on that, Dizzy.
When I entered the thread I started by responding to her assertions that republican oversight in congress was to blame. You quoted me. Do try to keep up, little boy! Besides, what have you shown to prove that republicans are responsible for any of the issues? Oh, that's right, NOTHING! :laugh2:
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:17 PM
Its called government oversight.
That is the connection.
Show a definitive connection to Republicans. Don't just say it, or state oversight, show a definitive connection. You made the claim, now please back it up.
Here little joey, my first reply in this thread and what it was in reply to. Again, do try and keep up!
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 02:17 PM
When I entered the thread I started by responding to her assertions that republican oversight in congress was to blame. You quoted me. Do try to keep up, little boy! Besides, what have you shown to prove that republicans are responsible for any of the issues? Oh, that's right, NOTHING! :laugh2:
NOPE , I said it was their lack of oversite.
They were pleaded to by the states to help and ignored the pleas
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:19 PM
NOPE , I said it was their lack of oversite.
They were pleaded to by the states to help and ignored the pleas
Just the republicans? How was it denied? Who denied assistance? When was this vote. Please outline it for us...
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 02:19 PM
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/9000a.htm
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:21 PM
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/9000a.htm
And where is any vote? Please show us more than just a lawsuit and a conference with congress. Specifically, whom and why and what was the result?
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 02:23 PM
Nov 16 2004 NY Attorney General Spitzer Testifies Before U.S. Congress To "Widespread Corruption And Illegal Practices In The Insurance Industry", Characterizes Investigations Findings To That Of A "Pandora's Box Of Unethical Conduct" ... "Urges Congress To Investigate". CT Attorney General Blumenthal Testimony Before Congress Concurs With The NY Attorney General's Testimony.
The point is that the Republican controled congress ignored his plea.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:26 PM
Nov 16 2004 NY Attorney General Spitzer Testifies Before U.S. Congress To "Widespread Corruption And Illegal Practices In The Insurance Industry", Characterizes Investigations Findings To That Of A "Pandora's Box Of Unethical Conduct" ... "Urges Congress To Investigate". CT Attorney General Blumenthal Testimony Before Congress Concurs With The NY Attorney General's Testimony.
The point is that the Republican controled congress ignored his plea.
I don't see anything about anything at all being ignored. For all we know there were a majority of republicans for it but the dems were unanimously against it. You're reaching and showing ZERO proof, again, to backup your claims (or guesses as they are)
MtnBiker
01-13-2008, 02:26 PM
Ah fuck it, let's just let the feds take over auto insurance. Universal Auto Insurance for everybody! Don't drive? no problem you will get a tax credit. We all know that the government would be much fairer and efficient at taking care of us.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 02:26 PM
I don't see anything about anything at all being ignored. For all we know there were a majority of republicans for it but the dems were unanimously against it. You're reaching and showing ZERO proof, again, to backup your claims (or guesses as they are)
Then show me where they did anything about it?
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:27 PM
Ah fuck it, let's just let the feds take over auto insurance. Universal Auto Insurance for everybody! Don't drive? no problem you will get a tax credit. We all know that the government would be much fairer and efficient at taking care of us.
Hey, MtnBiker - do me a favor, go into your backyard and find the biggest rock you can. Bring it into your living room and set it on the couch opposite you. Now try and have a debate with it.
Seem at all familiar?
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:28 PM
Then show me where they did anything about it?
I'm not the one making claims and laying blame on anyone. I'd have to know specific details before I could attempt to do that. I wouldn't just outright blame a party I don't like without any facts at all.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 02:35 PM
You went right past the republicans who were in control and blamed the Democrats who voted for it.
MtnBiker
01-13-2008, 02:38 PM
Hey, MtnBiker - do me a favor, go into your backyard and find the biggest rock you can. Bring it into your living room and set it on the couch opposite you. Now try and have a debate with it.
Seem at all familiar?
Actually I've used that rock to bash my head against, about the same as this debate and others.
Missileman
01-13-2008, 02:39 PM
Then show me where they did anything about it?
It's not THEIR job.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 02:40 PM
according to the constitution it is.
http://www.answers.com/topic/congress-of-the-united-states?cat=biz-fin
Congress's constitutional powers include the setting and collecting of taxes, borrowing money on credit,regulating commerce , coining money, declaring war, raising and supporting armies, and making all laws necessary for the execution of its powers.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:42 PM
according to the constitution it is.
State where, and not commerce, but to oversee the insurance industry. We've shown proof that it belongs to the states, can you prove otherwise?
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:44 PM
You went right past the republicans who were in control and blamed the Democrats who voted for it.
Show me where I blamed anyone? Unlike you, I simply spoke the FACTS, and that was that the majority of democrats voted for the act in 99 as well. It was YOU who blamed solely the republicans.
Missileman
01-13-2008, 02:44 PM
according to the constitution it is.
No dipshit. Insurance oiversight BY LAW is the purview of the individual states and their Insurance Commissioners.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 02:48 PM
according to the constitution it is.
http://www.answers.com/topic/congress-of-the-united-states?cat=biz-fin
Congress's constitutional powers include the setting and collecting of taxes, borrowing money on credit, [b]regulating commerce[b], coining money, declaring war, raising and supporting armies, and making all laws necessary for the execution of its powers.
Not a single thing specifically pointing to congress in charge of oversight involving the insurance industry, yet we have law that makes it the responsibility of the states. You lose, again! I think that's like 50x in this one thread alone! LOL
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 03:02 PM
Are you really going to contend that Isurance selling is not part of commerce?
If you notice the law was written in like 1948. That was after all the founders were dead huh?
pegwinn
01-13-2008, 03:22 PM
according to the constitution it is.
http://www.answers.com/topic/congress-of-the-united-states?cat=biz-fin
Congress's constitutional powers include the setting and collecting of taxes, borrowing money on credit,regulating commerce , coining money, declaring war, raising and supporting armies, and making all laws necessary for the execution of its powers.
I've already asked this of you once. Even if someone agreed that the commerce clause applies, what is the compelling reason for congress to do so?
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 03:27 PM
I've already asked this of you once. Even if someone agreed that the commerce clause applies, what is the compelling reason for congress to do so?
To protect the American people as the founders had planned.
pegwinn
01-13-2008, 03:54 PM
Originally Posted by pegwinn http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=185926#post185926)
I've already asked this of you once. Even if someone agreed that the commerce clause applies, what is the compelling reason for congress to do so?
To protect the American people as the founders had planned.
I don't believe your answer will survive a close scrutiny.
Example. If the Congress is authorized, but, each state has a solution in place, how would congressional involvement improve the situation to the advantage of the people.
If the several States did not have a process, and, the abuse was rampant across the nation, then perhaps you could make your argument that the state (Congress) was within it's authority and had a compelling interest since the States didn't exercise thier authority in the matter.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 04:00 PM
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces4.html
Why dont you read what Madison had to say about it?
Viewing in the abstract the question whether the power of regulating trade, to a certain degree at least, ought to be vested in Congress, it appears to me not to admit of a doubt, but that it should be decided in the affirmative. If it be necessary to regulate trade at all, it surely is necessary to lodge the power, where trade can be regulated with effect, and experience has confirmed what reason foresaw, that it can never be so regulated by the States acting in their separate capacities.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
pegwinn
01-13-2008, 04:49 PM
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces4.html
Why dont you read what Madison had to say about it?
Viewing in the abstract the question whether the power of regulating trade, to a certain degree at least, ought to be vested in Congress, it appears to me not to admit of a doubt, but that it should be decided in the affirmative. If it be necessary to regulate trade at all, it surely is necessary to lodge the power, where trade can be regulated with effect, and experience has confirmed what reason foresaw, that it can never be so regulated by the States acting in their separate capacities.
Interesting letter, but IMO it applies to the trade of the United States with Foreign powers. The question we are discussing is virtually certain to appear to be an internal matter. If it were external then your letter might have a bit more merit IMHO.
So far I am landing square on the side that the states have a handle on it and are best left to deal with it locally where local conditions apply.
Additionally there is an advantage to be gained. Each insurer that operates in more than one state will find it easier to acquiesce to the standards of one state than many. So if NY were to enact legislation friendly to the consumer, BigIns would have a choice of modification or leaving NY.
Too many modifications would foul up the BigIns accounting and they would make a "global shift" of policy to save money while being in compliance with the law IOT not lose market share.
I'm afraid that I still do not see a compelling need for the fed to be in the insurance business.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 04:55 PM
This was an issue of wether they have the RIGHT to intervene , They clearly do.
The constitution states they do.
It was their choice NOT to intervene.
The resulting problems are very much in part the result of the Republican party not protecting the American people with the poweres they were given by the constitution.
Its one of their powers deliniated in the constitution.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Missileman
01-13-2008, 05:29 PM
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
And where exactly does insurance fall in any of those 3?
pegwinn
01-13-2008, 05:39 PM
This was an issue of wether they have the RIGHT to intervene , They clearly do.
Agreed in part. I asked that question of you in post number 39 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=185546&postcount=39). However, in post number 50 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=185630&postcount=50)of the discussion conducted between you and I the question (issue) changed. The new question was about whether there was a compelling interest in them doing so.
The constitution states they do. No problem with that.
It was their choice NOT to intervene. Or that. I support this choice and have stated why in post number 115. It's close enough to here that I don't need to link it.
The resulting problems are very much in part the result of the Republican party not protecting the American people with the poweres they were given by the constitution. I was not interested in that and didn't address it.
Its one of their powers deliniated in the constitution.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
I guess this means that our discussion is over and we will agree to disagree.
pegwinn
01-13-2008, 05:42 PM
And where exactly does insurance fall in any of those 3?
The commerce clause has been used and abused with judicial support to essentially regulate anything that relates to business that can or did cross state lines. If your ins co is headquartered in another state, according to Congress and the Judges, the commerce clause applies.
If you buy a pen for your office and the pen came in on a truckload from another state, the commerce clause applies.
Additionally, if the out of state warehouse got the pen from a manufacturer who used material that may have come from out of his state, the commerce clause applies.
Overly convoluted, and in my opinion, abused by the Congress.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 05:49 PM
The resulting problems are very much in part the result of the Republican party not protecting the American people with the poweres they were given by the constitution.
And why do the democrats get left out of your disdain? What efforts have the democrats in congress put forth that the republicans held them back on regarding this situation?
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 05:50 PM
And where exactly does insurance fall in any of those 3?
Insurance is commerce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce
pegwinn, the states requested they get involved to help solve it.
When the dems have some control then they will get the distain. The republican congresses squelched anything the dems tried to do while they were in power.
Kathianne
01-13-2008, 05:55 PM
Insurance is commerce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce
Do you understand interstate and intrastate?
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 06:01 PM
I dont recall the constitution using either word to discribe the regulation of commerse.
[
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Kathianne
01-13-2008, 06:15 PM
I dont recall the constitution using either word to discribe the regulation of commerse.
...
among the several States.
That means, 'between', not 'within'.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constquick.html
Article 1 establishes the first of the three branches of the government, the Legislature.
...
Section 8 lists specific powers of Congress, including the power to establish and maintain an army and navy, to establish post offices, to create courts, to regulate commerce between the states, to declare war, and to raise money. It also includes a clause known as the Elastic Clause which allows it to pass any law necessary for the carrying out of the previously listed powers.
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 06:19 PM
When the dems have some control then they will get the distain. The republican congresses squelched anything the dems tried to do while they were in power.
Try showing me specifically where it was the republicans that "squelched" anything regarding this insurance issue. Why do you refuse to answer the questions? Are you afraid that if you answer it you may find out that it was the dems responsible for the states not getting assistance? I don't understand how you can blame republicans when you have no clue whatsoever what specifically took place and who shot down what. You would rather just play the blame game than know the facts?
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 06:23 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=among
Kath heres the problem with your interpitation. The founders wrote this and then interpreted it just like I did and the proof of that is the 1948 law that congress felt they had to write to change it so that the states did it themselfs.At any time the congress can change that 1948 law.
Kathianne
01-13-2008, 06:36 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=among
Kath heres the problem with your interpitation. The founders wrote this and then interpreted it just like I did and the proof of that is the 1948 law that congress felt they had to write to change it so that the states did it themselfs.At any time the congress can change that 1948 law.
TM, this may be too much, try Federalist #6. Seems it was considered, before ratification. Surprise, they did know what they were speaking about, prior to 1948 and without an online dictionary.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 06:58 PM
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces4.html
If it be necessary to regulate trade at all, it surely is necessary to lodge the power, where trade can be regulated with effect, and experience has confirmed what reason foresaw, that it can never be so regulated by the States acting in their separate capacities. They can no more exercise this power separately, than they could separately carry on war, or separately form treaties of alliance or Commerce.
Madison is kinda considered the father of the constitution isnt he?
Kathianne
01-13-2008, 07:07 PM
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces4.html
If it be necessary to regulate trade at all, it surely is necessary to lodge the power, where trade can be regulated with effect, and experience has confirmed what reason foresaw, that it can never be so regulated by the States acting in their separate capacities. They can no more exercise this power separately, than they could separately carry on war, or separately form treaties of alliance or Commerce.
Madison is kinda considered the father of the constitution isnt he?
Unlike the Declaration, many minds went into the Constitution. Madison is often referred to as 'Father of the Constitution', partially because he kept notes, which they'd all pledged not to do, but also because he was instrumental in the Federalist Papers, together with Jay and Hamiltion. The Papers helped lead to ratification, again Madison wasn't alone.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 07:16 PM
I think he agreed with me and if the congress never had this power then why did they have to make a law in 1948 to give the insurance regulation to the states?
BTW they still to this day regulate other commerce.
Kathianne
01-13-2008, 07:20 PM
I think he agreed with me and if the congress never had this power then why did they have to make a law in 1948 to give the insurance regulation to the states?
BTW they still to this day regulate other commerce.
Never mind, you can't get it.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 07:23 PM
The congress has the right and duty to regulate commerce given it by the constitution.
Saying I just cant get it is really a cheap way out when you have been proven wrong Kath.
Kathianne
01-13-2008, 07:28 PM
The congress has the right and duty to regulate commerce given it by the constitution.
Saying I just cant get it is really a cheap way out when you have been proven wrong Kath.
Wrong. You are unable to get it. You can't.
manu1959
01-13-2008, 07:28 PM
I think he agreed with me and if the congress never had this power then why did they have to make a law in 1948 to give the insurance regulation to the states?
BTW they still to this day regulate other commerce.
interstate commerce.....and they made it clear that it was a states issue not a federal issue....
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 07:50 PM
interstate commerce.....and they made it clear that it was a states issue not a federal issue....
Oh OK I get what you are saying now. Yes the congress does not havve the right to regulate Franks Farm in Ohio if he does not ship his goods out of state. Now lets get real about what the Insurance Companies do. Do you know any insurers who are in only one state that have created the types of problems that Spitzer complained about?
Sorry Kath I get you now.
nevadamedic
01-13-2008, 07:51 PM
There is no connection between the business practices of insurance companies and the Republican Party - that is, unless you've got some actual evidence of it somewhere that you'd like to link to.
Asking Truthmatters for evidence is like asking Martin if he has ever gotten laid(by a woman that is). We already know the answer to both.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 07:53 PM
Asking Truthmatters for evidence is like asking Martin if he has ever gotten laid(by a woman that is). We already know the answer to both.
Did you read any part of this thread?
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 08:01 PM
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/9000a.htm
This is what this is about guys.
The insurance cos are cheating thier customers and have been for years.
State guys like Spitzer have been requesting federal help to deal with the problem and got no help form the R congesses over the years. Insurance gives a shit load to campaigns. Now the Dems are trying to fix it.
Kathianne
01-13-2008, 08:14 PM
Oh OK I get what you are saying now. Yes the congress does not havve the right to regulate Franks Farm in Ohio if he does not ship his goods out of state. Now lets get real about what the Insurance Companies do. Do you know any insurers who are in only one state that have created the types of problems that Spitzer complained about?
Sorry Kath I get you now.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois notice the bolded?
jimnyc
01-13-2008, 08:17 PM
http://www.badfaithinsurance.org/9000a.htm
This is what this is about guys.
The insurance cos are cheating thier customers and have been for years.
State guys like Spitzer have been requesting federal help to deal with the problem and got no help form the R congesses over the years. Insurance gives a shit load to campaigns. Now the Dems are trying to fix it.
Apparently nor did the dems in congress do a damn thing when any requests were made and you have admitted as much by failing to answer my questions about such or provide anything to backup your claims.
And stop posting the same links over and over. Once is enough, further repetitive posts will be deleted.
truthmatters
01-13-2008, 10:36 PM
Apparently nor did the dems in congress do a damn thing when any requests were made and you have admitted as much by failing to answer my questions about such or provide anything to backup your claims.
And stop posting the same links over and over. Once is enough, further repetitive posts will be deleted.
just how in the hell can they make the majority do anything?
So now we are only allowed to post facts once?
I repost it when people ask the same question that someone asked in past pages that way I dont have to tell them to go back and look. It is less evasive in an disscusion.
http://www.bcbsil.com/
look at the very bottom of the page , they are a division of Health Care Services Corporation of Texas
jimnyc
01-14-2008, 06:10 AM
just how in the hell can they make the majority do anything?
It is less evasive in an disscusion.
Speaking of evasive... I'm going to ask some questions of you pertaining to this thread and your assertions. Please answer them directly, with pertinent links and appropriate proof. I've asked quite a few times now but it's you who has become evasive. If you refuse to answer I can only assume you have no real desire to discuss the facts in this thread.
1- You say "just how in the hell can they make the majority do anything?" Can you please show us specifically how the majority was against offering assistance to those who asked of it? What, specifically, do you have to offer us that shows that Democrats were "for" giving assistance and that Republicans were against it?
2- Can you please give us specifics of what the Democrats have done to assist those that asked. What did they bring to the floor of Congress in their attempts? What was the result of their efforts to assist?
3- Other than Democrat party controlled NY, that screwed up their oversight of the insurance industry and asked the federal government for assistance, do you have any other specifics of States asking for said assistance?
4- The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 was more or less voted on as an extension of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. You have asserted that the Republicans were responsible for "re-upping" this act, yet the majority of Democrats also voted FOR this act. If you are so against this act, then why do you only mention the Republicans for voting in favor of this act and hold them responsible? Seems to me like the Democrats supported it as well.
That's it for now... I have asked politely for SPECIFIC answers and have taken the time to write my questions in a manner which make them unmistakable as to what I'm asking. I'd be quite grateful if you would take the time to finally answer my questions.
Nukeman
01-14-2008, 07:51 AM
Speaking of evasive... I'm going to ask some questions of you pertaining to this thread and your assertions. Please answer them directly, with pertinent links and appropriate proof. I've asked quite a few times now but it's you who has become evasive. If you refuse to answer I can only assume you have no real desire to discuss the facts in this thread.
1- You say "just how in the hell can they make the majority do anything?" Can you please show us specifically how the majority was against offering assistance to those who asked of it? What, specifically, do you have to offer us that shows that Democrats were "for" giving assistance and that Republicans were against it?
2- Can you please give us specifics of what the Democrats have done to assist those that asked. What did they bring to the floor of Congress in their attempts? What was the result of their efforts to assist?
3- Other than Democrat party controlled NY, that screwed up their oversight of the insurance industry and asked the federal government for assistance, do you have any other specifics of States asking for said assistance?
4- The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 was more or less voted on as an extension of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. You have asserted that the Republicans were responsible for "re-upping" this act, yet the majority of Democrats also voted FOR this act. If you are so against this act, then why do you only mention the Republicans for voting in favor of this act and hold them responsible? Seems to me like the Democrats supported it as well.
That's it for now... I have asked politely for SPECIFIC answers and have taken the time to write my questions in a manner which make them unmistakable as to what I'm asking. I'd be quite grateful if you would take the time to finally answer my questions.
Jim, Just lock the F***ING thread and be done with it. she is too dense to realize that she is wrong and too stupid to admitt it. She is, as always jsut saying Republican=bad, Democrat=good. Same Shit Different Day....
Said1
01-14-2008, 08:22 AM
Speaking of evasive... I'm going to ask some questions of you pertaining to this thread and your assertions. Please answer them directly, with pertinent links and appropriate proof. I've asked quite a few times now but it's you who has become evasive. If you refuse to answer I can only assume you have no real desire to discuss the facts in this thread.
1- You say "just how in the hell can they make the majority do anything?" Can you please show us specifically how the majority was against offering assistance to those who asked of it? What, specifically, do you have to offer us that shows that Democrats were "for" giving assistance and that Republicans were against it?
2- Can you please give us specifics of what the Democrats have done to assist those that asked. What did they bring to the floor of Congress in their attempts? What was the result of their efforts to assist?
3- Other than Democrat party controlled NY, that screwed up their oversight of the insurance industry and asked the federal government for assistance, do you have any other specifics of States asking for said assistance?
4- The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 was more or less voted on as an extension of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. You have asserted that the Republicans were responsible for "re-upping" this act, yet the majority of Democrats also voted FOR this act. If you are so against this act, then why do you only mention the Republicans for voting in favor of this act and hold them responsible? Seems to me like the Democrats supported it as well.
That's it for now... I have asked politely for SPECIFIC answers and have taken the time to write my questions in a manner which make them unmistakable as to what I'm asking. I'd be quite grateful if you would take the time to finally answer my questions.
**crickets chirping**
darin
01-14-2008, 09:46 AM
The More you feed trolls, the bigger they become.
jimnyc
01-14-2008, 09:52 AM
Jim, Just lock the F***ING thread and be done with it. she is too dense to realize that she is wrong and too stupid to admitt it. She is, as always jsut saying Republican=bad, Democrat=good. Same Shit Different Day....
She's cornered now. Either provide facts to backup her claims or look like she's just spouting her usual rhetoric.
**crickets chirping**
My bet is that she responds, but fails to actually provide what I asked of her. She'll beat around the bush, make accusations, rant & rave but provide nothing - as usual.
The More you feed trolls, the bigger they become.
The more you ask easy and legitimate questions of nimrods, the more apparent it becomes to everyone that they are in fact trolls, or just not very bright. :)
truthmatters
01-14-2008, 02:15 PM
Speaking of evasive... I'm going to ask some questions of you pertaining to this thread and your assertions. Please answer them directly, with pertinent links and appropriate proof. I've asked quite a few times now but it's you who has become evasive. If you refuse to answer I can only assume you have no real desire to discuss the facts in this thread.
1- You say "just how in the hell can they make the majority do anything?" Can you please show us specifically how the majority was against offering assistance to those who asked of it? What, specifically, do you have to offer us that shows that Democrats were "for" giving assistance and that Republicans were against it?
2- Can you please give us specifics of what the Democrats have done to assist those that asked. What did they bring to the floor of Congress in their attempts? What was the result of their efforts to assist?
3- Other than Democrat party controlled NY, that screwed up their oversight of the insurance industry and asked the federal government for assistance, do you have any other specifics of States asking for said assistance?
4- The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 was more or less voted on as an extension of the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. You have asserted that the Republicans were responsible for "re-upping" this act, yet the majority of Democrats also voted FOR this act. If you are so against this act, then why do you only mention the Republicans for voting in favor of this act and hold them responsible? Seems to me like the Democrats supported it as well.
That's it for now... I have asked politely for SPECIFIC answers and have taken the time to write my questions in a manner which make them unmistakable as to what I'm asking. I'd be quite grateful if you would take the time to finally answer my questions.
I have answered all of these and you ignored the answers and then ordered me not to repete the evidence I have already given
You are the King in this little world.
A great man can be corrupted by great power just as a little man can be corrupted by a little power.
truthmatters
01-14-2008, 02:17 PM
Apparently nor did the dems in congress do a damn thing when any requests were made and you have admitted as much by failing to answer my questions about such or provide anything to backup your claims.
And stop posting the same links over and over. Once is enough, further repetitive posts will be deleted.
remember you said I cant repete information?
Apparently nor did the dems in congress do a damn thing when any requests were made and you have admitted as much by failing to answer my questions about such or provide anything to backup your claims.
And stop posting the same links over and over. Once is enough, further repetitive posts will be deleted.
just how in the hell can they make the majority do anything?
So now we are only allowed to post facts once?
I repost it when people ask the same question that someone asked in past pages that way I dont have to tell them to go back and look. It is less evasive in an disscusion.
http://www.bcbsil.com/
Why did you alter my quote here?
jimnyc
01-14-2008, 03:28 PM
I have answered all of these and you ignored the answers and then ordered me not to repete the evidence I have already given
You are the King in this little world.
A great man can be corrupted by great power just as a little man can be corrupted by a little power.
You have not answered these questions, nor have any of the links you posted in this thread addressed the questions I am asking. You are now outright lying. Please give me a numbered list as above addressing each question specifically.
darin
01-14-2008, 03:42 PM
Why did the Democrats allow SLAVERY! They should have investigated slavery in the 1800s and done something!
truthmatters
01-14-2008, 03:46 PM
You have not answered these questions, nor have any of the links you posted in this thread addressed the questions I am asking. You are now outright lying. Please give me a numbered list as above addressing each question specifically.
Im not lying.
You are either blind or lying.
Im sure you also think its fair to order me not to use the information I have already used in this thread. As if facts have an experation date. You have all the control in this little world. I can only follow your rules and you have ordered me not to repete the information I would require to REANSWER your questions.
You need to learn about what fair is jim.
jimnyc
01-14-2008, 03:48 PM
TM - Shoot me a PM when you are serious about discussion here on this board!
jimnyc
01-14-2008, 03:50 PM
TM has been removed from this thread as it's proof she is a troll. If any of her supporters truly believe she has answered the questions I have asked of her, please outline it for me and I will reinstate her, otherwise I will lock this in due time.
darin
01-14-2008, 03:59 PM
How can DEMOCRATS sit by and not investigate EACH AND EVERY Industry to PROTECT us!!! Oh the Huge Manatee!
theHawk
01-14-2008, 04:22 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2008/01/11/BUEIUD5T0.DTL&type=politics
Its how they make the big bucks.
This is your economy on Republicans.
Retarded, what do the Republicans have to do with any of this?
The insurance industry is the only business that makes money from denying services to their customers. Unfortunately there is really no easy way to change this. Thus, insurance companies have been ripping people off since they first started business. To try to tie this to one party or another is rather absurd.
darin
01-14-2008, 04:31 PM
Every Single Business who makes money - TONS of money - is "protected" by Republican Demons.
Abbey Marie
01-14-2008, 04:50 PM
Every Single Business who makes money - TONS of money - is "protected" by Republican Demons.
Uh oh. Now you've done it. Don't tell her that we eat babies too.
jimnyc
01-14-2008, 05:57 PM
Now the retard has taken to another site to start not one, but two threads to complain! LOL Poor little retard needs some comfort from her little back patters since she was proven again to be a trolling 'tard here.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.