DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

Quote:

---

"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it's actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America's Health Insurance Plans -- the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.

Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.

She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact ... will be minimal."

Well, that's reassuring. Er, except that if that's the conclusion of "some" industry and academic experts, it's presumably not the conclusion of all industry and academic experts, or the secretary would have said so.

Sebelius also argues that "any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law." But she's pretty vague about the numbers -- "up to $1 billion in 2013." Anyone who watches TV ads knows that "up to" can mean zero.

As Time magazine's Karen Pickert points out, Sebelius ignores the fact that individual insurance plans cover different types of populations. So that government and "some" industry and academic experts think the new law will justify increases averaging 1 percent or 2 percent, they could justify much larger increases for certain plans.

Or as Ignagni, the recipient of the letter, says, "It's a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs."

But Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases" (which would presumably mean all rate increases).

And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

That's a significant date, the first year in which state insurance exchanges are slated to get a monopoly on the issuance of individual health insurance policies. Sebelius is threatening to put health insurers out of business in a substantial portion of the market if they state that Obamacare is boosting their costs.

"Congress shall make no law," reads the First Amendment, "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

Sebelius' approach is different: "zero tolerance" for dissent.

The threat to use government regulation to destroy or harm someone's business because they disagree with government officials is thuggery. Like the Obama administration's transfer of money from Chrysler bondholders to its political allies in the United Auto Workers, it is a form of gangster government.

"The rule of law, or the rule of men (women)?" economist Tyler Cowen asks on his marginalrevolution.com blog. As he notes, "Nowhere is it stated that these rate hikes are against the law (even if you think they should be), nor can this 'misinformation' be against the law."

According to Politico, not a single Democratic candidate for Congress has run an ad since last April that makes any positive reference to Obamacare. The First Amendment gives candidates the right to talk -- or not talk -- about any issue they want.

But that is not enough for Sebelius and the Obama administration. They want to stamp out negative speech about Obamacare. "Zero tolerance" means they are ready to use the powers of government to threaten economic harm on those who dissent.

The closing paragraph of Sebelius's letter to AHIP's Karen Ignagni gives the game away. "We worked hard to change the system to help consumers." This is a reminder that the administration alternatively collaborated with and criticized Ignagni's organization. We roughed you up a little, but we eventually made a deal.

The secretary goes on: "It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start." In other words, shut your members up and play team ball -- or my guys with the baseball bats and Tommy guns are going to get busy. As Cowen puts it, "worse than I had been expecting."

---

Quote:

---

If an insurance company rightly blames obamcare for their increased rates, they will be unable to conduct business.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If an insurance company rightly blames obamcare for their increased rates, they will be unable to conduct business.

---

The point of the story was that they are using scare tactics to its customers by saying that Obamacare COULD cost UP TO 1 billion dollars with no basis for its claim. So its customers would easily accept a rate increase. Free speech has no claim in this. Its probably considered more slander and/or libel issue for falsely making claims for the sake of a profit.

---

Quote:

---

But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact ... will be minimal."

---

At least the impact would be minimal if we ran your company, which we will eventually, but it would be minimal because we assume you can operate at a loss and is your pesky desire to make a profit that is the real problem here... Therefore we, the federal government, will tell you what cost increases you are allowed to have based on how much money we think you should make and what kind of bonuses we think you should give your employees...

Quote:

---

Sebelius ignores the fact that individual insurance plans cover different types of populations. So that government and "some" industry and academic experts think the new law will justify increases averaging 1 percent or 2 percent, they could justify much larger increases for certain plans.

---

ie. the government ignores real world factors to business since none of them have ever successfully run one and continues to operate under the premise that if it works in a textbook and can be taught at an Ivy League institution, then it must work in the real world...

Quote:

---

Sebelius has "zero tolerance" for that kind of thing. She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases"

---

See first comment. The federal government will tell you what your premiums can be... and they scoffed and said, the government will NEVER take away your private insurance options.. no, they will just run them for you...

Quote:

---

She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers. But she says that "according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact ... will be minimal."

---

Quote:

---

And there's a threat. "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

---

So what happens if every health insurance plan is found to have some "unjustified" rate increase sometime between now and 2014? What if there is no one left to compete in the Exchanges ......?

Welcome to Single Payer everyone.

Our only hope is that we get these Bozos voted out and get some different Bozos in who will at least kill this abomination of a Health Insurance Law.

Quote:

---

Bush came out and did the same thing right after 9/11 with oil and gas prices.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Bush came out and did the same thing right after 9/11 with oil and gas prices.

---

Um, OPEC controls gas prices, not Bush. Anything else that Bush is to blame for that we didn't know about?

---

Quote:

---

This strikes me completely as one of those articles that is VERY thinly written for the explicit purpose of inciting this sort of reaction.

I'm not defending the Gov't here at all - I hate them (I hate insurance companies more), but this article smells a LOT like an agenda piece written with lots of things in a slightly skewed context.... e.g. the insurers were sent a message that they don't like, so they cherry-picked a bunch of quotes from places to paint a horrible picture of things.

It's a media war... Lobbyists in Action.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

This strikes me completely as one of those articles that is VERY thinly written for the explicit purpose of inciting this sort of reaction.

I'm not defending the Gov't here at all - I hate them (I hate insurance companies more), but this article smells a LOT like an agenda piece written with lots of things in a slightly skewed context.... e.g. the insurers were sent a message that they don't like, so they cherry-picked a bunch of quotes from places to paint a horrible picture of things.

It's a media war... Lobbyists in Action.

---

Sure there are lobbyists in action. But that doesn't take away the fact that the government is granting themselves the power to shut down businesses for dissention. I recently read an article about the government requirements that have to be met in order to start up a small to midsize business. It's no wonder people are giving up or going overseas.

---

Quote:

---

...I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act.

---

Quote:

---

Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.

---

So, the insurers are not allowed to blame their increased costs - which are now mandated by ObamaCare - for their increased pricing, even if it is the cause? They aren't allowed to offset their increased costs/risks with increased rates?
Hmm.... makes perfect sense

Quote:

---

That's not the point of the article or this thread. It's about the government granting themselves the power to shut down a business for speaking out against them.

---

Quote:

---

That's a pretty messed up letter. The woman has obviously been hitting the P.R. bong pipe.
And that letter is very clearly a threat.


Well, what the insurers need now is to come forth with hard numbers: show FACTS about why their rates are increasing by the amounts that they are and exactly WHY they are doing so.
She is careful to use the word "unjustifiable" in her letter fairly often.... so, I say to the insurers: Justify It.

---

Quote:

---

That's not the point of the article or this thread. It's about the government granting themselves the power to shut down a business for speaking out against them.

---

Quote:

---

You all know I run a business right... well, I just finished working out our arrangment for employee health insurance under the new plan..

Our coverages increased (in short, it's a better plan)

Our costs went down

We were able to offer employees more options

Thier costs went down as well


OK,, now I have the actual effect it's having on my business and all the predictions of doom and gloom aren't accurate as far as we are concerned..

Better plan, lower costs for all parties, lower deductables (not by much but lower).

SO,, what's that mean?

Does that mean that everyone that said that Obamacare would ruin the nation are incorrect? could it mean that?

Or does it mean that Im the luckiest business owner on the planet?

---

Quote:

---

Either you are the luckiest guy around, or they don't know what they are doing, or your pre existing condition is being supplemented by others, which means healthy americans with no pre existing conditions will be pay much more for their care.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That's not the point of the article or this thread. It's about the government granting themselves the power to shut down a business for speaking out against them.

---

Where are you getting this from? I've read your propoganda piece twice, as well as the full text of the letter, and nowhere did I see any mention of a business getting shut down for any reason.

The closest thing to that is that it's written that there will be "zero tolerance" for basically price gouging. Taking that as to mean it's a violation of free speech and the government is trying to shut a business down for disagreeing is a huge stretch.

What am I missing here?

---

Quote:

---

This is the quote which implies shutting down a business:

"We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

---

Quote:

---

This letter was a warning that companies shouldn't use the cover of the health care bill to price gouge w/o justification. If companies' costs and risk go up, then I would think it is a justified rate increase, and there would be no problem. She never said in the letter "we won't tolerate rate increases."

---

Quote:

---

but companies sending out letters with potentially misleading information to justify rate increases and avoid bad PR is not protected speech.

---

Quote:

---

If the companies can show that Obamacare stipulations have increased their costs and risk, and the cost increase is greater than the skyrocketing costs of the last decade, then they can send out the letters. But if they have raised rates 2% a year for the last decade, and again raised rates 2% this year and can't show that that 2% increase isn't anything more than inflation or pre-Obamacare skyrocketing health care costs, then they shouldn't send out a letter blaming Obamacare to deflect.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

but companies sending out letters with potentially misleading information to justify rate increases and avoid bad PR is not protected speech.

---

So you are saying that the government has no right to lie to promote its own healthcare bill which it has done routinely? You are saying that companies should have to prove they are telling the truth but the government should not?

Quote:

---

If the companies can show that Obamacare stipulations have increased their costs and risk, and the cost increase is greater than the skyrocketing costs of the last decade, then they can send out the letters. But if they have raised rates 2% a year for the last decade, and again raised rates 2% this year and can't show that that 2% increase isn't anything more than inflation or pre-Obamacare skyrocketing health care costs, then they shouldn't send out a letter blaming Obamacare to deflect.

---

They are a private company, they charge a fee for their service.. they should be able to charge whatever in the hell they want and if you don't like it then go somewhere else. Why do they have to justify their rates to the federal government? Will homebuilders soon have to justify their prices since everybody deserves a home? Should automakers have to justify the cost of a car since everybody deserves transportation? Why doesn't the federal government have to justify my tax rates to me? Why doesn't the federal government have to justify their wasteful spending to me? This govenment is (and has been for a long time) getting way out of control with its desire to control private industry and it needs to stop.. but more and more brain dead lemmings think its more important to promote "the common good" by letting the omnipotent and benevolent federal government have more and more control of things.. it's a sad and scary time in which we live.

---

Quote:

---

If the company is citing something as the reason for their price increase, and the source of that reason says "no, it ain't us", then the company needs to show some justification.

---

Quote:

---

I feel that you're missing my point however: Company A is claiming that the reason for their regrettable cost increases is the Gov't changes. The Gov't is saying, no, that is not correct.
If this wasn't the Gov't and was instead another company, Company A would potentially be facing a libel suit for false claims if they didn't prove it, so why shouldn't the Gov't be afforded the same courtesy? (God, I can't believe I'm somewhat defending the Gov't)

---

And I see two different television manufacturers telling me their model is better all the time.. one of them is wrong, nobody ever sues. I pay $1000 for car insurance with Geico, Allstate can save me $300... so I switch, but Geico can save me $400 so I switch back.. one more switch and I get my car insurance for free.. ... nobody sues because of the way things are worded and it's too hard to prove.

Quote:

---

Additionally, unless the information to prove one way or the other is made available, how do you propose that you and I decide for ourselves?

---

Quote:

---

All we have right now is a bill that few have read and nobody understands totally

---

Including the people that wrote and passed it.

Quote:

---

What information? All we have right now is a bill that few have read and nobody understands totally...

---

Quote:

---

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03virginia.html


Virginia Suit Against Health Care Law Moves Forward

A federal judge has refused to block a challenge to the Obama administration’s health care law brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia.


Ken T. Cuccinelli II, Virginia's attorney general, is one of 21 state officials who are fighting a federal health care law.

The administration had asked the judge, Henry E. Hudson of Federal District Court, to dismiss the challenge by Virginia’s attorney general, Ken T. Cuccinelli II.

Mr. Cuccinelli had argued that Congress, in passing a measure that requires people to buy insurance or face a penalty, exceeded its limits under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and tax powers. Mr. Cuccinelli had also argued that the federal law violated a state law, the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which declares that residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance.

Mr. Cuccinelli is one of 21 state officials fighting the health care law, and this is the first ruling by a federal court on the important question of whether states have the standing to sue.

Monday’s opinion does not address the merits of the health care law. It has no direct effect on the other state challenges, but it may influence the other judges.

In its briefs, the federal government argued that “this court would have to make new law and ignore decades of settled precedent” and “step beyond the proper role of the judiciary” to claim jurisdiction and block the legislation. Case after case has shown that the government’s powers to regulate interstate commerce and to create taxes reach far.

The federal government argued that Virginia had no standing to sue over the law, and that it had not stated a case it could win.

Judge Hudson, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, disagreed. In a 32-page opinion, he wrote that the law “radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America.”

The case, he wrote, “raises a host of complex constitutional issues”; the notion that the government’s authority could include “the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product” was new to the federal courts, the judge concluded, and so the state’s protest could not be dismissed outright.

A Justice Department spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, played down the ruling as “merely a procedural decision by the court to allow this case to move forward,” and predicted that the law would withstand court scrutiny.

“We are confident that the health care reform statute is constitutional and that we will ultimately prevail,” Ms. Schmaler said in a statement.

Stephanie Cutter, a Democratic consultant working with the White House, posted an entry on the White House blog attacking the opponents of the law.

“Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government,” Ms. Cutter wrote. “This is nothing new. We saw this with the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.”

“All of those challenges failed,” she said. “So, too, will the challenge to health reform.”

In a statement, Mr. Cuccinelli said he was “pleased” with the decision.

Randy Barnett, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who was an early critic of the health care law on constitutional grounds, said, “This decision establishes the seriousness of the constitutional challenges to the individual mandate.” Lower courts, he added, “should be striking the law down” until the challenges reach the Supreme Court, which alone has the authority “to expand Congress’s power, if it wants to.”

Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who has expressed skepticism over challenges to the health care law, argued on his blog that “it is still very likely that the Supreme Court will uphold the individual mandate,” if the case gets that far.

“This is the very beginning of the very beginning of a process that will go on for a long time,” Mr. Balkin said in an interview.

Judge Hudson, in his opinion, recognized that the ruling was narrow and preliminary, and that there was much more to come. “While this court’s decision may set the initial judicial course of the case,” he wrote, “it will certainly not be the final word.”

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

What information? All we have right now is a bill that few have read and nobody understands totally...

---

Huh, that's weird.. because some insurance companies are claiming that they have to increase their rates based upon things taking effect in that bill.... you'd think that they might know what those things are and why they are costing them 'x' amount of increase.

But, if there's no information anywhere, well then there's no way they could tell anyone why they have to increase the rates because of the bill.... that's too bad because that's an act which would REALLY help their cause if they wanted to thumb it to the Gov't, and it would REALLY give the opponents of ObamaScare some concrete ammunition.

---

No, it's not really weird, you were saying that the information should be made available to US so we can make a decision and the majority of my post, which may not have been clear, is that the information is available but you and I can't understand the bill. Then we have the administration, the CBO, the insurance industry etc who have read it and should understand it but all reach different conclusions so maybe my post would have been better worded if I had put.. what more information do you want? What information do you think you can rely on? Which interpretation of said information are you going to believe? My apologies if the original post was unclear.

However, it is still confusing, I don't believe anybody FULLY understands it and I still maintain that insurance companies may be taking on a small upcharge to cover what they don't know and can't predict...

Trust me, I see this in construction bidding all the time.. when contractors are forced to bid a bad set of plans, they bump their bids to cover the unknown... I wouldn't be surprised at all if there isn't some of that in here.. to cover the law of unintended consequences...