Government threats for critics of Obamacare...

[rbell]

Don'tcha hate it when the First Amendment gets in the way? Just do what these guys do, and ignore it...

SOURCE

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--threatens government action against entities that criticize our new socialized medicine.

From the article:

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.

It's scary--now, not only are your wishes ignored--but if you express your viewpoints, the thugs in the Obama administration will threaten to go after you.

 

[Nonsequitur]

It has finally come down to this......
Government has made a law....now try to enforce it.
11 million illegal immigrants,...and the government says we can't do anything about it.
So what are, can they, do about the rest of the us?

 

[StefanM]

...nevermind the companies who use the pretext of the law to justify unreasonable increases.

 

[Nonsequitur]

...nevermind the companies who use the pretext of the law to justify unreasonable increases.

.....nevermind the companies who use capitalism to make an honest dollar.

 

[StefanM]

.....nevermind the companies who use capitalism to make an honest dollar.

You mean like the moneychangers in the temple?

I'm sure they were just trying to make an honest shekel.

 

[Nonsequitur]

You mean like the moneychangers in the temple?

I'm sure they were just trying to make an honest shekel.

Bravo....
you point out the men, like you, who do the wrong thing in the name of God.
what a cod-brain.

 

[Don]

You mean like the moneychangers in the temple?

I'm sure they were just trying to make an honest shekel.

Please allow me to try to give you a more reasoned response.

First, we're not talking about temples. This is in no way analogous to those that were desecrating, and allowing to be desecrated, the temple.

Second, if you're supporting the Obama healthcare plan, then surely you realize that it requires the government (both state and federal) to provide funding to support it; but no one's talking about how that funding is going to be generated.

Third, if you're paying attention to the funding part, then you should realize that the states are looking at the healthcare bill and saying, "you signed us up to do what? Without consulting us first? Or even determining if we were financially capable of doing it?"

Finally, there should be laws in effect to prevent unreasonable insurance increases. And there are laws in place that prevent denial of healthcare to the uninsured. So what was the point of this healthcare provision?

 

[StefanM]

Please allow me to try to give you a more reasoned response.

First, we're not talking about temples. This is in no way analogous to those that were desecrating, and allowing to be desecrated, the temple.

Second, if you're supporting the Obama healthcare plan, then surely you realize that it requires the government (both state and federal) to provide funding to support it; but no one's talking about how that funding is going to be generated.

Third, if you're paying attention to the funding part, then you should realize that the states are looking at the healthcare bill and saying, "you signed us up to do what? Without consulting us first? Or even determining if we were financially capable of doing it?"

Finally, there should be laws in effect to prevent unreasonable insurance increases. And there are laws in place that prevent denial of healthcare to the uninsured. So what was the point of this healthcare provision?

My point is that the profit motive is not inherently "good." It depends on the circumstance.

 

[StefanM]

Bravo....
you point out the men, like you, who do the wrong thing in the name of God.
what a cod-brain.

:wavey: See ya!

 

[Bob Alkire]

My point is that the profit motive is not inherently "good." It depends on the circumstance.

There was an article in the paper down here showing the pay for general practitioners (surgeons are doing well) was going down and many place are turning to nurses practitioners rather than doctors (less and less want to spend all that money and be a GP).

But reading the want adds and reading of which field to get into for top pay it was medical.

How about their profit? Most doctors and hospitals make most of their money or it is paid to them by insurance companies.

 

[rbell]

OK, now that the name-calling has been handled (finally! although I've always had more affinity for "flounder brain" myself)...Here are the root issues I find so troubling:

1. The greed vs. profit isn't the issue here. It's an official (high-ranking, at that) of the US federal government making threats against people for criticizing government policies. And with the power that Obama has granted these folks, it's obvious she can make good on her threat.

2. The essential presumption of guilt here. I mean...if an insurance company is making money (and we all know, thanks to the unlimited wisdom of the Community Organizer, that insurance companies epitomize all things evil--they are the antithesis to the inherent unlimited goodness of government), the only rational explanation is that they have come across those profits in an illegal/unethical manner, and they must be investigated and punished.

 

[RAdam]

OK, now that the name-calling has been handled (finally! although I've always had more affinity for "flounder brain" myself)...Here are the root issues I find so troubling:

1. The greed vs. profit isn't the issue here. It's an official (high-ranking, at that) of the US federal government making threats against people for criticizing government policies. And with the power that Obama has granted these folks, it's obvious she can make good on her threat.

2. The essential presumption of guilt here. I mean...if an insurance company is making money (and we all know, thanks to the unlimited wisdom of the Community Organizer, that insurance companies epitomize all things evil--they are the antithesis to the inherent unlimited goodness of government), the only rational explanation is that they have come across those profits in an illegal/unethical manner, and they must be investigated and punished.

Meanwhile our congressmen and president, whose methods are pure, are working for peanuts, right?

 

[rbell]

Meanwhile our congressmen and president, whose methods are pure, are working for peanuts, right?

You got the "nuts" part right...

 

[carpro]

Finally, there should be laws in effect to prevent unreasonable insurance increases.

And the definition of "unreasonable" is...?