It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:45 AM
link   
This article is more political thuggery like that in Chicago. I'd also like to clear
up the fact that Sebelius is catholic in name only. She does not belong to the
Catholic Church.

Barone: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare
By Michael Barone September 13, 2010 7:04 AM

"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."


"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."




posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Obamacare can kiss my @r$e.
I will not pay, so fine me,
put me in jail
whatever



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is not a gangster but Karen Ignagni is. And I tell you why. It is her that spent millions and to defeat Obama's wishes to keep the government out offering health Insurance to individual American Citizen. It is OK for her allowing Americans to suffer health wise. But it is not OK for them to lose their business and to stop robbing Americans Billions of Dollars. Would you give $ 5/00 to some one in the store that does not provide you any service or just give you sweet talk. But Karen Ignagni's scheme is just that. The only difference is that it is not just $ 5/00, it is in Billions. Unless you are their agent, I cannot understand why you cannot see the facts. Go to UK, France and Germany and ask the citizen there about their health system. A reporter from UK by his own account once in LA got cold. He went to Hospital Emergency. When he got the bill, he was pissed and went to the Hospital told them that he was their only for treatment not to buy the Hospital. If you understand this statement, then you should understand the health system in UK.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


First year rate increases will be minimal as the system adjusts to the change. By the second, third and fourth year the companies will have a clearer idea of expenses.. I would bet by year 2 you're seeing 10+% increases in premiums. It doesn't take much to cause ins premiums to rise.. puting tons of pre existing patients and poor health patients into groups will cause general pools to force premiums higher. In other words, those with good health and money will pay for those with poor health and no money.

Indirect taxation? I think so. And you can't op out, the IRS will fine you.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by charlie0
reply to post by Starbug3MY
 


Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is not a gangster but Karen Ignagni is. And I tell you why. It is her that spent millions and to defeat Obama's wishes to keep the government out offering health Insurance to individual American Citizen. It is OK for her allowing Americans to suffer health wise. But it is not OK for them to lose their business and to stop robbing Americans Billions of Dollars. Would you give $ 5/00 to some one in the store that does not provide you any service or just give you sweet talk. But Karen Ignagni's scheme is just that. The only difference is that it is not just $ 5/00, it is in Billions. Unless you are their agent, I cannot understand why you cannot see the facts. Go to UK, France and Germany and ask the citizen there about their health system. A reporter from UK by his own account once in LA got cold. He went to Hospital Emergency. When he got the bill, he was pissed and went to the Hospital told them that he was their only for treatment not to buy the Hospital. If you understand this statement, then you should understand the health system in UK.


I understand the health care syst in the UK sucks,And since when does the pres get to decide who,or what I give my money to,I spent most of my life without health care and never ever had a prob getting a doctor to help me I had to pay for it,why shouldn't you have to take care of yourself, what make you so special that I have to pay your bills? You have not read a thing in this bill have you? Here is just one link for ya linkwww.nytimes.com... And note how much it will cost YOU in the long run? That is one example how free health care will cost you more! And they are just getting started,Nothing is free ever! For you to get it free you must steal it from someone else!



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join