Sebelius: Insurers Will Be Punished For Telling The Truth

[Quantum Windbag]

Yet more evidence that we live in a Thugocracy:

President Barack Obama's top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won't tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.

"There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby.

"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," Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They'd lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide....

HHS to insurers: Don't blame us for your rates - Yahoo! News


Sebelius is essentially threatening insureres to shut up or risk being denied the business to be doles out by the government. This is what happens when Big Government runs amok.

I wonder how all those people who thought her use of the term reeducation was innocent feel about this.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe they are concerned about insurance companies flat out lying about the cause for rates increases. Just a thought.

Could be. But when you have the government trying to strong-arm certain speech, particularly when there is a political element to the issue, I think the standard needs to be very high indeed before the government can come in and start penalizing the speech.

True, and I'm not saying I agree with the trying to stop the insurance companies from saying these things, but I think they are fed up with the lies and outright misinformation that has been spread about the healthcare bill. They want people to understand what is actually going to happen and the insurance companies using the health care bill as a scapegoat for their increasing rates, is not helping the situation.

Like they were fed up with the lies the corporations told about how their costs were going up because of Obamacare?

 

[RDD_1210]

Could be. But when you have the government trying to strong-arm certain speech, particularly when there is a political element to the issue, I think the standard needs to be very high indeed before the government can come in and start penalizing the speech.

True, and I'm not saying I agree with the trying to stop the insurance companies from saying these things, but I think they are fed up with the lies and outright misinformation that has been spread about the healthcare bill. They want people to understand what is actually going to happen and the insurance companies using the health care bill as a scapegoat for their increasing rates, is not helping the situation.

Like they were fed up with the lies the corporations told about how their costs were going up because of Obamacare?

What?

 

[Greenbeard]

Even if it is a lie (which I doubt), Free Speech includes the right to lie.

1) Of course you're not allowed to lie to a regulatory body about the thing that's being regulated. Premium oversight of some sort (including, in some cases, prior approval requirements) exists in every state. Those state capacities are currently being enhanced by the states themselves. Lying to state regulators is not Constitutionally-protected speech. This is an absurd statement.

2) If I may quote you from another thread:

I met with my company's insurance broker yesterday. All of the companies are jacking up rates as much as they can prior to ObamaCare. I'm expecting a 14% hit. Oh joy.

In other words, it doesn't sound like you doubt at all that premium increases unjustified by current costs (read: "unjustified rate increases") are happening.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'd like to see a link proving that assertion.

Surely you jest. Halliburton's initial contract was sort of understandable because it most definitely had the expertise required to rebuild Iraq's blown up pipelines.

All In The Family - 60 Minutes - CBS News

However, as time progressed, were there no other American companies capable of handling laundry and food services, etc., except one of KBR's and/or Halliburton's subsidiaries?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Considering the way the OP has framed the article, any reasonable chance of honest and intelligent discussion on this issue has gone out the window.

That being said, I do think it's a little both. However, considering how insurers have been treating their customers, especially the last decade, not sure why people are so quick to trust them. Or should we trust people who want to deny insurance coverage to women who were domestic abuse victims?

How about the way the administration is framing the debate? By telling insurance companies that they will be barred from participating in the new markets that the law is setting up if they "lie" about their rates going up as a result of Obamacare they are attempting to muzzle anyone that disagrees with the official statements of the government.

Essentially they are being told what the truth is, and threatened if they do not agree. It does not matter why they do not agree, or even if they are right, all they have to do is disagree. The CBO disagrees with the White House numbers about what this bill is going to do, are they going to be threatened also?

There is no justification for the government taking this stance.

The Volokh Conspiracy Administration Tells Regulated Industry That There Will Be ?Zero Tolerance? for Alleged ?Misinformation? in Industry?s Statements About Government Policy

The disagreement here is not about facts, it is about whether government policy does what the government claims it does, and whose numbers we are supposed to believe? The administration, who tells us this will drive costs down, or the insurance agencies and the CBO, who both say it will drive costs up?

 

[MaggieMae]

Nope, wing nut reactionaries, the administration is practicing due diligence, informing an industry it will do its duty by the law, period. There is no free speech issue here whatsoever.

I don't think so either. Seems to me the right is using "free speech" as a crutch for just about everything they disagree with these days.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nope, wing nut reactionaries, the administration is practicing due diligence, informing an industry it will do its duty by the law, period. There is no free speech issue here whatsoever.

Not yet.

But if the government penalizes companies for statements they make, then there is definitely a First Amendment issue to be dealt with.

I'm sure if, say Blue Cross slapped a huge premium increase on their health policies and claimed it was because of increased regulatory requirements that were time consuming, they'd need to prove that. It has zero to do with "free speech."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even if it is a lie (which I doubt), Free Speech includes the right to lie.

Also, what a herp derp post. Ever hear of Libel and Defamation?

Who is it the insurance companies are libeling and defaming?

Just an FYI, these are specific civil crimes that involve lying with the intent to cause damage to the reputation of a specific person. If what someone says is the truth, it is an absolute defense to these charges. If the person believes it to be true, or if the intent is not to damage anyone's reputation, these do not apply.

 

[MaggieMae]

Even if it is a lie (which I doubt), Free Speech includes the right to lie.

Of course it does. Hence why I don't think the govt should try to use legal force to stop the insurance companies, but they can certainly make a stink about it through PR efforts.

And for your information, health insurance rates have been climbing for years, so to say that the increases this year, next year or beyond is solely due to the health reform bill is in fact, a lie.

How did you dumbasses think 30 million more covered were gonna get covered without rate increases? You izz dumber n we thought.

Insurance POOLS, which many like companies already use to reduce premium costs, dumbass. The more people covered, the less the premium. It's just like buying your tunafish in bulk at Costco. More will cost less.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BINGO. Health care is all about BIG GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

They can give the contracts to whomever they wish - and wield that power to reward and punish.

Whoosh. You terribly missed the point. You're complaining about something that has been SOP for a very long time in every faucet of government when it deals with contracts. Only now you are complaining. That is hypocrisy.

I have been complaining all along, and I believe boedicca has also. that is consistency. It would only be hypocrisy if we profited from it. It would be a double standard if we complained about one group doing it, but supported another group doing it.

Just some education.

 

[Greenbeard]

How about the way the administration is framing the debate? By telling insurance companies that they will be barred from participating in the new markets that the law is setting up if they "lie" about their rates going up as a result of Obamacare they are attempting to muzzle anyone that disagrees with the official statements of the government.

Sebelius may be the one bearing the message today but that isn't the administration talking, that's federal law. State insurance commissioners are directed by law to determine whether unjustified premium increases are taking place and, if so, to recommend exclusion from the exchange for that insurer.

`(b) Continuing Premium Review Process-

`(1) INFORMING SECRETARY OF PREMIUM INCREASE PATTERNS- As a condition of receiving a grant under subsection (c)(1), a State, through its Commissioner of Insurance, shall--

`(A) provide the Secretary with information about trends in premium increases in health insurance coverage in premium rating areas in the State; and
`(B) make recommendations, as appropriate, to the State Exchange about whether particular health insurance issuers should be excluded from participation in the Exchange based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.​

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, as you can see...health premiums have been rising well before "obamacare".

Interesting.

What I do not get is the relevance of your charts. No one here has claimed that prices have not been rising all this time. Nor are they claiming that they would not have gone up anyway. The companies are claiming that they are having to raise prices because, in part, Obamacare is requiring them to offer more coverage.

The administration has its panties in a wad because this is happening right before an election, and the insurers are laying the blame on the administrations policies that front load benefits before the corresponding cuts in costs kick in. Their numbers claim this will not happen, if those other things happen, which they will, in a few years.

 

[MaggieMae]

Could be. But when you have the government trying to strong-arm certain speech, particularly when there is a political element to the issue, I think the standard needs to be very high indeed before the government can come in and start penalizing the speech.

True, and I'm not saying I agree with the trying to stop the insurance companies from saying these things, but I think they are fed up with the lies and outright misinformation that has been spread about the healthcare bill. They want people to understand what is actually going to happen and the insurance companies using the health care bill as a scapegoat for their increasing rates, is not helping the situation.

I agree, seriously.

(that misinformation proviso cuts both ways...)

BUT, neither does a president that bashes the shit our of health iuns. providers by name, like he did Well Point etc.

Neither does it help when the president tells a tall tale at the SOU address where in he makes it appear that someone died due to their coverage being canceled by the evil HC insurer.....when in fact, thats not the way it happened.

that misinformation proviso cuts both ways...

at the end of the ay In would think you'd agree that if nits between the government being heard the people, the people come first.

What happened to truth to power?

Because its a corporation they have surrendered that right?

Do you Unions surrender that right?

see where I am coming from?..anytime the gov. tells anyone to shut up, its not healthy. Bush Clinton Bush Obama whomever....

So you don't believe people have died because of a health insurer pulling the plug? What planet do you live on? Just a few examples:

California's Real Death Panels: Insurers Deny 21% of Claims

 

[saveliberty]

I have had health insurance for most of my life. You care to guess how many claims have been denied? -0-

Total claims my wife has had denied? -0-

Kids? -0-

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's what tort actions are for. If the government wishes to sue an insurer for libel or defamation, then let them follow the proper process. Restricting speech as a condition of getting business is an abuse of power.

Wat. You seem to not get the fact that nobody is forcing these companies to do anything. The government can pick and choose who gets a contract, just like a boss of a company can choose which suppliers he wants supplying his company. Just like the shareholders of a publicly traded company however, we the shareholders of the government can vote against the boss if we don't like what the boss is doing.

I don't think they can. There is nothing in the law itself, as far as I know, that allows the government to prohibit any company from participating in the exchanges. If the Obama administration can do so simply because they do not like what that company says, what is to prohibit the Beck administration from doing the same thing when he gets elected? What if he decides to only award contracts to companies that do not support abortion, or cover breast cancer?

Supporting it one way, and opposing it the other, is a double standard. You are better off just opposing it completely.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have had health insurance for most of my life. You care to guess how many claims have been denied? -0-

Total claims my wife has had denied? -0-

Kids? -0-

Anecdotal evidence from a person who is not consistent in what he writes. Let's ignore it.

 

[Greenbeard]

I don't think they can. There is nothing in the law itself, as far as I know, that allows the government to prohibit any company from participating in the exchanges.

The state exchanges themselves (with the advice of the state/state insurance commissioner) are empowered to do exactly that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Criminalizing false statements with intent to deceive is easily actionable. Go tell a lie to a federal agent.

That's true. I think I already said more than once in this very thread that false statements aren't protected. But the government can't criminalize anything it wants to and thereby circumvent the First Amendment.

Sigh. That is not the point and you are deflecting. The Secretary is telling the companies to not intentionally fabricate in order to jack prices. That's the point.

No one is claiming they are doing that.

The administration is claiming that they are blaming their price increases on Obamacare, and that Obamacare is in no way responsible for those increases because Obamacare is going to drive the cost curve down. They are sticking to that claim despite the multiple reports from various independent groups that dispute that, all of which claim the costs will go up.

Please, explain to me how someone calling the government a liar is a criminal offense, especially when everyone outside of that government is saying the same thing.

Not that I expect an honest answer here, but I am willing to be surprised.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wat. You seem to not get the fact that nobody is forcing these companies to do anything. The government can pick and choose who gets a contract, just like a boss of a company can choose which suppliers he wants supplying his company. Just like the shareholders of a publicly traded company however, we the shareholders of the government can vote against the boss if we don't like what the boss is doing.

if you have a bad heart and you know it they are forced to insure your ass the night before open heart surgery,, you are so fucking stupid.

This is really how you think it will work? Please tell me you're being serious.

You honestly don't see the benefit at all about preventing the exclusion of people with preexisting conditions?

Do I think it will work that way?

The question is, do you think it won't? That is essentially what is happening in Massachusetts, and all the Democrats love pointing out how they modeled Obamacare after Masscare. How can any honest person think it is not going to happen that way?