Sebelius: Insurers Will Be Punished For Telling The Truth

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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

And nobody is saying they don't have that right to a opinion. The government can give contracts to whomever they want, if you want that changed, vote. However, if you want to complain about the way government contracts are structured, then you should probably also complain about all the sweet deals that Haliburton and other companies got in the lead-up to the Iraq War. However, I doubt you have ever and will ever do so.

Just my two cents.

your two cents isn't worth a 1/2 cent but that's my two cents. dumbass.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Yes there is.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No there isn't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Not if those issues are actionable under criminal statutes. That is exactly one of the issues that Martha S. and a couple of other folks got hammered for: not announce your innocence before hand because if you are convicted, then you are nailed for criminal deception.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

 

[Trajan]

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.

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....

 

[Modbert]

your two cents isn't worth a 1/2 cent but that's my two cents. dumbass.

Hey Willow. Am I still coming over to watch Wheel of Fortune later?

 

[WillowTree]

No there isn't.

Yes there is. What the thin skinned obie wan folks should do is just provide proof to refute the insurer's claims. but they can't do that so they are trying to censor them by intimidation.

 

[Steerpike]

Not if those issues are actionable under criminal statutes. That is exactly one of the issues that Martha S. and a couple of other folks got hammered for: not announce your innocence before hand because if you are convicted, then you are nailed for criminal deception.

Even in those cases, there is always a threshold First Amendment issue if the government is penalizing speech. Doesn't mean the government will lose on the issue, but it arises.

 

[WillowTree]

your two cents isn't worth a 1/2 cent but that's my two cents. dumbass.

Hey Willow. Am I still coming over to watch Wheel of Fortune later?

sure boy, come on, my toilets need cleaning too.

 

[Ragnar]

At least we have November to punish the pea brains who used "lies and outright misinformation" to pass Obamacare in the first place. Maybe some real fixes can happen after that. (not holding my breath, lol)

Overhaul Not Expected to Change Health Spending - WSJ.com

The health-care overhaul enacted last spring won’t significantly change national health spending over the next decade compared with projections before the law was passed, according to government figures set to be released Thursday.

The report by federal number-crunchers casts fresh doubt on Democrats’ argument that the health-care law would curb the sharp increase in costs over the long term, the second setback this week for one of the party’s biggest legislative achievements. …

Regardless of the health law, national health spending has been rising in recent years and economists expect that to continue. In February, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projected that overall national health spending would increase an average of 6.1% a year over the next decade.

The center’s economists recalculated the numbers in light of the health bill and now project that the increase will average 6.3% a year, according to a report in the journal Health Affairs. Total U.S. health spending will reach $4.6 trillion by 2019, accounting for nearly one of every five U.S. dollars spent, the report says.

“The overall net impact is moderate,” said lead author Andrea Sisko, an economist at the Medicare agency. “The underlying impacts on coverage and financing are more pronounced.”

Hot Air ObamaCare bends the cost curve ? upward

The Journal reported earlier this week that insurers have already begun raising premiums in response to the front-loading of ObamaCare benefit mandates by the White House. That report sent Democrats into fits of anger, threatening to “ratchet up pressure” on insurers. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) blamed “greed” for price increases instead of the higher costs imposed by the mandates — a completely predictable consequence of adding more mandates to insurance coverage.

Perhaps these same Democrats can put pressure on themselves to explain once again how the higher costs in ObamaCare meets their promise of bending the cost curve downward. Not only does the cost curve literally go upward more under ObamaCare for overall spending as percentage of GDP in comparison to the pre-ObamaCare trajectory, it consistently pushes it upward for private insurance, and especially Medicaid. It only bends downward for Medicare and slightly downward for out-of-pocket costs for consumers.

 

[Trajan]

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

correct me if I m wrong but the WHOLE idea and the primogeniture (if I can fit that in), was Obama-care would to bend the cost curve........so....?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can look at Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 1 Med.L.Rptr. 1633 (1974) as an example. The Supreme Court says in that case there is no Constitutional protection for a false statement of fact.

In that case. Your point?

 

[Modbert]

sure boy, come on, my toilets need cleaning too.

Alright. I'm just glad I'm able to help someone who hasn't been outside in the past fifteen years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No there isn't.

Yes there is. What the thin skinned obie wan folks should do is just provide proof to refute the insurer's claims. but they can't do that so they are trying to censor them by intimidation.

That is what you attempt to do to folks here on the thread that do not agree with the wing nut reactionary activist agenda. We simply smile at you.

If the law makes such statements criminally actionable, then no free speech issue exists.

 

[boedicca]

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?

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.

 

[RDD_1210]

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

correct me if I m wrong but the WHOLE idea and the primogeniture (if I can fit that in), was Obama-care would to bend the cost curve........so....?

I think the healthcare bill fell FAR short in the controlling costs aspect. I just don't see how costs will be curtailed under the current plan....I believe rates will continue to rise as long as insurance companies basically have a monopoly on the system.

With that said, there is a lot of good in this healthcare bill that will help Americans, outside the realm of cost control, which will still need to be addressed.

 

[Steerpike]

If the law makes such statements criminally actionable, then no free speech issue exists.

Jake, I know from another thread you don't understand the Constitution very well, so I'm not going to waste too much time, but this is just patently false.

The government can't circumvent the First Amendment just by criminalizing something. In fact, criminal convictions have been overturned on First Amendment grounds.

This should be obvious on its face. If what you said were true, the government could eliminate any speech it wanted to simply by criminalizing it by statute. Makes no sense whatsoever.