Sebelius: Insurers Will Be Punished For Telling The Truth

[boedicca]

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.

Then post the context. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

Then post the context. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

You mean your homework. I'm already familiar with the case. If you want to learn something, Google it. But your ignorance or education isn't important enough for me to do it for you.

 

[boedicca]

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

And during this time frame, the ratio of government paid for health care has increased to the point where it is nearly 50% of all health care. Given that the government pays only 80% (or less) of standard rates, the losses are foisted on the private sector. The bigger the government share, the more the rest of us pay for private health insurance to cover the difference.

The problem with ObamaCare is that there is nobody left to make up the losses.

 

[RDD_1210]

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.

You might want to try and actually read what I wrote before you start typing up your typical attacking/insult filled response.

I said, you can't blame health care rates increasing "solely" on "obamacare", which means I do think rates will be affected by obamacare in some part, but to lay all the blame on this is the part that is an outright lie.

 

[Steerpike]

I said, you can't blame health care rates increasing "solely" on "obamacare", which means I do think rates will be affected by obamacare in some part, but to lay all the blame on this is the part that is an outright lie.

How do you know that?

You may well be right, but I'm not privvy to the numbers the health insurance companies use to determine this sort of thing, and I don't know that anyone else here is either. So it seems like there is a lot of speculation on both ends.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Steerpike, you are describing yourself, not me. Criminalizing false statements with intent to deceive is easily actionable. Go tell a lie to a federal agent.

 

[Modbert]

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.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Then post the context. I'm not going to do your homework for you.

You mean your homework. I'm already familiar with the case. If you want to learn something, Google it. But your ignorance or education isn't important enough for me to do it for you.

I call Shenanigans. You made the claim. Prove it with quotes and context.

 

[RDD_1210]

I said, you can't blame health care rates increasing "solely" on "obamacare", which means I do think rates will be affected by obamacare in some part, but to lay all the blame on this is the part that is an outright lie.

How do you know that?

You may well be right, but I'm not privvy to the numbers the health insurance companies use to determine this sort of thing, and I don't know that anyone else here is either. So it seems like there is a lot of speculation on both ends.

Because rates have been going up for years before Obamacare. Look at the data, I've posted snippets of it, theres plenty of it out there. Rates will still go up for the same reasons, that they were going up before in addition to whatever additional costs Obamacare adds to the system.

 

[Steerpike]

I call Shenanigans. You made the claim. Prove it with quotes and context.

LOL. "Call shenanigans?" What are you, five? Call what you want. If you don't want to look it up, I'm really not that interested in whether you believe it or not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[Steerpike]

Because rates have been going up for years before Obamacare. Look at the data, I've posted snippets of it, theres plenty of it out there. Rates will still go up for the same reasons, that they were going up before in addition to whatever additional costs Obamacare adds to the system.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. That's true, they trend up for a number of factors. I took what the health insurance companies were saying to mean that they were going to have to increase rates more than would be otherwise necessary. Which is probably true. I just don't know to what extent it is necessary.

 

[boedicca]

I said, you can't blame health care rates increasing "solely" on "obamacare", which means I do think rates will be affected by obamacare in some part, but to lay all the blame on this is the part that is an outright lie.

How do you know that?

You may well be right, but I'm not privvy to the numbers the health insurance companies use to determine this sort of thing, and I don't know that anyone else here is either. So it seems like there is a lot of speculation on both ends.

Because rates have been going up for years before Obamacare. Look at the data, I've posted snippets of it, theres plenty of it out there. Rates will still go up for the same reasons, that they were going up before in addition to whatever additional costs Obamacare adds to the system.

In 1960, government funded health care was 25% of total - now we're close to 50%.

That's the cost problem in a nutshell.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

It's not deflecting. Maybe you're misunderstanding me. Maybe it's on purpose, I don't know.

Yes, the secretary is telling them not to lie. I understand that. And I said above, there is no First Amendment issue yet.

But if and when the time comes that they penalize the companies, the companies are going to assert that they were lying and raise the First Amendment. It will be an issue. That's just a reality from the perspective of the hypothetical court case coming in the future.

And that's the context of my comments. If the government actually punishes the companies for this, the First Amendment will become an issue. Doesn't mean the government can't win it (e.g. if they show the companies are lying) but the issue will arise regardless.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

But did the secretary point out how to pay for 30 million more insured without jacking prices? No she did not.

 

[RDD_1210]

How do you know that?

You may well be right, but I'm not privvy to the numbers the health insurance companies use to determine this sort of thing, and I don't know that anyone else here is either. So it seems like there is a lot of speculation on both ends.

Because rates have been going up for years before Obamacare. Look at the data, I've posted snippets of it, theres plenty of it out there. Rates will still go up for the same reasons, that they were going up before in addition to whatever additional costs Obamacare adds to the system.

In 1960, government funded health care was 25% of total - now we're close to 50%.

That's the cost problem in a nutshell.

LOL, not that you're making a broad generalization or anything.
We have a much older population now, with more people on Medicare. That's why there is an increase in the percentage. To say that is causing private insurers to raise their rates year over year is actually quite naive. But think what you want, I won't try to change your mind.

 

[Modbert]

In 1960, government funded health care was 25% of total - now we're close to 50%.

That's the cost problem in a nutshell.

And the question that should be asked is why that is. The answer isn't some partisan hate-filled rhetoric either.

 

[saveliberty]

Sounds like the President needs to prove his assertion in court. Of course, he won't. He will just play politics with these companies futures, like any good socialist would do.

 

[Ragnar]

Lie: "Americans who like their health insurance/doctors can keep them".

Result: Obama gets one term and Dems lose 45+ seats in November 2010.

The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Obama Destroys Pledge to Allow Americans To Keep Their HC Plans

But Obama’s new proposal changes all of that. Here’s how the White House explains the new provisions:

The Senate bill includes a “grandfather” policy that allows people who like their current coverage, to keep it. The President’s Proposal adds certain important consumer protections to these “grandfathered” plans. Within months of legislation being enacted, it requires plans to cover adult dependents up to age 26, prohibits rescissions, mandates that plans have a stronger appeals process, and requires State insurance authorities to conduct annual rate review, backed up by the oversight of the HHS Secretary. When the exchanges begin in 2014, the President’s Proposal adds new protections that prohibit all annual and lifetime limits, ban pre-existing condition exclusions, and prohibit discrimination in favor of highly compensated individuals. Beginning in 2018, the President’s Proposal requires “grandfathered” plans to cover proven preventive services with no cost sharing.

All of the new requirements proposed by Obama would increase premiums, and by definition, alter the composition of those insurance plans. The White House would argue that it is changing the policies for the better. But the entire point of having “grandfathered plans” was to protect a class of policies from changes imposed by the new legislation. Put another way, the provision to allow people to keep their “grandfathered plans” is rendered meaningless when the federal government is dictating what is in them.