Sebelius threatens insurers who criticize ObamaCare

Canceled2

Banned
Does ObamaCare trump the First Amendment? HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius must think so. Yesterday, after apparently tiring of criticism of the new law from the companies it will eventually put out of business, Sebelius offered to expedite that process for those who don’t take an opportunity to shut their mouths:

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.

By those standards, Sebelius would have to exclude Medicare as well. Four months ago, Medicare — which is under Sebelius’ authority — released a highly misleading brochure about the impact ObamaCare has on its consumers. It stated that Medicare Advantage patients would “still receive guaranteed Medicare benefits,” which was never in question, but made it sound as though they would suffer no reduction in services or benefits from the $500 billion in cuts to the program. It also bragged about changes in ObamaCare that had nothing to do with Medicare, including the mandate that insurers keep “children” on family policies until age 26 — a provision that does not include Medicare, for obvious reasons.

Rarely have we heard a Cabinet official tell Americans to stay out of political debates at the risk of losing their businesses. It points out the danger in having government run industries and holding a position where politicians can actually destroy a business out of spite. It also demonstrates the thin skin of our current administration, where Hope and Change means keeping your mouth shut and pretending that everyone is happy while businesses slowly circle the drain.

Of course, maybe Sebelius won’t go as far as to lock them out of the state exchanges for disputing the Official Smiley-Face Rhetoric Enforcement Squad at HHS. Perhaps she’ll just send them to a re-education facility instead.
 
Does ObamaCare trump the First Amendment? HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius must think so. Yesterday, after apparently tiring of criticism of the new law from the companies it will eventually put out of business, Sebelius offered to expedite that process for those who don’t take an opportunity to shut their mouths:

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.

By those standards, Sebelius would have to exclude Medicare as well. Four months ago, Medicare — which is under Sebelius’ authority — released a highly misleading brochure about the impact ObamaCare has on its consumers. It stated that Medicare Advantage patients would “still receive guaranteed Medicare benefits,” which was never in question, but made it sound as though they would suffer no reduction in services or benefits from the $500 billion in cuts to the program. It also bragged about changes in ObamaCare that had nothing to do with Medicare, including the mandate that insurers keep “children” on family policies until age 26 — a provision that does not include Medicare, for obvious reasons.

Rarely have we heard a Cabinet official tell Americans to stay out of political debates at the risk of losing their businesses. It points out the danger in having government run industries and holding a position where politicians can actually destroy a business out of spite. It also demonstrates the thin skin of our current administration, where Hope and Change means keeping your mouth shut and pretending that everyone is happy while businesses slowly circle the drain.

Of course, maybe Sebelius won’t go as far as to lock them out of the state exchanges for disputing the Official Smiley-Face Rhetoric Enforcement Squad at HHS. Perhaps she’ll just send them to a re-education facility instead.

link?
 
the medical insurance requirement is a boon to insurance companies

what they are afraid of is that bho will manage to get a single payer medical insurance plan and have started fighting it well in advance

as for first amendment rights, if you purchase something from a provider, that provider still is under a requirement to tell the truth or you can change providers

since the government is paying or designating that the insurance is a must purchase item, then the government can act to deny insurance companies this boon if said insurance companies lie about what is happening

ps who is the ed guy - never heard of him
 
So the gloves come off early. Play it our way or we'll put you out of business. It was pointed out what kinds of shenanigans would take place with the government usurping the authority to tell people what they can and cannot buy. Next will come the under-table deals (aka - bribes) from companies who will skirt regulations, but be placed on the government's official preferred list anyway while driving competitors out of business who have to abide by the regulations and will be excluded from the list for bogus (ie: not paying enough bribes) reasons.

Looking at the long term effects, I guess they are telling the truth when they say this bill is the first step toward single payer. By the time all the corruption winds its way through, one massive, corrupt health care assurance corporation will be all that is left - government mandated monopoly.
 
the medical insurance requirement is a boon to insurance companies

what they are afraid of is that bho will manage to get a single payer medical insurance plan and have started fighting it well in advance

as for first amendment rights, if you purchase something from a provider, that provider still is under a requirement to tell the truth or you can change providers

since the government is paying or designating that the insurance is a must purchase item, then the government can act to deny insurance companies this boon if said insurance companies lie about what is happening

ps who is the ed guy - never heard of him
So what does a company do when (not if, but when) government regulations do drive up premiums? Tell the truth, you get axed by the government. Lie, you get axed by the customers. Don't raise premiums, get axed by increased expenses.

In short, the government can (and is) lie about it, and can directly run out of business anyone who complains about it - is making open threats to do exactly that, and a bunch of fucking dough head cheer them on.

Good call. So happy people are so supportive of tyranny.
 
So what does a company do when (not if, but when) government regulations do drive up premiums? Tell the truth, you get axed by the government. Lie, you get axed by the customers. Don't raise premiums, get axed by increased expenses.

In short, the government can (and is) lie about it, and can directly run out of business anyone who complains about it - is making open threats to do exactly that, and a bunch of fucking dough head cheer them on.

Good call. So happy people are so supportive of tyranny.

so bad if you do and bad if you do not

which would you prefer, the tyranny of the government or the insurance companies - we have had the tyranny of the insurance companies and look what they have done to us
 
So the gloves come off early. Play it our way or we'll put you out of business. It was pointed out what kinds of shenanigans would take place with the government usurping the authority to tell people what they can and cannot buy. Next will come the under-table deals (aka - bribes) from companies who will skirt regulations, but be placed on the government's official preferred list anyway while driving competitors out of business who have to abide by the regulations and will be excluded from the list for bogus (ie: not paying enough bribes) reasons.

Looking at the long term effects, I guess they are telling the truth when they say this bill is the first step toward single payer. By the time all the corruption winds its way through, one massive, corrupt health care assurance corporation will be all that is left - government mandated monopoly.

But of course, republicans will just keep braying about tax rates instead of shit like this that will keep out investment.

We are good and fucked.
 
Why didn't the democrates actually create a health care plan that would save the government and the american people money. The less money spent on health care the more money that could be spent on other things like renewable energy.
 
so bad if you do and bad if you do not

which would you prefer, the tyranny of the government or the insurance companies - we have had the tyranny of the insurance companies and look what they have done to us
At least the insurance companies aren't telling others what they can or cannot say about them. And show me the insurance company that is proposing to limit who you can choose from. Tyranny is about limiting choices. Government programs are all about limiting choices: you must buy this, and you can only buy from our approved list. (Which is made from those companies willing to kneel down and suck democratic dick.) Private market is about choice - they can only entice people to their product, not force them to it. Which one is the real tyranny?

So how about stopping the mindless (and patently false) sound bites and try actually thinking about the issue (assuming your neurons are up to the task)? Tyranny of any sort from our government or it's elected or appointed officials is unacceptable. Period.
 
so bad if you do and bad if you do not

which would you prefer, the tyranny of the government or the insurance companies - we have had the tyranny of the insurance companies and look what they have done to us

Insurance company tyranny indeed. Get a load of what PA's Highmark BCBS just added on to its charges for an annual physical. Now we have to pay the hospital's overhead.

"Diane Aiello's annual physical went well last spring. It was only when she got the bill that her blood pressure shot up.

Ms. Aiello, an unemployed attorney, had checked with Highmark before her physical to find out what her financial obligation would be. Under her plan with the insurer, she faced a $25.25 co-payment.

On April 28, she went to Shea Medical Center, located in the Shadyside Medical Building on the UPMC Shadyside campus, and underwent a routine 20-minute exam with no lab work or X-rays.

To her surprise, a month later Ms. Aiello, 61, received an explanation of benefits from Highmark saying she might owe the provider another $91.95 for unspecified "clinical service."

"I called Highmark and asked, 'What is this?' and they said they didn't know."

It was only after UPMC started leaving phone messages at her Munhall home that she learned the $91.95 was a "facility fee."

It turns out that she and many other patients are expected to pay facility fees, which cover office overhead expenses such as utilities and maintenance, when the doctor's office is part of a hospital campus -- or, sometimes, even if it isn't -- in cases where the physician practice is owned by the hospital or a health system."



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10245/1084467-114.stm#ixzz0zBOxqDtt
 
Back
Top