• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Government Shutdown? We can only hope!

washunut said:
It is an issue of free speech. She can adversely impact a company because she doesn't like what they say. That is not the America I envision.
Click to expand...

From the piece I posted

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.
 
ptif219 said:
From the piece I posted

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.
Click to expand...

And I have already addressed that. She cites a model that does not show that. The rest of what you quoted is speculation and opinion.

And before you ask again, she is within her authority to use that model to decide about regulation.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
And I have already addressed that. She cites a model that does not show that. The rest of what you quoted is speculation and opinion.
Click to expand...

If they say Obamacare causes them to raise rates she will shut them down. They can not talk against Obama care or she will attack them.
 
ptif219 said:
If they say Obamacare causes them to raise rates she will shut them down. They can not talk against Obama care or she will attack them.
Click to expand...

I would also expected her to shut them down is they say fairy dust caused them to raise rates if her models do not show it.
 
megaprogman said:
I would also expected her to shut them down is they say fairy dust caused them to raise rates if her models do not show it.
Click to expand...

So they have no free speech and must take a loss to protect the government lies about Obama care?
 
ptif219 said:
So they have no free speech and must take a loss to protect the government lies about Obama care?
Click to expand...

That would be the same mischaractarization of what has happened that you have been posting so far in this thread.
 
megaprogman said:
That would be the same mischaractarization of what has happened that you have been posting so far in this thread.
Click to expand...

You have shown no proof just your opinion.That is from my link and based on her letter
 
ptif219 said:
You have shown no proof just your opinion.That is from my link and based on her letter
Click to expand...

I cited her use of a model, whereas you linked to an opinion piece.
 
ptif219 said:
She wants to shut up those that will tell the truth about Obama care. She has the guns and the obama care bill that will allow her to do it.
Click to expand...

So are you just going to spout the same truthiness over and over until you feel like you have won?

Because at this point all you are doing is going around and around without having a shred of proof to your accusations.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
So are you just going to spout the same truthiness over and over until you feel like you have won?

Because at this point all you are doing is going around and around without having a shred of proof to your accusations.
Click to expand...

Her letter is proof. You have not shown where Barone is wrong
 
Not that I like the woman or anything (I don't know squat all about her), but could you point me to a reprint of the full text of her letter?

Cuz it wasn't in that link you posted.
 
ptif219 said:
Her letter is proof. You have not shown where Barone is wrong
Click to expand...

Since I have already addressed that, you pretty much have nothing at this point.
 
megaprogman said:
Since I have already addressed that, you pretty much have nothing at this point.
Click to expand...

You said it was a mischaracterization but did not say how. Nice spin but it is wrong for the government to penalize people who are in disagreement that goes against free speech laws
 
ptif219 said:
You said it was a mischaracterization but did not say how. Nice spin but it is wrong for the government to penalize people who are in disagreement that goes against free speech laws
Click to expand...

I did multiple times. This is a dispute over whether there is data to show that the new laws are the cause of increased premiums. If you will recall, there was talking of analytic models a few pages back.

Ignoring the very real dispute to simply call it a free speech issue is indeed spin.
 
ptif219 said:
She is stopping people from dissenting and you are justifying this. This the government abusing its power
Click to expand...

She is stopping people from getting cheated which is a legitimate use of regulation.
 
Councilman said:
Liberals just don't get it.
When you want to get out of a hole the first thing you have to do is stop digging.
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Stop Digging! That's cute. Nice bumper sticker talking point.

How about giving us 2-3 workable ideas?

The problem with Teabrains is they think solutions to complex problems can be solved on cardboard signs and bumper stickers.

And, BTW, "stop spending" is just another meaningless bumper sticker. Tell us how you would cut back spending? Specifics.

Entitlements? Okay, which ones and how much?
 
megaprogman said:
She is stopping people from getting cheated which is a legitimate use of regulation.
Click to expand...

No she is stopping dissent to Obama Care. Obama and her standards must be followed with no dissent
 
ptif219 said:
No she is stopping dissent to Obama Care. Obama and her standards must be followed with no dissent
Click to expand...

That would be quite the scandal if it were true. :shock:

But as you have no evidence, its probably not. :mrgreen:

Prediction: Ptif will just go around his loop again.
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
Remember Hillary's speech that said we have the right to critisize the president? Now Obama makes threats if you criticisize

Townhall - Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare
Click to expand...

You're opinion is just that -- one opinion.

Here's the part I found interesting:

Or as Ignagni, the recipient of the letter, says, "It's a basic law of economics that additional benefits incur additional costs."
Click to expand...

The moral hazard of for-profit health care - 'In order to give you more, we have to charge you more.' That's an insurance company saying this. Remember, all they give you is peace of mind. They don't provide care. They provide 'coverage'. And that entire business model is based on signing up as many people as possible and paying out the least number of claims. There's a profit incentive to not pay claims and deny coverage.

In order to make a profit and grow, they must raise rates as the Health Care bill kicks in because their ability to deny claims and drop coverage is being limited by new regulations. They are being forced to pay out more claims, provide the coverage promised in an ethical and honest manner. This will drive profits down unless they raise rates -(because making less money is not the American way)

But here's the kicker -- here's the upside. They get to take on more younger, healthier clients. Why? Because the Health Care bill is requiring everyone to have basic coverage. That core idea came from a conservative think tank. Get more people to buy insurance!!

As the dust settles and the Health Care Bill starts kicking in, I'm seeing now that not having a Public Option or Co-Op was a huge mistake. It's a false free market, as the consumer has few choices and is always in the weaker bargaining position-- information asymmetry and the moral hazard. Do you ever get to price shop for blood tests or x-rays? Most times, when you need them, you're not in a position to drive around to different labs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom