Another Government Shutdown? We can only hope!

[ptif219]

First of all, in no place in the cited article are these businesses criticizing the current administration. They are attempting to raise rates and are citing the new law as one of the reasons for it. That is business justification, not criticism.

Second of all Kathleen is raising the possibility of regulation for unjustified rate hikes, which is something that is within the law. This is based on analytic models that do not show that these hikes are justified, not criticism.

You miss my point the Obama administration is trying to silence them

 

[Slartibartfast]

You miss my point the Obama administration is trying to silence them

That is because your point is a mischaractarization of what is actually happening.

 

[ptif219]

That is because your point is a mischaractarization of what is actually happening.

Not according to the article I posted

 

[Slartibartfast]

Which is an opinion piece, not a news article.

 

[ptif219]

Which is an opinion piece, not a news article.

It says insurance companies will be penalized by the government if they do not shutup

 

[Slartibartfast]

It says insurance companies will be penalized by the government if they do not shutup

Which is the same mischaractarization that you are putting forth.

 

[ptif219]

Which is the same mischaractarization that you are putting forth.

You mean fact. Is the government still denying their healthcare bill will cause higher rates?

 

[Slartibartfast]

You mean fact. Is the government still denying their healthcare bill will cause higher rates?

No, I mean mischaractarization. There is a legimate dispute about who has the better analysis, the government or the insurance companies, however, ultimately it is about that analysis, not about speech.

 

[ptif219]

No, I mean mischaractarization. There is a legimate dispute about who has the better analysis, the government or the insurance companies, however, ultimately it is about that analysis, not about speech.

Then she needs to speak facts and not propaganda and threaten companies.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Then she needs to speak facts and not propaganda and threaten companies.

She is speaking fact that she does not see a relevent reason for the insurance companies' actions. Also, it is legitimate to threaten a company if it is profiteering as she believes they are doing based on the estimates she is using.

The real debate here is whether her estimates are right or wrong (and that is a question I do not know the answer to) not whether she is attacking their first amendment rights.

 

[ptif219]

She is speaking fact that she does not see a relevent reason for the insurance companies' actions. Also, it is legitimate to threaten a company if it is profiteering as she believes they are doing based on the estimates she is using.

The real debate here is whether her estimates are right or wrong (and that is a question I do not know the answer to) not whether she is attacking their first amendment rights.

So do we believe her or Obama? Insurance companies should not speak against Obama or they will pay consequences yet we hear different stories from the administration.

Obama Says Increased Health Costs Are Factor Of Expanded Coverage - Kaiser Health News

 

[washunut]

She is speaking fact that she does not see a relevent reason for the insurance companies' actions. Also, it is legitimate to threaten a company if it is profiteering as she believes they are doing based on the estimates she is using.

The real debate here is whether her estimates are right or wrong (and that is a question I do not know the answer to) not whether she is attacking their first amendment rights.

Are you saying that any reasonable analysis would not show that the bill would increase rates. We may have made insurance more responsive to our needs but there is a cost, for example. When you have to insure people ( children under 26) that currently were not covered who in their right mind would say that could be free. When the companies can not drop people because of prior health rpoblems again, costs will go up.

Now those changes may be what we want, but to say they have no cost is nuts. Thus it is reasonable to say the secretary is trying to scare the insurance companies from telling the truth.

 

[Slartibartfast]

So do we believe her or Obama? Insurance companies should not speak against Obama or they will pay consequences yet we hear different stories from the administration.

Obama Says Increased Health Costs Are Factor Of Expanded Coverage - Kaiser Health News

Are you saying that any reasonable analysis would not show that the bill would increase rates. We may have made insurance more responsive to our needs but there is a cost, for example. When you have to insure people ( children under 26) that currently were not covered who in their right mind would say that could be free. When the companies can not drop people because of prior health rpoblems again, costs will go up.

Now those changes may be what we want, but to say they have no cost is nuts. Thus it is reasonable to say the secretary is trying to scare the insurance companies from telling the truth.

I am not saying anything about that because I had no interest in addressing that question, as right now I am still looking at different sides of the debate. The question I am addressing is whether Kathleen is attempting to harm the first amendment rights of insurance companies. Personally, I lean towards the opinion that we are going to see some rise this year that are offset by lower rises in the future. However, this has nothing to do with what I was addressing with ptif.

 

[washunut]

I am not saying anything about that because I had no interest in addressing that question, as right now I am still looking at different sides of the debate. The question I am addressing is whether Kathleen is attempting to harm the first amendment rights of insurance companies. Personally, I lean towards the opinion that we are going to see some rise this year that are offset by lower rises in the future. However, this has nothing to do with what I was addressing with ptif.

That what I was trying to address. By threatening companies that they may be shut out of the selling insurance if they keep up saying what everyone should understand is a truth she has to be trying to silence people. Democrats should be the ones more outraged than anyone else by this goonish behaviour.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That what I was trying to address. By threatening companies that they may be shut out of the selling insurance if they keep up saying what everyone should understand is a truth she has to be trying to silence people. Democrats should be the ones more outraged than anyone else by this goonish behaviour.

It would be one thing if there was evidence that she was doing that. But even in ptif's article it states that she is using models that inform her that there is no reason for the insurance companies to do what they are doing. This tells me that this is more likely caused by that key difference.

 

[Jetboogieman]

Isn't it rather funny. That the ones in this thread who are calling for no government were the ones bitching that Obama wasn't doing enough about the oil spill.

Say nothing about the fact 1 000 000 people have top secret clearance...

Big government! Hey only when it's convenient to say so...

 

[washunut]

It would be one thing if there was evidence that she was doing that. But even in ptif's article it states that she is using models that inform her that there is no reason for the insurance companies to do what they are doing. This tells me that this is more likely caused by that key difference.

I guess what I tried to say in the first post was that it makes no sense to be able to come to that conclusion. Unless there are offsets in the law which make up for the companies increased cost.

After saying that I have been concerned with the way this administration uses demonization of a certain industry to rally the masses. They have done it with big pharma, insurance companies, big banks, oil & gas companies, drillers. I might be missing a few but you get my point. Granted there are things all industries do that can be pointed out as wrong, to demonize companies/industries/individuals to make a point should be scary to all of us.

I say this as a lifelong democrat, but am not happy with the direction and tone of this administration.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I guess what I tried to say in the first post was that it makes no sense to be able to come to that conclusion. Unless there are offsets in the law which make up for the companies increased cost.

After saying that I have been concerned with the way this administration uses demonization of a certain industry to rally the masses. They have done it with big pharma, insurance companies, big banks, oil & gas companies, drillers. I might be missing a few but you get my point. Granted there are things all industries do that can be pointed out as wrong, to demonize companies/industries/individuals to make a point should be scary to all of us.

I say this as a lifelong democrat, but am not happy with the direction and tone of this administration.

I cannot say that I agree with the analysis model she is using, but the fact that she cites it means that she is using it.

 

[ptif219]

I cannot say that I agree with the analysis model she is using, but the fact that she cites it means that she is using it.

So using a model that is not accurate gives her a pass to threaten companies?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So using a model that is not accurate gives her a pass to threaten companies?

My opinion is that the model is likely inaccurate but I am not an actuary, so I really don't know. My assumption is that given she has consulted the necessary experts, she has a solid basis for her ruling.

 

[washunut]

I cannot say that I agree with the analysis model she is using, but the fact that she cites it means that she is using it.

I give her more credit than that. I think she knows it can't be correct.

I think the saying goes something like:

Figures lie and liars figure.

 

[ptif219]

My opinion is that the model is likely inaccurate but I am not an actuary, so I really don't know. My assumption is that given she has consulted the necessary experts, she has a solid basis for her ruling.

That gives her the right to threaten companies? Not in my opinion. That is try to stop disagreement and make all agree with her Free speech goes away

 

[Slartibartfast]

That gives her the right to threaten companies? Not in my opinion. That is try to stop disagreement and make all agree with her Free speech goes away

Its not a free speech issue but a regulation issue. But given that she has regulatory authority, she does have that right.

 

[washunut]

Its not a free speech issue but a regulation issue. But given that she has regulatory authority, she does have that right.

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.

 

[Slartibartfast]

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.

If I find evidence that she is being retaliatory, than I would agree with you, but as of yet, I see no such evidence.