Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    All the stuff you've posted and their links.
    Be specific

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    As it is not a finished work yet, that's not only premature, but rather hyperbolic. It is itself a fearmongering scare tactic. it is not yet perfect, but cost were going up and would continue to go up withut reform, and all with less people having actual access to healthcare. It's time to stop the silly fear mongering, and start trying to make it better. The fact is reform was needed. And without one step, there would never be a second step. So, either be part of the solution, or get the hell out of the way.

    Not Finished? The dems passed it and Obama signed it that makes it law. How much more finished do you want?

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    Be specific
    There's no first amendment violation, I thought that was clear.

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    There's no first amendment violation, I thought that was clear.
    So insurance companies should shut up and go out of business?

  5. #25
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    There's no first amendment violation, I thought that was clear.
    There is absolutely a first violation as I have explained in full. Companies are being strongarmed by having their ability to conduct business threatened by government action for speaking negatively(and truthfully) about their cost increases, the threats are specifically targeting speech. You have not proven clearly or otherwise how your assertion this isn't a first amendment violation is correct.

    For a right to be violated, and let me be clear; there does not have to be a threat of immenent force but simply any kind of action or threat which restricts the ability to exercise said right. In other words, a government official does not have to send out the military, SWAT, police, or stormtroopers to hold a gun to someone's head and say "shut up" all they have to do is make it uncomfortable to speak one's mind and they have indeed infringed upon the first amendment. The only way this idiot NHHS head would have a defensible position is if she could prove there was a lie........good luck with that as economic reality does not align with her fantasy.

    Again, the NHHS secretary is not only a liar but a first amendment violating thug.
    Last edited by LaMidRighter; 09-19-10 at 12:02 PM.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #26
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO 81506
    Last Seen
    05-30-11 @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,236

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    It appears free speech and criticism of the president and his policies are gone. So much for the constitution

    "There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."

    Sebelius objects to claims by health insurers that they are raising premiums because of increased costs imposed by the Obamacare law passed by Congress last March.
    Free speech violation is a big stretch. Sebelius is just telling the health insurers to prove their cases in her own words.

    ricksfolly

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Free speech violation is a big stretch. Sebelius is just telling the health insurers to prove their cases in her own words.

    ricksfolly
    No she is saying if they blame Obamacare they will be fined

  8. #28
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I think wetting our pants and jumping at shadows and misinformation is unseemly. Perhaps we should try dealing in facts and seeking truth instead of these scare tactics those who oppose health care reform use all too often. Let's toughen up and try to deal with the truth for a change.





    And those who support Obamacare are telling only the truth? No lies or scare tactics there, right?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #29
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by ricksfolly View Post
    Free speech violation is a big stretch. Sebelius is just telling the health insurers to prove their cases in her own words.

    ricksfolly
    freedom of speech is not dependent on veracity of the content of the speech as long as its not defamatory or leaks classified information. Threats of government sanctions by a government official is an infringement on the First Amendment. Sebelius is a low grade intellect for a cabinent member. I know, she's from my home town and went to a HS I grew up next to. She went to a third rate finishing school for rich but dull catholic girls (same place Pelosi went to-another rich but dullardly catholic princess). she's a bit of lightweight



  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

    Re: Gangster Government Stifles Criticism of Obamacare

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    No she is saying if they blame Obamacare they will be fined
    Its not that clear cut. Firstly the word "fine" doesn't even appear in that article, secondly the article is baised and obviously makes no attempt at objective analysis, its there to provide its readers with an opinion. It doesn't even provide you with a source. In other words is not better than a sourceless post on this website.

    Thirdly, from the own article it states: "She acknowledges that many of the law's "key protections" take effect later this month and does not deny that these impose additional costs on insurers." And then later states "She promises to issue regulations to require "state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases."

    What it sounds like to me is something similar to monopolies for other services like power or water in many areas. Where there is only one power/water provider which holds a monopoly but must submit its rate increases for gov't approval either state/federal to ensure that the monopoly doesn't run among. The government allows the monopoly to exist in the first place because of how infrastructure heavy it is. THAT is a long established practice and is long backed by legal precedence, so as far as the LAW and the COURTS are concerned there's no violation. Now you can think whatever you like, there's people who think that the laws banning production of meth are violations of their free speech, but legally they have no case.

    So lets be clear, if the article is looking at the facts which I think they are looking at, because there's so much bs its hard to tell, then a government agency would have to sue a company in federal or state court if they felt the companies' rates had been unfairly gouged, at that time the court would issue a verdict.

    So the laws changing, its not being thrown out the window.

    Then you have statements like this "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."

    Why would they want to put the company out of business? It would be like refusing to allow the water company to raise its rates after they show that the price of water has increased and if they don't raise their rates they will go bankrupt. What possible motivation would they have for that, there's no explanation. If the water company goes out of business, than no one has water, if they nationalize health insurance companies, which they won't but lets say they do, and force them out of business than NO ONE will have health insurance. Why would anyone deliberately do that? Its borderline conspiracy stuff.

    Now what she's threatening is this "We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014."

    Do you know what the Health Insurance Exchanges of 2014 are? Probably not, and I'm not 100% on the matter either but here's my understanding. The Exchanges will be an attempt to create the largest pool of insured individuals, the model for insurance is that the larger the pool of customers the less each has to pay in order to cover all costs paid out by the insurer. Thats part of the idea behind "Obamacare" is to create an insurance Exchange where companies can come under one roof, headed by either the state or federal government, and insure each other thus increasing the size and lowering costs. Thats the THEORY. The threat coming from this women is that companies with rates which are too high, may not be able to join and thus will be forced by the market and the size of their consumer base to have rates higher than what the gov't Exchange is offering. Thus harming their business.

    Now you might say well thats exactly what I'm talking about! But its not, because its not forcing them out of business its simply competing with them. Its like the Post Office, which hasn't forced Fedex or UPS out of business. Or the Police/military which hasn't forced your AK-47 out of your house. Or government employment offices which haven't forced the classified section of the newspaper, or Monster.com or whatever else out of existence.

    So let me say in conclusion that LEGALLY there's no violation of any law in here because this plan fits nicely into established legal precedence. And you should also all know that I don't personally support this health care bill, because while the theory is nice, I don't have high hopes for it working in practice and I'm always nervous about government competing with private industry for consumers. HOWEVER what Sebelius is doing isn't violating any 1st Amendment rights..

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •