goverment deciding free speech for healthcare debate now

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-09-21-humana-mailer_N.htm

If insurance companies disagree, they are investigated. I for one welcome our new socialist overlords, who know what is best for us in areas of health, the environment, ande energy consumption.

If I were Humana I would sue the HHS pre-emptively, arguing that they are attempting to stifle free speech.

**youngblood**

Baucus is full of crap. He's the one pushing through a lot of the big spendy sections of the health care bill. I'd be pissed if I was Humana. I hope their lawyers are scrambling.

**Kilkrazy**

Reading the story, it seems more like an investigation of a potential fraud, or misleading advertising.

Assuming it's all legit, Humana will have their day in court and no doubt mulct the Department of Health in substantial damages.

**Frazzled**

I doubt it actually. They've effectively circumvented the US court system to issue their own restraining order. Thats, unusual to say the least. Following saying "we're going to investigate you now" wreaks of banana dictatorship.

The default is now on Humana. Investigating Humana for the generic statement -if you cut Advantage (which my mom is on I should note) your care will be less is about as general as it can get. Alleging that is a fraudulent statement, and then declaring it effectively illegal without any sort of court proceeding (which wouldn't be permitted-that whole First Amendment rearing its ugly head), means the government can now effectively determine speech. Thats really really scary to let stand unchallenged.

**youngblood**

Kilkrazy wrote:Reading the story, it seems more like an investigation of a potential fraud, or misleading advertising.

I'd thought that too, but you don't see misleading ads by democrats (the whole "you're workplace health benefits won't change" thing) being investigated because of false advertising.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:Alleging that is a fraudulent statement, and then declaring it effectively illegal without any sort of court proceeding (which wouldn't be permitted-that whole First Amendment rearing its ugly head), means the government can now effectively determine speech. Thats really really scary to let stand unchallenged.

No, it doesn't. The letter sent by the HHS has no legal standing. You're making far too big a deal about what is essentially a bogus scare tactic.

**Kilkrazy**

youngblood wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Reading the story, it seems more like an investigation of a potential fraud, or misleading advertising.

I'd thought that too, but you don't see misleading ads by democrats (the whole "you're workplace health benefits won't change" thing) being investigated because of false advertising.

There's a difference between party political advertising and commercial advertising.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:In a warning letter to Humana, HHS said the government is concerned that the mailer "is misleading and confusing" partly because the company's lobbying campaign could be mistaken for an official communication about Medicare benefits.

HHS ordered the company to immediately halt any such mailings, and remove any related materials from its website. In the letter, the government also said it may take other action against Humana.

Ordered a halt.

Is now investigating.

Health and Human Services determines who may service Medicare Advantage.

**Frazzled**

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9AS36CG0.htm

Gov't investigates health insurance company mailer
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

The Obama administration warned insurance companies Monday they face possible legal action for allegedly trying to scare seniors with misleading information about the potential for lost benefits under health care legislation in Congress.

"As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to immediately discontinue all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your Web sites," said a notice from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

Teresa DeCaro, an agency official, sent the notice to all companies that sell private Medicare coverage and stand-alone drug plans to seniors. The warning came as President Barack Obama's health care legislation is moving toward key tests in a Senate committee over the next several days, and with public polls showing widespread skepticism among seniors.

In one case, the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees CMS, launched an investigation of Humana after getting a complaint from Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a senior lawmaker usually viewed as a reliable ally of the insurance industry.

"It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors regarding any subject -- particularly on a subject as important to them, and to the nation, as health care reform," Baucus said Monday, disclosing the HHS investigation.

Humana Inc., headquartered in Louisville, Ky., is cooperating with the investigation and stopped the mailer earlier this month, company spokesman Tom Noland said Monday.

Federal subsidies to private Medicare plans average about 14 percent higher than those involved in traditional fee-for-service coverage under the program for those aged 65 and older, and the health care bills pending in Congress call for reducing or eliminating the difference.

The insurance industry is fighting the change, in part by trying to mobilize seniors to oppose them.

The Senate committee that Baucus chairs -- Finance -- will vote this week on a sweeping health care plan that he's proposed to expand coverage and try to control costs. It would cut Medicare and Medicaid spending by about $500 billion over 10 years, but Baucus says that would lead to greater efficiency, not reduced benefits.

"The health care reform bill we released ... strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits," said Baucus. "From lower prescription drug costs, to free preventive care, to better treatment for chronic conditions, seniors have so much to gain from health reform -- and I'm not going to let insurance company profits stand in the way of improving Medicare for seniors."

Humana is one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under a program called Medicare Advantage. About one-fourth of the elderly and disabled people covered under Medicare participate in the Advantage program, which offers a choice of private plans that usually deliver added benefits.

Humana has about 1.4 million Medicare Advantage enrollees, and the program accounts for about half the company's revenue, Noland said.

The Humana mailer focused squarely on the Medicare Advantage program.

"While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable," it said.

It urged seniors to sign up with Humana for regular updates on the health care legislation, and encouraged them to contact their lawmakers in Washington.

In a warning letter to Humana, HHS said the government is concerned that the mailer "is misleading and confusing" partly because the company's lobbying campaign could be mistaken for an official communication about Medicare benefits.

HHS ordered the company to immediately halt any such mailings, and remove any related materials from its Web site. In the letter, the government also said it may take other action against Humana.

Although most prominent Democrats back a government-sponsored insurance plan to compete with private carriers, Baucus did not include one in his proposal because he doesn't think it can pass the Senate. During the Bush administration, he broke with his party to support a Medicare prescription drug benefit delivered through private insurance plans, with no government role in negotiating prices.

Insurers, however, are pushing back against his plan to revamp health care. Not only would it cut payments to private Medicare plans, but it would also impose a $6-billion annual fee on the industry, partly to recoup profits from an influx of new taxpayer-subsidized customers.

Humana opposes a government-run insurance option, arguing that it would "undermine the coverage that is working today for millions of Americans," Noland said.

Polls show that seniors are more skeptical of the health care overhaul than the U.S. population as a whole.

------

Associated Press writers Bruce Schreiner in Louisville, Ky., and David Espo in Washington contributed to this report.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
note on another report. It seems to have worked:
"Humana Inc., headquartered in Louisville, Ky., is cooperating with the investigation and stopped the mailer earlier this month, company spokesman Tom Noland said Monday."

**Kilkrazy**

Looks like Humana know which side their bread is buttered.

**Frazzled**

Yes, they also run military benefit programs of some sort. We are becoming a banana republic.

**youngblood**

Kilkrazy wrote:
youngblood wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:Reading the story, it seems more like an investigation of a potential fraud, or misleading advertising.

I'd thought that too, but you don't see misleading ads by democrats (the whole "you're workplace health benefits won't change" thing) being investigated because of false advertising.

There's a difference between party political advertising and commercial advertising.

True, although when it comes to the health care bill, the two are colliding

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:We are becoming a banana republic.

Wonderful, their cashmere sweaters are the gak.

**Kilkrazy**

That's because healthcare is a highly politicised issue, and in the USA it is also a highly commercial issue because it's provided by private insurance companies, yet the government is the biggest payer of the commercial providers because of Medicaid, etc.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Ordered a halt.

They can't order a halt as they have no way to enforce it. They can threaten legal action in the event that a certain practice is continued, but that isn't the same as government dictating free speech. It falls completely within the current legal system.

Frazzled wrote:
Is now investigating.

Um, ok? They have no legal authority, so what are you getting at?

Frazzled wrote:
Health and Human Services determines who may service Medicare Advantage.

Ah, ok. They have a mandate to investigate healthcare providers who service Medicare. Its one of the main reason the organization exists. You're upset because a government agency is investigating a company that derives half of its revenue from a government program. Clearly it would be far better for the state to simply give them money, without regard for their business practices.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:Yes, they also run military benefit programs of some sort. We are becoming a banana republic.

Yep, because there's absolutely nothing wrong with an insurance company lying to its clients about governmental policies in order to influence their votes and political opinions. Nothing wrong there at all.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ordered a halt.

They can't order a halt as they have no way to enforce it. They can threaten legal action in the event that a certain practice is continued, but that isn't the same as government dictating free speech. It falls completely within the current legal system.

Frazzled wrote:
Is now investigating.

Um, ok? They have no legal authority, so what are you getting at?

Frazzled wrote:
Health and Human Services determines who may service Medicare Advantage.

Ah, ok. They have a mandate to investigate healthcare providers who service Medicare. Its one of the main reason the organization exists. You're upset because a government agency is investigating a company that derives half of its revenue from a government program. Clearly it would be far better for the state to simply give them money, without regard for their business practices.

How do you know they did not issue it under color of authority again? Thats my point. They can't just do that, but they did.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Yes, they also run military benefit programs of some sort. We are becoming a banana republic.

Yep, because there's absolutely nothing wrong with an insurance company lying to its clients about governmental policies in order to influence their votes and political opinions. Nothing wrong there at all.

They weren't lying. And when did the government get into the business of unilaterally deciding when speech was speech and not lies? Must have missed the abridgement of the First Amendment.

**ShumaGorath**

They weren't lying. And when did the government get into the business of unilaterally deciding when speech was speech and not lies? Must have missed the abridgement of the First Amendment.

No, they weren't lying. And the sky is falling all the time because meteors exist. Interesting how they can't be sued, yet they were still being misleading money grubbing douchebags preying on the fears of uninformed elderly.

As for the first amendment, I don't remember remember insurance conglomerates lobbying via misleading information and outright lies to disenfranchised elderly under the guise of "anti tariff legislation" when washington was in office. Since when did right to free speach cover the messages of corporate entities, rather than individuals? What? I can't shout fire in a theatre, but they can tell my grandparents obama wants to kill them to save some money? It's not all or nothing, so screw that gak.

I'm pretty sure washington would have stabbed one of them with a fething sword.

**Frazzled**

They are not preying. They are being accurate. Read a little. Education is glorious.

Medicare Advantage depending on thenplan will be discontinued or drastically reduced. The benefits senior citizens had under it will be discontinued. WTF do you think Srs are against the plan by multiples now despite the ARRP?

on the positive the current plans being bandied about would reuqire all you non=payers to now have to buy insurance too. Tee hee, now I'll be subsidized. I am beginning to like this.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
How do you know they did not issue it under color of authority again? Thats my point. They can't just do that, but they did.

My point is that they can do that, as they have the authority to take legal action through the courts, which appears to be what was threatened.

**Frazzled**

No it was specifically ordered, then noted there would be an investigation. nothing there about the courts.

Even if so they've just said, disagree with us and you'll pay.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:No it was specifically ordered, then noted there would be an investigation. nothing there about the courts.

Legal action was mentioned as a specific possibility; according to both reports you've linked to.

HHS can investigate (investigate in this context does not necessarily involve things like subpoenas) insurance companies with Medicare contracts. That's part of doing business with any government agency, or anyone at all for that matter.

This wasn't a cease and desist order. Unless all of these reporters are incompetent that fact would have been mentioned specifically.

You're trying to make this seem as though HHS is overstepping the bounds of its authority, which simply isn't the case.

Frazzled wrote:
Even if so they've just said, disagree with us and you'll pay.

Yes, and it would be different if that statement was made with respect to a third party organization, or an insurance provider without ties to Medicare. Humana depends on Medicare for its livelihood; taking a political stance given that fact is simply foolish. There is no army of HHS thugs preparing to descend on the Humana headquarters. This is a matter of a government agency taking informal action against a corporation which derives half of its revenue stream from that agencies budget.

Are you trying to claim that HHS is obligated to ignore any potential impropriety on the part of Humana because they have taken a political stance which is opposed to that of the Administration?

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote: This is a matter of a government agency threatening a corporation which derives half of its revenue stream from that agencies budget.

Corrected your typo

Are you trying to claim that HHS is obligated to ignore any potential impropriety on the part of Humana because they have taken a political stance which is opposed to that of the Administration?

Potential impropriety my ass. They said the proposed plans will reduce your standard of care. Thats a true statement.
What you're saying is if a company disagrees with the government, it can be accused of "potential impropriety." Think about that.

**dogma**

Frazzled wrote:
Corrected your typo

Threatening them with what? Some undefined investigation which might lead to the termination of a contract? How is that inappropriate?

Frazzled wrote:
Potential impropriety my ass. They said the proposed plans will reduce your standard of care. Thats a true statement.

No it isn't. That's speculation. As is any statement indicating that it will improve your standard of care. Speculative statements do not have any explicit truth value, as they cannot be tested empirically.

Frazzled wrote:
What you're saying is if a company disagrees with the government, it can be accused of "potential impropriety." Think about that.

Uh, no, that's not what I'm saying. That's what you're saying. I'm saying that if a company has a government contract, then it is subject to government scrutiny. That scrutiny will be, at times, politically motivated. That's the nature of government contracts. Don't like it? Don't do business with the government. Otherwise have some balls and make them do more than issue mildly threatening missives without any real authority behind them. Humana didn't have to stop mailing the information. They did that voluntarily.

**Frazzled**

So in other words, unless 100% pre-proven, they are subject to investigation. Ok...

**youngblood**

Frazzled wrote:So in other words, unless 100% pre-proven, they are subject to investigation. Ok...

That's the way it is for our investment firm (not sure how alike investments and the health care industry are though...)

**Wrexasaur**

Frazzled wrote:So in other words, unless 100% pre-proven, they are subject to investigation. Ok...

I swear someone just said Glenn Beck... hmmm...

I could honestly care less what people choose to do with their entertainment time; but it is true that from some perspectives, it is entirely obvious that a lot of the news is propaganda now. Like I said, whatever really, I take offense to blatant lies, but the obvious counter to that is to take a hard line on your views and push them as much as possible.

Meh... this does not spell any kind of doom, so hey then and a banana cream pie.

**ShumaGorath**

"If the plan goes through some people won't be able to eat these bacon wrapped sausages, which will cause them to lose calories, and thus reduce their health and standard of living."

This is as true as the statements they have given. And just as my statement didn't mention the fact that OTHER FOODS EXIST, and that Bacon wrapped sausages are not a good food to sustain on, their statements did not mention the fact that the very same program that would cost some of them benefits is also attempting to robustly provide them with those same benefits through a different, more cost effective service.

When you give a factual statement you give a rounded statement.

Hyperbole and scare tactic - "The war in Iraq has cost a trillian dollars, and has accomplished nothing."

Factual, informative statement - "The war in Iraq, when included with the war in afghanistan has in aggregate cost over a trillian dollars since it's inception and has as of yet failed to deliver a stable and functioning Iraqi government, or a safe populace that can depend on reliable infrastructure."

You can make a point while still giving an opinion. You can also lie by withholding information. One can be legally acted upon. The other can't. Guess which one they did?

**Frazzled**

Simple defense-
1. math.
If you reduce money you will reduce care.

2. Profit
if you reduce the funding for Advantage to Medicare levels guess what, we will discontinue Advantage.
(please no one make the mistake of saying Medicare provides the same care as Advantage. Just noting that would be a mistake right now).

Both defenses make the statement true.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:Simple defense-
1. math.
If you reduce money you will reduce care.

2. Profit
if you reduce the funding for Advantage to Medicare levels guess what, we will discontinue Advantage.
(please no one make the mistake of saying Medicare provides the same care as Advantage. Just noting that would be a mistake right now).

Both defenses make the statement true.

However by failing to inform the recipients of alternative services, causal relationships behind cost overflows and service, the failing state of medicare as a provider, and their own vested interests in maintaining the status quo (despite it being unsustainable), they have in essence misled. A truth can deceive just as easily without context as a lie. A truth without context repeated will create a false perception of reality and events and in effect actually creates a falsehood.

The english language is not a concrete thing. It is very easy to manipulate intent without lying factually. There's plenty of precedent for action against such a thing, as just as with the language itself, the cases are based on context. The fact that they are doing it to seniors, who while a large voting block, also often lack the ability to research fully the decisions they are being led to make makes this even more vile. They are a vulnerable demographic that is easy to "frighten".

**Frazzled**

Thats not a legal standard for, well anything.