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.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:Thats not a legal standard for, well anything.

And yet courts have ruled in favor of those bringing the case to court in the past. Effect is often times more important than method in cases concerning what was said.

**Polonius**

Am I missing something, but isn't an investigation part of the due process? Claiming somebody is denied due process because they were threatened with an executive investigation is like a drunk driver saying he can't be pulled over unless it's proven that he's drunk.

It's possible they violated the law, and if so, investigations turn that up.

Being investigated by the regulatory agency that oversees your industry, due primarily to government funds paying for the lion's share of the spending is part of the job in regulated capitalism.

And no, the current health care market isn't a free market, not by any conceivable imagination.

**Frazzled**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Thats not a legal standard for, well anything.

And yet courts have ruled in favor of those bringing the case to court in the past. Effect is often times more important than method in cases concerning what was said.

No not your general definition buddy.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:Am I missing something, but isn't an investigation part of the due process? Claiming somebody is denied due process because they were threatened with an executive investigation is like a drunk driver saying he can't be pulled over unless it's proven that he's drunk.

It's possible they violated the law, and if so, investigations turn that up.

Being investigated by the regulatory agency that oversees your industry, due primarily to government funds paying for the lion's share of the spending is part of the job in regulated capitalism.

And no, the current health care market isn't a free market, not by any conceivable imagination.

Well its more like a driver claiming due process because he said a cop was lying and the cop threatened to take him to jail. Didn't we have a hullabaloo about that recently?

**Polonius**

I see what you did there.

Investigating a federally regulated program isn't like arresting an individual. In addition, there appears to be evidence to support an investigation.

Somebody complained, and so they said, "hey, let's see if they violated the law."

**Wrexasaur**

Frazzled wrote:Thats not a legal standard for, well anything.

I am the legal standard... for everything.

**Frazzled**

Speaking of defenses. Congress just supplied one. Of course if we use the Shuma standard then President Obama’s going to jail. Get the handcuffs Shuma.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJK9ly3ovzfflxGjV-dxk2sLILKgD9ASKCQG2

Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs
By ERICA WERNER (AP) – 12 hours ago
WASHINGTON — Congress' chief budget officer is contradicting President Barack Obama's oft-stated claim that seniors wouldn't see their Medicare benefits cut under a health care overhaul.
The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators Tuesday that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans would see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.
The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.
Elmendorf said the changes would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries.
Critics say the plans are overpaid, while supporters say they work well.
Obama says cuts to Medicare providers won't reduce seniors' benefits

**Kilkrazy**

Medicare benefits == medical care.
Medicare benefits =/= money.

Therefore, cutting the spend on Medicare =/= cutting benefits on Medicare, assuming the same quality of care can be provided more cheaply.

Other countries manage to provide medical care to the same quality for less money.

Basic economics shows that profits are a surplus taken from the consumer and allocated to the supplier.

Reduction in the suppliers profits reallocates the surplus to the consumer. In the field of medical insurance, reduced profits of insurance companies mean lower insurance costs and taxes for publicly run programmes.