Sebelius, WH tactics on ObamaCare dissent âthuggeryâ
POSTED AT 10:55 AM ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY
Last week, I wrote about the threat from Kathleen Sebelius to lock out insurers who dared to dissent from the official ObamaCare line of lower costs and bigger benefits for all. Today, both Michael Barone and the Wall Street Journal attack the White House and Sebelius for their âthuggeryâ in attempting to silence straightforward and rational criticisms as well as perfectly predictable increases in premium rates from accelerated mandates. Barone calls this an example of âgangster governmentâ:
Nothing, if one understands the industry and its pricing mechanisms, which the White House obviously does not. They do, however, understand the political costs of rising premiums in the wake of ObamaCareâs passage, and they are using political intimidation to prevent the damage. They have no other way to react; they have locked themselves into a corner with ObamaCare, and contra Nancy Pelosi, the more this rolls out, the more people will understand that the White House has created another way for health costs to go up without delivering better care.
Yes, this is thuggery, but in a free-market system, it would be an empty threat. This is precisely the reason why government should not run private-sector industries â the management of these systems becomes political rather than fiduciary or achievement based. And itâs started already.
POSTED AT 10:55 AM ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2010 BY ED MORRISSEY
Last week, I wrote about the threat from Kathleen Sebelius to lock out insurers who dared to dissent from the official ObamaCare line of lower costs and bigger benefits for all. Today, both Michael Barone and the Wall Street Journal attack the White House and Sebelius for their âthuggeryâ in attempting to silence straightforward and rational criticisms as well as perfectly predictable increases in premium rates from accelerated mandates. Barone calls this an example of âgangster governmentâ:
The WSJ puts its objections to Sebeliusâ âthuggeryâ in an editorial today:
The WSJ offers an explanation of this reaction, which is that the Obama administration clearly doesnât understand risk pools. When one increases the cost in risk pools, premiums go up. Imposing new mandates on coverage increases costs. Whatâs so difficult to understand about these premium increases?
Nothing, if one understands the industry and its pricing mechanisms, which the White House obviously does not. They do, however, understand the political costs of rising premiums in the wake of ObamaCareâs passage, and they are using political intimidation to prevent the damage. They have no other way to react; they have locked themselves into a corner with ObamaCare, and contra Nancy Pelosi, the more this rolls out, the more people will understand that the White House has created another way for health costs to go up without delivering better care.
Yes, this is thuggery, but in a free-market system, it would be an empty threat. This is precisely the reason why government should not run private-sector industries â the management of these systems becomes political rather than fiduciary or achievement based. And itâs started already.
