Does Michael Bennet support Obama’s ‘gangster government’ moves on Obamacare?
Totalitarian governments brook no dissent. They put their opponents out of business. In Russia, Putin’s political opponents are in jail. One of this country’s most respected columnists, Michael Barone, charges that President Obama’s “gangster government” is using the same strategies to shut up health insurers who are raising premiums to cover the cost of new benefits mandated by ObamaCare. The lede graphs in his must read column:
“There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.” That sounds like a stern headmistress dressing down some sophomores who have been misbehaving. But it’s actually from a letter sent Thursday from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans—the chief lobbyist for private health insurance companies.
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.
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. But she says that “according to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact ... will be minimal.”
Well, that’s reassuring. Er, except that if that’s the conclusion of “some” industry and academic experts, it’s presumably not the conclusion of all industry and academic experts, or the secretary would have said so.
Does Colorado’s appointed Obamacare Obama Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Washington, DC), condone Obama’s “gangster government?” He’s rubber stamped Obama for almost two years, and he believes any means justifies the end. So, of course, he sees no problem with “gangster government.” He’s helped create it.
Colorado • Politics • Health insurance • Health Insurance Reform •
comments powered by Disqus
Next entry: Ken Buck attacks Michael Bennet’s ‘unfair’ ads