White House Pressuring Insurance Companies To Not Criticize ObamaCare

[red states rule]

Looks like the heat is starting to get to Obama and his inner circle


<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=281 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/123762" frameBorder=0 width=500 allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>

[revelarts]

INS company executives afraid to complain publicly all asked to keep there mouths shut, those that have spoken out have gotten phone calls from the white house saying maybe
something like
"youss ought not to be talking to peoples in streets about dees kinda tings, uknowwhatimean.. we're working a deal here capish?"
we're good freind right lets keep it that way huh, hows the wife and kids... you got a nice gig yeah yeah....dats real nice very nice house you got there"

Chicago lawyer in the White House
...............
COOPER: So, I mean, what specifically are, do they say they’re being told to keep quiet about?
GRIFFIN: About the fact that clarifications were made to the Affordable Care Act after the law was passed(is that legal?) , and those clarifications are forcing the insurance industry to drop insurance plans that do not meet ObamaCare requirements. There is a lot of coverage now required in these plans that was not part of many people’s private healthcare plans. Those are the people, Anderson, who are being dropped. And despite all the rhetoric, I should say, from the president, you simply cannot keep your current healthcare plan if it does not meet these requirements. Laszewski says the insurance industry is embarrassed about cancelling the plans, but in an interview last week, he told me the administration was warned about this very scenario and ignored the advice.
Quote:

<tbody>
Griffin also suggested that insurance companies were adhering to the White House gag order because, “It is the federal government that’s the biggest customer for these insurance companies.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney labeled the accusations “preposterous and inaccurate,” which is similar to how the administration reacted when it was accused of having foreknowledge of the fact that millions of Americans would lose their healthcare coverage due to Obamacare. It subsequently emerged that White House officials knew this would be the case at least three years in advance.


</tbody>

[Little-Acorn]

In the video in the OP, a guy describes how various insurances officials say that if they speak out against Obamacare or mention anything about problems it is causing, they get a phone call from the White House, pressuring them, urging them not to speak out about any problems or disagreements they may have.

Umm... how is this NOT a flagrant violation of their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech?

[Arbo]

Why would they speak out against it, it's a giveaway to the insurance industry. If you thought they were living large before, just wait until every citizen is forced to buy their product.

[red states rule]

Why would they speak out against it, it's a giveaway to the insurance industry. If you thought they were living large before, just wait until every citizen is forced to buy their product.

"giveaway"? They are providing a service. A service that most people were happy with until Obama stuck his nose into the market.

Do you know what the profit margin is with health insurance companies?

What is next from you - bellowing how tax cuts are "unaffordable"?

[red states rule]

In the video in the OP, a guy describes how various insurances officials say that if they speak out against Obamacare or mention anything about problems it is causing, they get a phone call from the White House, pressuring them, urging them not to speak out about any problems or disagreements they may have.

Umm... how is this NOT a flagrant violation of their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech?

Or they get a visit from Obama's Internal Revenge Service

[Arbo]

"giveaway"? They are providing a service. A service that most people were happy with until Obama stuck his nose into the market.

Do you know what the profit margin is with health insurance companies?

What is next from you - bellowing how tax cuts are "unaffordable"?

Are you really so dense you can't understand basic english? My comment was in reference to insurance companies being in collusion with Obama and the ACA gang because no company is dumb enough to turn down the possibility of government forcing all citizens to pay them money. Good lord, get a clue… for a change.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In the video in the OP, a guy describes how various insurances officials say that if they speak out against Obamacare or mention anything about problems it is causing, they get a phone call from the White House, pressuring them, urging them not to speak out about any problems or disagreements they may have.

Umm... how is this NOT a flagrant violation of their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech? Can be considered nothing but a threat since it comes directly from the Executive branch of big government. Even more than just an attempt to limit free speech it is an attempt to stop that of "political free speech" since the criticism are of government policy(bamboycare). Surely an illegal act but hey doesn't matter as Obama has proven countless times that he is not bound by any damn law! Only thing legal is what he himself says is legal and Constitutional!! We only have two political parties and one of them has went directly down the treason road with its new asshat leader IMHO. See, that's my free speech right to say, my political free speech right to say. How long until saying something like that will get me arrested or taken out by a drone strike!?? If Obama gets any more stolen power not long at all IMHO. YET WE HAVE PEOPLE ON OUR SIDE CRYING HE HAS DONE NOTHING THAT WARRANTS HIS IMPEACHMENT AND PROSECUTION!!!!! That's just sad as hell IMHO. --Tyr

[logroller]

In the video in the OP, a guy describes how various insurances officials say that if they speak out against Obamacare or mention anything about problems it is causing, they get a phone call from the White House, pressuring them, urging them not to speak out about any problems or disagreements they may have.

Umm... how is this NOT a flagrant violation of their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech?
They aren't being ordered to not speak, nor punished for their actions, are they?

they're being urged not to speak-- which is their (the White House) right to free speech. Unless they punish them in some way, there's not really anything illegal about calling someone and telling them to stfu.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They aren't being ordered to not speak, nor punished for their actions, are they?

they're being urged not to speak-- which is their (the White House) right to free speech. Unless they punish them in some way, there's not really anything illegal about calling someone and telling them to stfu. I ever so strongly disagree on that count. The Executive branch of our Republic is charged with enforcing the law of the land , overseeing the judicial system and guarding the rights of all the American citizens. Nowhere in its responsibility and authority is it to be allowed to strong arm citizens or private businesses into not exercising their rights of free speech. And to do so by direct and private contact by phone is certainly a transgression IMHO. THE FEDS HAVE THE LARGEST BULLY PULPIT IN THE WORLD SO HAVE NO TRUE NEED OR ANY RIGHT TO ISSUE SUCH UNDUE AND ILLEGAL PRESSURE UPON CITIZENS OR BUSINESSES !! I was shocked to read your attempt at justifying this action coming from the government. The federal government is not a citizen nor a private business and has been charged especially the Executive branch with maintaining our right to free speech not restricting it by any means that is not prescribed by current law. A call to STFU coming from the office of the President can be considered nothing but a true threat!! How the hell could it not be!!!!! Here is an example-- an example only ok----not a true threat-- What if I called you or Jim and told you to just STFU? Would either of you consider it a threat? How about if I had the awesome power of the might of the government, IRS, MILTARY ,POLICE ETC BEHIND ME? Would either of you think it a threat then??? -- USED AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY, AS BOTH YOU GUYS ARE BY NO MEANS ON MY LIST OF ASSHATS OR ENEMIES... :laugh: NO SIR, DIRECT CONTACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NEVER BE USED IN SUCH AN IMTIMIDATING MANNER! TO APPLAUD OR EXPRESS GOOD TIDINGS YES BUT TO EXPRESS ANGER ,DISSATISFACTION AND/OR THREATS VEILED OR NOT IS A HUGE NO/NO! I'd say certainly illegal but we all know Obama is above the law now, don't we? Tyr

[Arbo]

I ever so strongly disagree on that count. The Executive branch of our Republic is charged with enforcing the law of the land , overseeing the judicial system and guarding the rights of all the American citizens. Nowhere in its responsibility and authority is it to be allowed to strong arm citizens or private businesses into not exercising their rights of free speech. And to do so by direct and private contact by phone is certainly a transgression IMHO. THE FEDS HAVE THE LARGEST BULLY PULPIT IN THE WORLD SO HAVE NO TRUE NEED OR ANY RIGHT TO ISSUE SUCH UNDUE AND ILLEGAL PRESSURE UPON CITIZENS OR BUSINESSES !! I was shocked to read your attempt at justifying this action coming from the government. The federal government is not a citizen nor a private business and has been charged especially the Executive branch with maintaining our right to free speech not restricting it by any means that is not prescribed by current law. A call to STFU coming from the office of the President can be considered nothing but a true threat!! How the hell could it not be!!!!! Here is an example-- an example only ok----not a true threat-- What if I called you or Jim and told you to just STFU? Would either of you consider it a threat? How about if I had the awesome power of the might of the government, IRS, MILTARY ,POLICE ETC BEHIND ME? Would either of you think it a threat then??? -- USED AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY, AS BOTH YOU GUYS ARE BY NO MEANS ON MY LIST OF ASSHATS OR ENEMIES... :laugh: NO SIR, DIRECT CONTACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NEVER BE USED IN SUCH AN IMTIMIDATING MANNER! TO APPLAUD OR EXPRESS GOOD TIDINGS YES BUT TO EXPRESS ANGER ,DISSATISFACTION AND/OR THREATS VEILED OR NOT IS A HUGE NO/NO! I'd say certainly illegal but we all know Obama is above the law now, don't we? Tyr

So what you are saying is you did not comprehend what he actually wrote? Because he said if they were not actually taking any punitive actions to stop them from speaking, there was nothing wrong going on. Just restating it because in your desire to run off and rant some more, you appear to have missed it.

[logroller]

I ever so strongly disagree on that count. The Executive branch of our Republic is charged with enforcing the law of the land , overseeing the judicial system and guarding the rights of all the American citizens. Nowhere in its responsibility and authority is it to be allowed to strong arm citizens or private businesses into not exercising their rights of free speech. And to do so by direct and private contact by phone is certainly a transgression IMHO. THE FEDS HAVE THE LARGEST BULLY PULPIT IN THE WORLD SO HAVE NO TRUE NEED OR ANY RIGHT TO ISSUE SUCH UNDUE AND ILLEGAL PRESSURE UPON CITIZENS OR BUSINESSES !! I was shocked to read your attempt at justifying this action coming from the government. The federal government is not a citizen nor a private business and has been charged especially the Executive branch with maintaining our right to free speech not restricting it by any means that is not prescribed by current law. A call to STFU coming from the office of the President can be considered nothing but a true threat!! How the hell could it not be!!!!! Here is an example-- an example only ok----not a true threat-- What if I called you or Jim and told you to just STFU? Would either of you consider it a threat? How about if I had the awesome power of the might of the government, IRS, MILTARY ,POLICE ETC BEHIND ME? Would either of you think it a threat then??? -- USED AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY, AS BOTH YOU GUYS ARE BY NO MEANS ON MY LIST OF ASSHATS OR ENEMIES... :laugh: NO SIR, DIRECT CONTACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NEVER BE USED IN SUCH AN IMTIMIDATING MANNER! TO APPLAUD OR EXPRESS GOOD TIDINGS YES BUT TO EXPRESS ANGER ,DISSATISFACTION AND/OR THREATS VEILED OR NOT IS A HUGE NO/NO! I'd say certainly illegal but we all know Obama is above the law now, don't we? Tyr
So in your opinion the office of the president doesn't have a right to free speech. Perhaps you could offer some law that supports that assertion. I doubt you can because, on its face, such a law would violate the constitution.

[Little-Acorn]

They aren't being ordered to not speak, nor punished for their actions, are they?


Nope, "Hey, nice company ya got there, be a shame if anything happened to it, y'know?" is not an order or a punishment.

:cuckoo:

(Wondering if anyone can possibly be as obtuse as this liberal is pretending to be)

[logroller]

Nope, "Hey, nice company ya got there, be a shame if anything happened to it, y'know?" is not an order or a punishment.

:cuckoo:

(Wondering if anyone can possibly be as obtuse as this liberal is pretending to be)
Is that a direct quote from someone in the administration or just you taking liberties to make your case? If the former, you should attribute it as such-- otherwise, it's just you being liberal.

[red states rule]

Is that a direct quote from someone in the administration or just you taking liberties to make your case? If the former, you should attribute it as such-- otherwise, it's just you being liberal.

Right LR, the same administration that used the IRS to stalk, intimidate, harass, and silence Tea Party members and conservatives from openly opposing Obama's policies - would never consider issuing threats to insurance companies to silence any criticism of Obama's "crowning achievement"

[tailfins]

"giveaway"? They are providing a service. A service that most people were happy with until Obama stuck his nose into the market.

Do you know what the profit margin is with health insurance companies?

What is next from you - bellowing how tax cuts are "unaffordable"?

You're wrong there. Health insurance and healthcare services were obscenely expensive before Obamacare. I'm hoping for someone to make cash healthcare services easier. Why does an insurance company need to be involved for routine care?

[red states rule]

You're wrong there. Health insurance and healthcare services were obscenely expensive before Obamacare. I'm hoping for someone to make cash healthcare services easier. Why does an insurance company need to be involved for routine care?

Eh every pol I have seen showed about 85% or more were happy with the coverage they had

Also I state again, the average profit margin for ins companies is about 8%

I would love to see how popular Obamacare is now given all the lies and massive cost to taxpayers

[Arbo]

Right LR, the same administration that used the IRS to stalk, intimidate, harass, and silence Tea Party members and conservatives from openly opposing Obama's policies - would never consider issuing threats to insurance companies to silence any criticism of Obama's "crowning achievement"

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda… all nonsense and CT unless there is solid evidence. And solid evidence is not your forte.

[red states rule]

Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda… all nonsense and CT unless there is solid evidence. And solid evidence is not your forte.

And kissing Obama black ass is your specialty

The pattern of intimidation is clear and this story does have multiple sources

[Arbo]

And kissing Obama black ass is your specialty

The only thing you have in abidance is ignorance. It is shown every time you make such idiotic statements.

[Arbo]

The only thing you have in abidance is ignorance. It is shown every time you make such idiotic statements.

abundance ..

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So in your opinion the office of the president doesn't have a right to free speech. Perhaps you could offer some law that supports that assertion. I doubt you can because, on its face, such a law would violate the constitution. What law is it using when intimidating a citizen or a business and ordering( suggesting in a manner inconsistent with the delegated authority and ethical activities of that branch of government) that person or business to cease exercising their right to free speech? No sir , you don't get to force me to defend the right of a citizen or business to criticize government policy! That is the very foundation of our free speech rights yet by your question you attempt to try to get me to cite specific case law. I do not need to because the justification for my accusation is the free speech rights of the citizens and even that of a business which are especially dear and especially protected when it's political criticism!!! Yet you dared to act as if that statement does not exist or apply!! How dare those GD goons use the force of that office for such intimidation tactics. Now you can counter if you can refute that Obama admin. calling and telling them to stop criticizing is NOT INTIMIDATION!! Good luck on that because even a 6 year old will know better. If the Feds can --LEGALLY-- single out a citizen , a citizen group or a business to directly CONFRONT and suggest or demand it cease speaking then what we have is a form of soft tyranny just waiting to be called on its demand/suggestion in order to exercise its might! As in chess the threat is so often much stronger than the actual execution but in government its also Unconstitutional. Government has the bully pulpit (thus no need or right to intimidate like that) and has not a legal leg to stand on for such dastardly tactics. Does not take a law degree to know that my friend.... Government can not issue a public decree to cease and desist discussing that subject(because its illegal censorship) so it has absolutely no right to directly confront those businesses . Yet it did , so you prove it has THE LEGAL authority to do so and if you do THAT you just proven a dictatorship is Constitutional IMHO. -Tyr

[aboutime]

Right LR, the same administration that used the IRS to stalk, intimidate, harass, and silence Tea Party members and conservatives from openly opposing Obama's policies - would never consider issuing threats to insurance companies to silence any criticism of Obama's "crowning achievement"


red states rule. Kindly do me a favor, and please answer this question?

Does logroller sound more like a member of the Clinton family, or the Obama family/administration?

Can't really tell whether log is prouder to be a Liberal, or intentionally Hiding behind a Liberal.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What law is it using when intimidating a citizen or a business and ordering( suggesting in a manner inconsistent with the delegated authority and ethical activities of that branch of government) that person or business to cease exercising their right to free speech? No sir , you don't get to force me to defend the right of a citizen or business to criticize government policy! That is the very foundation of our free speech rights yet by your question you attempt to try to get me to cite specific case law. I do not need to because the justification for my accusation is the free speech rights of the citizens and even that of a business which are especially dear and especially protected when it's political criticism!!! Yet you dared to act as if that statement does not exist or apply!! How dare those GD goons use the force of that office for such intimidation tactics. Now you can counter if you can refute that Obama admin. calling and telling them to stop criticizing is NOT INTIMIDATION!! Good luck on that because even a 6 year old will know better. If the Feds can --LEGALLY-- single out a citizen , a citizen group or a business to directly CONFRONT and suggest or demand it cease speaking then what we have is a form of soft tyranny just waiting to be called on its demand/suggestion in order to exercise its might! As in chess the threat is so often much stronger than the actual execution but in government its also Unconstitutional. Government has the bully pulpit (thus no need or right to intimidate like that) and has not a legal leg to stand on for such dastardly tactics. Does not take a law degree to know that my friend.... Government can not issue a public decree to cease and desist discussing that subject(because its illegal censorship) so it has absolutely no right to directly confront those businesses . Yet it did , so you prove it has THE LEGAL authority to do so and if you do THAT you just proven a dictatorship is Constitutional IMHO. -Tyr Discussed this with my attorney friend tonight, as we trick or treat with his son and another Filipino boy. I asked him about this and he said hell yes it was an illegal act but the victimized parties will not dare to file suit because they'd get smashed a dozen other ways by other entities as punishment. Also stated it most certainly was Unconstitutional action taken by the office of the President but what's new about that he asked? .. , nothing I replied they do so because nobody in the other two branches has the guts to actually call them on it and push the issue to a decision!! Last but not least I asked Jimmy if Obama has ever done anything to be impeached and prosecuted for and he laughed and said, sure he has but he only has if the proper authorities muster the courage to seek justice and carry it all the way to a decision!! Otherwise why even start ...My answer was if they started and carried it all the way perhaps it could avert a Civil War in the future and he replied , perhaps it would start one! I replied if that is the case we would be winners either way because it's far better to fight sooner rather than later if fighting becomes a definite must.. As it stands now they are prepping for starting one on their time table.. If we allow that then we are at a very severe disadvantage and will likely lose IMHO. Now this guy is a calm cool headed attorney so his judgment and admitting the truth about Obama should weigh more heavily than my opinion and views. Everybody here already knows that I dearly hate the ffing traitorous bastard... :laugh:--Tyr

[fj1200]

Discussed this with my attorney friend tonight, as we trick or treat with his son and another Filipino boy. I asked him about this and he said hell yes it was an illegal act but the victimized parties will not dare to file suit because they'd get smashed a dozen other ways by other entities as punishment. Also stated it most certainly was Unconstitutional action taken by the office of the President but what's new about that he asked?

But what exactly is the illegal act and for what harm would they sue? I agree that they're trying to shut everyone up and keep the ACA message clean but the question is the illegality of it. Congress should get off its butt and add this to the hearings.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

But what exactly is the illegal act and for what harm would they sue? I agree that they're trying to shut everyone up and keep the ACA message clean but the question is the illegality of it. Congress should get off its butt and add this to the hearings. I imagine for answers to that I'd have to have been a paying client. ;) Still he assured me it was an illegal action taken by those making the calls. To get Obama on it one would have to prove it was ordered by him. Of course we know with his ego and arrogance his people aren't just doing as they ffing please without him ok'ing it. Sure proving it may be hard and may even be impossible but by God somebody should have to face the music over it.... It takes courage to do that and could they(Congress) even do it if the victimized parties refused(out of fear) to be a part of it?--Tyr

[fj1200]

I imagine for answers to that I'd have to have been a paying client. ;) Still he assured me it was an illegal action taken by those making the calls. To get Obama on it one would have to prove it was ordered by him. Of course we know with his ego and arrogance his people aren't just doing as they ffing please without him ok'ing it. Sure proving it may be hard and may even be impossible but by God somebody should have to face the music over it.... It takes courage to do that and could they(Congress) even do it if the victimized parties refused(out of fear) to be a part of it?--Tyr

Your not party to anything so it's just a matter of friends chattin' it up; no charge. :woohoo: But that's why we need a Congress that cares about its governmental function and will get to the bottom of it via hearings but I'm not even sure what the illegal action would be beyond conjecture. I fear that we'll just need to settle in and start making sure that the Republicans retain the House, hopefully capture the Senate, and look for a good effective candidate for 2016 because BO isn't going anywhere. If they can just keep racking up these little wins which may not look extremely impressive on their own but they can add up to some big wins next year.

[Arbo]

Discussed this with my attorney friend tonight, as we trick or treat with his son and another Filipino boy.

A friend of a friend of a friend said that… :laugh: Well, that's solid evidence, for sure. :laugh:

BTW, what does the race of a kid have to do with anything?

[red states rule]

red states rule. Kindly do me a favor, and please answer this question?

Does logroller sound more like a member of the Clinton family, or the Obama family/administration?

Can't really tell whether log is prouder to be a Liberal, or intentionally Hiding behind a Liberal.

He sounds like Chris Matthews when he is snotty and Jay Carney when he is simply talking down to people. LR is one of those people who claim to be "independent" (like Chris Matthews) but their actions speak much louder then their words

[red states rule]

Meanwhile most of the liberal media ignore these story - nothing new




Tuesday evening (noted by Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters early Wednesday morning (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/30/cnn-white-house-pressuring-insurance-companies-not-criticize-obamacar)), CNN's Drew Griffin reported on Anderson Cooper's show (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1310/29/acd.01.html) that there is a "behind the scenes attempt by the White House to at least keep insurers from publicly criticizing what is happening under this Affordable Care Act rollout."
Such a report occurring during a Republican or conservative administration would spread like wildfire. Sadly and predictably, that hasn't happened with CNN's bombshell. Using search strings which should have surfaced relevant results if present, I couldn't find anything on the topic at the Associated Press (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/external/search.hosted.ap.org/wireCoreTool/Search?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&query=white+house+pressure), New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/white+house+pressure/since1851/allresults/1/allauthors/newest/), the Politco (http://find.politico.com/?reporters=&dt=all&key=white+house+pressure+insurance), or Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/search.html?st=white+house+insurance+pressure&submit=Submit).


A Google News search on "white house pressure insurance" (not in quotes, sorted by date) at 11:15 a.m. ET returned 12 relevant results (https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=white+house+pressure&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=white+house+pressure+insurance&rls=en&start=10&tbm=nws&tbs=sbd:1,nsd:1). Besides CNN, Fox News, and the UK Daily Mail, all are center-right alternative media outlets.
Here are key excerpts from the CNN transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1310/29/acd.01.html) (bolds are mine throughout this post):

ANDERSON COOPER: ... More breaking news, evidence that the Obama administration is leaning on insurance companies to keep a lid on problems with the health care law rollout.

... DREW GRIFFIN, CNN SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, what's going on is behind the scenes attempt by the White House to at least keep insurers from publicly criticizing what is happening under this Affordable Care Act rollout. Basically if you speak out, if you are quoted, you're going to get a call from the White House, pressure to be quiet.

Several sources tell me and my colleague Chris Frates that insurance executives are being told to keep quiet. Bob Laszewski who heads the Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consulting firm for big insurance and an outspoken critic of Obamacare, says he is getting calls from these executives who want him to speak out, Anderson, for them about the problems because they feel defenseless against the White House P.R. team.

Laszewski told me today, "The White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry including the trade associations to keep quiet." And sources telling us they feared White House retribution.

COOPER: So, I mean, what specifically are -- do they say that they're being told to keep quiet about?

GRIFFIN: About the fact that clarifications were made to the Affordable Care Act after the law was passed and those clarifications are forcing the insurance industry to drop insurance plans that do not meet Obamacare requirements. There's a lot of coverage now required in these plans, that was not part of many people's private health care plans. Those are the people, Anderson, who are being dropped and despite all the ... rhetoric, I should say, from the president. You simply cannot keep your current health care plan if it does not meet these requirements.

Laszewski says the insurance industry is embarrassed about cancelling the plans but in an interview last week he told me the administration was warned about this very scenario and they ignored the advice.

GRIFFIN: ... basically the insurance companies are in a position to just be quiet for fear of offending basically their biggest source of income.
CNN seems squeamish about its own report. The front-end topics list at the transcript link gives no indication of the White House pressure it reported:

Warning Obamacare is Not Ready for Launch; Insurance Execs versus Obamacare; Did Obama Mislead on Health Care Law?; Interview with Glenn Greenwald; Greenwald On NSA Leaks: "We Don't Tell Terrorists Anything They Didn't Already Know"; Body Parts Found in L.A. Sewage Plants; Macneill's Daughter Describes Finding Mother in Tub; Macy's Accused of Racially Profiling a Man Who Was Detained By Police After Buying Expensive WatchThe topic description makes it look like the "Insurance Execs" are the bad guys doing harm to poor little Obamacare.
All of this enough to make one wonder if the same pressures raining down on insurance carriers are being applied to the news organizations themselves. One almost hopes that's the case, because the alternative would have to be that they really don't think the White House pressure is news. There's no way they would come to the same conclusion about a similar matter during a Republican or conservative presidential administration.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2013/10/31/press-ignoring-cnns-report-wh-pressure-health-insurance-industry-stay-mu#ixzz2jNJUKkRv

[Arbo]

He sounds like Chris Matthews when he is snotty and Jay Carney when he is simply talking down to people. LR is one of those people who claim to be "independent" (like Chris Matthews) but their actions speak much louder then their words

What 'actions' would those be? Do you know him personally thus have been around to see him 'in action', or are you just making more false claims, as in reality apart from the forum you have no interaction with him, and have never seen anything from him but his words?

[logroller]

What law is it using... the first amendment. I thought that was abundantly clear in mentioning free speech; so what law says otherwise? What law was broken?

[red states rule]

It is fun to watch the liberal media try and avoid saying the word LIE when talking about millions losing their coverage thanks to Obamacare


<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=293 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/123807" frameBorder=0 width=520 allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>

[red states rule]

the first amendment. I thought that was abundantly clear in mentioning free speech; so what law says otherwise? What law was broken?

So no response to my question to you LR?

In case you missed it here it is


Right LR, the same administration that used the IRS to stalk, intimidate, harass, and silence Tea Party members and conservatives from openly opposing Obama's policies - would never consider issuing threats to insurance companies to silence any criticism of Obama's "crowning achievement"

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

the first amendment. I thought that was abundantly clear in mentioning free speech; so what law says otherwise? What law was broken? No , that was what the ADMIN WAS ATTEMPTING TO STOP-- FREE SPEECH.. I THINK YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. Instructing, complaining about or warning them to STFU was not upholding their right to free speech. If it was not intimidation then what was it. Government has no authority and no right to attempt to intimidate like that, as that is a good step towards censorship. The Feds have the Bully Pulpit AND ARE EXPRESSLY BARRED FROM ATTEMPTING ANY SUCH STRONG ARM TACTICS. Especially the Executive branch as it's charged with defending free speech!!! Here we had it attempting to silence it's critics (that's censorship) if THAT IS ALLOWED where does it stop?? You can not be this confused. Remember free speech especially where political speech/criticism is concerned is to be ever so strictly guarded. Obama having some of his goons called those companies and tell them to stop criticizing can be nothing but an attempt to stifle free speech by the very branch of government charged expressly with protecting that right!!! If you can prove otherwise have at it my friend. --Tyr

[aboutime]

How bout a reminder?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Any attempts by Obama, Holder, or any other entity, namely any other American to prevent the exercise of the 1st amendment as written is....UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[red states rule]

How bout a reminder?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Any attempts by Obama, Holder, or any other entity, namely any other American to prevent the exercise of the 1st amendment as written is....UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20131030-B.Lie20131029060201.jpg

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz110413dAPR20131104104514.jpg