ABC News On McConnell Condemning Dem's Gag Order of Humana

ABC World News Tonight has a segment on McConnell's statement on the Senate floor, in which he called out Sen. Max Baucus and the Obama administration for placing a gag order on Humana.

It is rare to see McConnell so angry, and he has good right. As ABC notes, by silencing Humana from communicating with its subscribers about pending legislation, the Democrats have likely violated the first amendment.

ABC also points out that the substance of the Humana mailing at issue is true: current members of Medicare Advantage would see their benefits cut under the Baucus bill; that's one of the ways in which Democrats will attempt to pay for Obamacare.

Though ABC did not air it, in yesterday's hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed that approximately half of all benefits under Medicare Advantage would be cut:

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-WY): “So, Approximately Half Of The Additional Benefit Would Be Lost To Those Current Medicare Advantage Policy Holders?” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf: “For Those Who Would Be Enrolled Otherwise Under Current Law, Yes.”

Humana had the right -- and arguably the duty -- to inform its customers of how this proposed legislation will affect them. However, as the object of a heavily regulated industry, it is difficult for Humana to protect its free speech rights. If the ACLU really believes in free speech for everyone, it should bring suit on behalf of Humana's subscribers. And if the ACLU is too afraid to stand up to its liberal special interests, then a conservative public interest group needs to step up.

Dems Censor Humana

In an affront to the first amendment, the Obama Administration is investigating Humana for writing to alert its subscribers as to how Obamacare could affect their benefits.

Notwithstanding that corporations have first amendment rights, the Obama Administration -- urged on by Sen. Max Baucus -- is "investigating" whether Humana engaged in "scare tactics."

The administration that was supposed to be about transparency does not want Medicare recipients to receive any information that contradicts the White House talking points. Therefore, it has cut off the insured from receiving Humana's perspective on the proposed health care legislation -- an important source of information for those customers.

I'm not holding my breath for the ACLU to come to Humana's rescue from this government censorship. Nor do I expect the administration and Sen. Baucus to start scrutinizing -- and censoring -- those letters that labor unions write to their members, urging them to contact their members of Congress in favor of Obamacare. This is viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple.

Let the Debate Begin!

To go unnoticed is a blogger's nightmare. So ambivalence was my initial reaction to certain angry readers' comments received yesterday concerning my blog on the announcement of Lt. Col. Andrew Horne's Democratic candidacy to challenge Senate Republic Leader Mitch McConnell.

The harshest note, from a reader named GUSTO, concluded (verbatim): "Joining the Boys Scouts to stisfy Mommys ego is not been as patriotic as serving voluntarily the ARMED FORCES AND IN COMBAT. "

Whew!

For the record, we do support mothers and the Boys Scouts, but before getting too far into substance, here are some rules of engagement:

This site welcomes any and all comments, regardless of political persuasion, other than words of profanity or libel. Unlike the Lexington Herald-Leader's chopping-block approach to McConnell's letters to the editor, this site prints the substance of reader's comments in their entirety within reason.

There are several reasons for this policy. For one thing, society generally gets better results if all sides have the opportunity to debate vigorously with each other before any action is taken.

That, for example, is why the filibuster is so important for the U.S. Senate: this legislative tool ensures that everyone's views are taken into account. As a result, when a bill is enacted into law, it has broad bipartisan support and does not reflect simply the narrow agenda of the party then in power. That is particularly relevant in today's Senate, in which Democrats hold only a razor-thin majority.

Another, more fundamental, reason why free and open dialogue is important is that it is consistent with the First Amendment. A canard of some of McConnell's critics has been that he is "unpatriotic" because he opposes legislation banning the burning of the American flag. McConnell was also criticized for challenging the constitutionality of so-called campaign finance "reform" legislation. In fact, McConnell's stands on these issues demonstrate that he is a highly principled defender of the First Amendment.

More than any other person on Capitol Hill, McConnell's record with respect to his left-wing critics comports with the statement attributed to Voltaire that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Apropos is McConnell's protection of the rights of free speech for those with whom he strongly disagrees -- whether it be flag burners or, more recently, the left-wing Demo-blogs and the MoveOn.org types who use unregulated, big money to spew forth their froth.

Finally, readers' comments are important because they may, of course, show me or another blogger to be wrong -- or they may prove the points of the blog. The latter outcome happened yesterday. I'll explain in another entry to be posted later.

Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.