Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Independent Payment Advisory Board (Obamacare's most anti-constitutional act ever)
CATO Institute ^ | June 14, 2012 | Diane Cohen and Michael F. Cannon

Posted on 09/01/2012 4:33:06 AM PDT by listenhillary

When a member of Congress introduces legislation, the Constitution requires that legislative proposal to secure the approval of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the president (unless Congress overrides a presidential veto) before it can become law. In all cases, either chamber of Congress may block it.

In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) created the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB "proposal" requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board's edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB's edicts in court.

Worse, PPACA forbids Congress from repealing IPAB outside of a seven-month window in the year 2017, and even then requires a three-fifths majority in both chambers. A heretofore unreported feature of PPACA dictates that if Congress misses that repeal window, PPACA prohibits Congress from ever altering an IPAB "proposal." By restricting lawmaking powers of future Congresses, PPACA thus attempts to amend the Constitution by statute.

More by Michael F. Cannon

IPAB's unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB's lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

The creation of IPAB is an admission that the federal government's efforts to plan America's health care sector have failed. It is proof of the axiom that government control of the economy threatens democracy.

IPAB may be the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress, and it is therefore tempting to dismiss IPAB as an absurdity that the body politic will soon reject. Until that occurs, IPAB will potentially empower just one unelected government official to impose any tax or regulation, to appropriate funds, and to wield other lawmaking powers.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deathpanel; ipab; obamacare
This must be ripped out at the roots and copious amounts of pesticide applied to prevent it's regrowth.
1 posted on 09/01/2012 4:33:12 AM PDT by listenhillary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

Anyone screaming and demanding? I thought so


2 posted on 09/01/2012 4:38:39 AM PDT by ronnie raygun (bb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

talk about getting between a woman and her doctor!


3 posted on 09/01/2012 4:39:48 AM PDT by Scotswife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

This is SUCH a great gift to Congress...they just figured out how to pass anything without a vote....that it goes nowhere until We the People yank it up by the roots. That will require a hyper-Tea Party Congress.


4 posted on 09/01/2012 4:42:54 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
By restricting lawmaking powers of future Congresses, PPACA thus attempts to amend the Constitution by statute

An obvious impossibility.

Suppose Obamacare goes into effect (that can't happen, because that's not its purpose). Further, suppose it works as planned.

Then, in 2036, a Congress passes a law, which is signed by the President, dissolving IPAB.

It is inconceivable that IPAB could continue. There would be no basis to overrule such a law.

5 posted on 09/01/2012 4:43:02 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Diseases desperate grown are by desperate appliance relieved or not at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

If one entity or person is allowed to impose irrevocable laws, what keeps them from declaring themselves dictator for life?


6 posted on 09/01/2012 4:45:02 AM PDT by STYRO (Do not accept unconstitutional government as legitimate government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

7 posted on 09/01/2012 4:45:50 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun

What is the point of screaming and demanding? If I remember correctly, several people on this forum are still enamored with Roberts logic and poker playing skills ensuring a Republican route in November because he allowed this monstrosity to stand, yeah that’s the ticket lol.


8 posted on 09/01/2012 4:47:09 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

bookmark


9 posted on 09/01/2012 4:49:08 AM PDT by GiovannaNicoletta (In the last days, mockers will come with their mocking... (2 Peter 3:3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
"it is therefore tempting to dismiss IPAB as an absurdity that the body politic will soon reject. Until that occurs, IPAB will potentially empower just one unelected government official to impose any tax or regulation, to appropriate funds, and to wield other lawmaking powers."

We will see when it is rejected and removed. Until that time it is "the law of the land".

10 posted on 09/01/2012 4:50:11 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

I had heard nothing about this lawsuit.

“Diane Cohen is senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute and lead counsel in Coons v. Geithner, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of IPAB.”


11 posted on 09/01/2012 4:51:26 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ronnie raygun

I doubt any of our legislators even realize this part of Obamacare is even there.
They never read the bill. They still haven’t read it.

They don’t care. they are only up there on the hill sucking up the goodies.

Did they reject the recess appointments, The Don’t ask Don’t tell removal, the Amnesty law Obama passed himself?What have they done about Obama’s attack on religion?
What have they done about a lack of a budget for the last 3 years?

The Congress is under the influence of a man they fear because if they say or do anything Obama doesn’t like they are accused of racism, and that frightens them to petrification.


12 posted on 09/01/2012 4:53:44 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB "proposal" requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board's edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB's edicts in court.

So if the IPAB decides that redheads should not be treated for breast cancer because some "govt" study shows that cancer treatments are not effective on that group, they can be eliminated from coverage? (insert any other stupid idea there)....and unless the House, Senate, and President all catch on to this ridiculous edict and all agree on some "substitute", it will become law? And, let's say those folks are asleep at the wheel, and I happen to be a redhead who develops breat cancer, I can't challenge their reccomendations in court? IOW, I'm toast?

This is beyond frightening. The "brilliant" chief justice Roberts thought this was constitutional?
13 posted on 09/01/2012 4:58:27 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
IPAB is a mini government within the federal bureaucracy. Not only does it create rather than merely implement Medicare cost-cutting policy, but it has greater power within its realm than elected officials — including the president of the United States. Indeed, its “advice” is really a mandate that literally can become law over a presidential veto.

Not only that, but IPAB began this year(2012), with $15 million to be spent getting the board’s infrastructure up and running. Soon, the president will be nominating its 15 “expert” members of the board of directors, each of whom is subject to Senate confirmation.

Expect these nominations to be among President Obama’s first actions should he be re-elected. Indeed, he will have little time to waste. According to the terms of the Affordable Care Act, IPAB must submit its first draft recommendations to the health and human services secretary by September 1, 2013. Its first Medicare cost-cutting goals must become law by August 15, 2014.

Why did I write “must” become law” instead of “may”? IPAB’s unique “fast track” authority divests Congress of discretion regarding the amount of money to be cut from Medicare once IPAB has submitted its “advice.” Get a load of these legislative handcuffs:

By January 15, 2014, IPAB must submit a proposal to Congress and the president for reaching Medicare savings targets in the coming year.

The majority leaders in the House and Senate must introduce bills incorporating the board’s proposal the day they receive it.

Congress cannot “consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report;that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the board” if such changes fail to meet the board’s budgetary target.

By April 1, all legislative committees must complete their evaluation. Any committee that fails to meet the deadline is barred from further consideration of the bill.

If Congress does not pass the proposal or a substitute plan meeting the IPAB’s financial target before August 15, or if the president vetoes the proposal passed by Congress, the original Independent Payment Advisory Board recommendations automatically take effect.

From IPAB: the part of Obamacare that can’t be repealed Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/06/ipab-the-part-of-obamacare-that-cant-be-repealed/#ixzz25DcKPSYm

14 posted on 09/01/2012 5:07:07 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

“As the law now stands, IPAB can’t be dissolved before 2017, and then only by a three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress. Oh, and the legislative stake through the heart can only be introduced between January 3 and February 1 of that year, and must be passed by August 15. Did I say handcuffs earlier? I meant straight jacket.

Whether the terms of an existing law can bind subsequent Congresses remains an open constitutional question. But getting the matter finally decided by the courts would take years. Besides, we can no longer trust judges and justices to do the right constitutional thing even when they know what it is.”

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/06/ipab-the-part-of-obamacare-that-cant-be-repealed/2/


15 posted on 09/01/2012 5:09:22 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
Hold on here. It's more important that our national attention be directed to “what is that crazy ‘Mormonism’?...”/s

Nancy and her Giant Gavel-brator and The Slock-puppet-in-Chief are worse than criminals.

Ha! Change indeed!

16 posted on 09/01/2012 5:27:50 AM PDT by Voter62vb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

.....because some “govt” study shows that cancer treatments are not effective on that group....

In the Soviet Union, Stalin set up a guy named Lysenko to direct their agriculture programs. He conducted ‘research’ on techniques to grow crops. It didn’t matter that his so called research could not be verified by other scientist or agricultural workers. His conclusions were considered to be the law of the land. They had very poor crop production under Lysenko, and people that tried to oppose him were persecuted in various ways

I believe all this crap about using research to determine the ‘best’ ways to conduct medicine is really a way to place the absolute power into the hands of a few gov’t officials. Once they make the statement that “research shows...”, or “our study suggests....”, then nobody will be able to challenge (legally) their dictates. This is also the direction that public education is headed.


17 posted on 09/01/2012 5:28:00 AM PDT by paint_your_wagon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

PPACA Is that pronounced, “Macaca”?


18 posted on 09/01/2012 5:28:44 AM PDT by outofsalt ("If History teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paint_your_wagon

Yep.....and, as taxpayers, we will pay for those studies that will be used to define the health care coverage. This law is truly evil.


19 posted on 09/01/2012 5:34:59 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

IPAB was the brainchild of one Dr. (and I use that term very loosely) Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of the foul mouthed mayor of Chicago. His basis is that there is a finite amount of health care dollars and they need to be allocated to the care of those Productive Citizens who basically can vote for the Democrat party. When crafting this monstrosity, they were under the delusion that the Democrat party would keep winning for the next fifty years according to James Carville. 2010 put a dent in his theory, which was based on, I believe, their having complete and total control of the Education/Indoctrination sector thereby guaranteeing that their time had come to foist upon the masses all of their Communist/Marxist ideas.


20 posted on 09/01/2012 5:45:17 AM PDT by Semperfiwife (Politicians are like diapers. They need to be changed often and for the same reasons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: paint_your_wagon
...Stuff about Lysenko in Soviet Union...

I believe all this crap about using research to determine the ‘best’ ways to conduct medicine is really a way to place the absolute power into the hands of a few gov’t officials.

You are right about this being a concentration of power in the hands of the Executive branch. Soviet Russia isn't the only place this happened. In Nazi Germany, one of Hitler's famous early acts was the passing of an "Enabling Law" which made anything he decreed legal and the Law of the land.

Moreover, one doesn't have to go abroad to find a situation where conclusions based on flimsy facts are used by the political authorities as an excuse for policies with broad and long-lasting effects. Here in the US, a single study on mortgage lending in Boston (later questioned) was used as the justification for forcing banks to make loans to unqualified minority buyers as a condition for renewal of their charters. The banks knew the loans were subpar, and eagerly bundled them up into mortgage backed securities for resale. This was part of the "lend to anyone to increase homeownership" snowball. It was inititiated by the the Community Reinvestment Act (passed during the Carter years and reinvigorated under Clinton), and supported by GWB's "ownership society" promotion of home ownership.

The regulation of the snowball was woefully clueless and inadequate. We are still cleaning up, and will be for another decade.

In fact, we may never clean up, because Obama's gang is urging the FHA to lend with 3.5% down, and starting a whole new cycle of under-capitalized home ownership.

21 posted on 09/01/2012 6:05:52 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

Evil, as intended!


22 posted on 09/01/2012 6:19:24 AM PDT by Bshaw (A nefarious deceit is upon us all!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

Neither had I.

Looks like it also takes another angle: coerced medical coverage with a plan that divulges all medical records to the government as a violation of medical privacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coons_v._Geithner


23 posted on 09/01/2012 6:30:36 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

You nailed it.

And one of these complicit or incompetent Boehner-ites is on Romney’s ticket. Ryan, of all people, should know that just stating “repeal & replace” is insufficient.

Detailing out the political case that Obamacare is a series of abuses of power that personally affects us, and it’s not just an unaffordable cost, is not easy. They need a huge team of lawyers to unwind this monster, before the election (and after).

Most Americans still think it gets them free health insurance. So they can’t win on the budget-busting agrument.


24 posted on 09/01/2012 6:37:51 AM PDT by ReaganGeneration2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

http://www.mcnaughtonart.com/artwork/view_zoom/423


25 posted on 09/01/2012 7:25:10 AM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (0bama's agenda¬óDivide and conquer. FREEDOM OR FREE STUFF- YOU GET ONE CHOICE, CHOOSE WISELY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
Why is it that Sarah Palin is ridiculed for calling them "Death Panels."

Why>

26 posted on 09/01/2012 8:19:48 AM PDT by eCSMaster ('Nancy Pelosi is a DINGBAT.' - Gov. Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary

Congress and the president can undo any law or act with a simple majority. The only bills passed that cannot be undone in such a way are Constitutional requirements. Or so that is how I understand it to be.

All the rest is bluster by the idiots who passed the initial law.


27 posted on 09/01/2012 9:30:25 AM PDT by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

In place of “bills,” I meant “actions.”. Overriding a veto, for instance, still requires 2/3 of both Houses, etc.


28 posted on 09/01/2012 9:40:03 AM PDT by ConservativeMind ("Humane" = "Don't pen up pets or eat meat, but allow infanticide, abortion, and euthanasia.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

We need another body of government that does nothing but repeal laws with a simple majority.

Maybe this body is made up of citizens who vote electronically from their computers at home. You have to pay federal taxes to be eligible.


29 posted on 09/01/2012 10:59:00 AM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


30 posted on 09/01/2012 11:14:30 AM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: listenhillary
Oh, we ALWAYS have a recourse:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Are we there yet?

31 posted on 09/01/2012 12:19:55 PM PDT by Ignatz (Winner of a prestigious 1960 Y-chromosome award!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eCSMaster

Why is it that Sarah Palin is ridiculed

by Democrats,
by the media,
even by Republicans

for calling them “Death Panels.”

Why>
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Because, as I have said before, those who talk the way almost everyone used to talk and say things that used to be considered self evident and incontrovertible truth are now referred to by the left and even by many who call themselves conservative as kooks. On the other hand people like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama who spout the kind of nonsense for which people used to be declared mentally incompetent are rewarded with high government office or lucrative television contracts. In other words our culture is downside up and bass ackwards from anything that makes sense to me. On top of all else judges, even supreme court judges, now render rulings that are often obviously absurd to anyone with the equivalent of a nineteen fifties public high school education. They would like for all of us who are old enough to remember when most of what went on seemed to make some kind of sense lose our confidence and think the problem is that we are just not smart enough to understand the subtleties of modern politics and jurisprudence. I for one don’t buy that load of horse apples.


32 posted on 09/01/2012 2:55:57 PM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ignatz

“America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” - Claire Wolfe

Some days I think we can fix what is wrong. Other days, I’m not so sure.


33 posted on 09/01/2012 6:33:26 PM PDT by listenhillary (Courts, law enforcement, roads and national defense should be the extent of government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson