Posted on 11/27/2013 6:40:12 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike
This is a great interview with Michael Cannon as he explains how IPAB will ration care by reducing what Medicare spends on health care. This coming after Mark Halperin agreed (before walking it back on twitter) that death panels are in fact baked into Obamacare because the IPAB has the ability ration care.
Cannon explains that IPAB being able to set Medicare prices (what they pay the doctor or hospital) IS the power to ration care and that the prohibition in Obamacare against rationing care is toothless.
And there’s much more. Watch:
(Excerpt) Read more at therightscoop.com ...
First concept of economics:
Resources are scarce and limited
and demand for those resources is unlimited.
A rationing process will impose itself, even if that process is the complete depletion of the resource.
Be a shame if the names and addresses of this board were to be made public. Some nut could set up his/her own board. The government has to hope someone like Snowden doesn’t come along.
I do luv me some Megyn.
They will never say this, but this is how it will work when the ACA/NSA/IRS data hub fusion centers are operating.
Welcome to the USSA. Now, shut up and be a good comrade, or no operation for your brat kid!
And that’s the whole purpose of nationalized healthcare - to deny healthcare to political opposition.
Aren't they public? My gosh if they aren't, they will be.
They will pay dearly for this terrible "law". If it moves forward [Hobby Lobby case and future repeal attempts notwithstanding], this panel will bear the brunt.
Imagine 12 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats facing the wrath of an angry and hostile electorate. And imagine someone who has been given a rationing/death sentence by them. What would someone like that be willing to do?
Imagine hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands of them.
This board will wish they'd not accepted the post.
Ceausescu anyone?
IPAB (Independent Payment Advisory Board) is the first agency of the “fifth branch” of govt.....composed of hand-picked unelected members:
1) It will make all important health care decisions by authorizing payment or not.
2) It is not funded by Congress and cannot have its budget reviewed or changed.
3) Its membership cannot be changed by future Presidents,
4) It cannot be repealed by Congress, except for a six month window in 2017.
5) Its decisions are not subject to judicial review.
6) It is not authorized by the Constitution, and is therefore immune to Constitutional processes.
==================================================
Why is Obamacre herding seniors WITH ASSETS onto Medicaid---a program specifically structured for the poor?
Can you say redistribution of wealth?
Herding the elderly with assets into Medicaid has ominous consequences intriguing to sap-happy leftists. B/c assets, perhaps a home owned free and clear, securities, annuities, investment property, can be seized to pay for govt treatment.
Thus intergenerational transfers of wealth (a longtime liberal/progressive bugaboo)----are decimated.
=================================================
Americans better be very wary of this con game---duping grampa/ma into signing up for Medicare/Aid. Boobamba's got plans.....secret, undisclosed plans for them.
Obamba can't get 'em to sign up on the healthcare.guv website---so he's throwing some 400,000 onto MEDICAID------and all the costs of medical care will be charged back.
How? By federal and state LIENS against signers' homes, and other assets.
The Obamacare con artists eliminated the ASSET TEST, (which would have prevented those with assets to even be considered for Medicaid coverage).
So those who now think, "Golly gee, my government loves me, Obama says I qualify for subsidized Medicaid care, I'll be well- taken care of"---have been suckered into a REVERSE ASSET LIQUIDATION FEDERAL MONEY GRAB.
And, once in the hands of the Obama hordes, all that money is untraceable.
Unintended Consequences by John Ross
Yeah, imagine what someone might do if they’ve accepted
“I’m dead anyway”...
Kinda like the DMV X10.
My doctor told me yesterday that there’s a certain test that insurance will pay for no more than once every 3 years.
Is that rationing or not? Been going on for many years I suppose.
But mind you, I am totally against Obamacare.
Frankly, death panels already exist, in the form of doctors and medical ethicists who weigh the benefit/risk of performing surgery or treatments on very old/sick/unlikely to recover people. But, of course, those are not politicians/bean counters. It is an undeniable fact that a tremendous amount of money is spent at the end of life of an older person, even when the outcome is utterly and imminently hopeless, which I’ve seen happen in my own family. The system, as it is, is designed to drain the maximum amount of money from this person and their insurance regardless of outcome.
Also, I have no problem at all with a 95 year old person getting a lung transplant, if they pay for it and can find a doctor willing to do it thinking that the patient would actually survive and thrive (if you can say a 95-year old person is going to “thrive”...). But no insurance company or “normal” doctor/hospital would do this today, and I would not want to pay the premiums for an insurance company that would actually cover that.
There has to be rationing since the current system is unsustainable. The only question is who does it, i.e., the government, the insurance companies, or the patient?
That’s exactly the point. It’s not even just in the current system, as that would give them an excuse for not knowing -
it’s a basic tenet of economic reality.
But, of course, if they understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.
Yes, that is rationing.
It would also be rationing if it cost you X dollars and you yourself determined how often you wanted to spend that.
Her show is excellent!
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.