PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obama wants more 'Death Panel' Power !!


Chiefshrink
04-25-2011, 07:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOCTOR'S ORDERS

Obama wants more 'death panel' power
'Congress would be stripped of legislative role in favor of unaccountable experts'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 25, 2011
9:00 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
2011 WorldNetDaily


Most of the legal challenges to Obamacare, the president's signature legislation that allows the federal government to take over health-care decision-making, focus on the "unconstitutional individual mandate" that defines sitting in one's living room as "interstate commerce" and demands the purchase of government-approved health insurance.

However, there's a new round of alarms developing over what critics have described as the ultimate "death panel," concerns that have been raised because Barack Obama himself suggested giving an already-unaccountable board more authority.

It's the idea of Obama's Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is one of 150 board and commissions established by Obamacare but is the most notorious because it would be made up of 15 Obama-appointed individuals and would dictate Medicare policy affecting millions of seniors and disabled Americans with essentially no congressional or judicial oversight.

It was during Obama's recent speech in which he condemned a plan to cut the deficit by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., he referenced Obamacare and its critics.

Get the solutions offered by U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, in "Doctor in the House"

"What they'll say is, well, you know what, that will never work because it's government imposed and it's bureaucracy and it's government takeover and there are death panels," the president said. "I still don't entirely understand the whole 'death panel' concept. But I guess what they're saying is somehow some remote bureaucrat will be deciding your health care for you."


Obama then specifically said his panel's authority should kick it at an earlier time than it already is scheduled to become the law.

U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, who has authored "Doctor in the House" on the issue of the nationalization of health care, said the IPAB was a bad idea with ex-Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., proposed it before voters removed him from office, and it hasn't gotten better.

"Now for the first time ever the primary party for health care for seniors, Medicare, is going to be able to tell you what kind of care you can get, where and when you can get it and worst of all, when you've had enough," he told WND today.

"If all you're looking to do is be able to figure how to take care of old people cheaply, this is the way to go," he said. "If what you want to provide is meaningful medical care, why would you set up or embellish a system that leads to waiting lists and rationing?"

He cited Obama's recent comments, and said the board will become "the central command and control system" and the "primary tool" to limit, ration, reduce or restrict treatments.

Among other reactions was Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online, who followed Obama's vague references with an explanation.

"They're back. Rationing, death panels, socialism, all those nasty old words that helped bring Republicans victory in 2010 They're back because of IPAB. Remember that acronym. It stands for The Independent Payment Advisory Board. IPAB is the real death panel, the true seat of rationing, and the royal road to health-care socialism.

"Policy wonks and political junkies may know a bit about this health-care rationing panel, but most Americans have barely heard of it. That has got to change," he wrote.

Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate, initially referred to "death panels" in Obamacare referencing the end-of-life instructions that originally were included.

"But IPAB is the real death panel (as Palin herself later noted), a body of unelected bureaucrats with the power to cut off care through arbitrary rules based on one-size-fits-all cost calculations," Kurtz wrote.

It was in Obama's speech decrying Ryan's money-saving plan that he suggested expanding the authority of the individuals he would expect to pick.

"We will change the way we pay for health care not by the procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services that seniors need," he said.

There were a multitude of similar alarms being raised after that speech, but those actually taking action on the issue are those at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix.

Its attorneys have filed a lawsuit over the provision, arguing that nowhere in the Constitution is the concept of an all-powerful and non-reviewable panel.

"No possible reading of the Constitution supports the idea of an unelected, stand-alone federal board that's untouchable by both Congress and the courts," said Clint Bolick, litigation director for Goldwater.

The organization describes the authority Obama endorses for IPAB: It wouldn't have to follow the basic steps for adopting and enforcing administrative rules. Its payment schedules and policies couldn't be examined by courts and automatically would become law unless amended by Congress through a difficult and complex procedure. And even if Congress would repeal the board in 2017, Obama's strategy automatically delays the effectiveness of that repeal until 2020.

The Institute's lawsuit in federal court opposes IPAB as simply unconstitutional and it apparently is the only lawsuit challenging Obamacare on this crucial argument.

'Protecting any new federal agency from being repealed by Congress appears to be unprecedented in the history of the United States," said Diane Cohen, the Goldwater Institute's lead attorney in this case.

The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents a number of clients in this lawsuit including U.S. Reps Jeff Flake, Trent Franks and John Shadegg of Arizona. The congressmen have supported repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

Other reactions to Obama's plans include:


The Wall Street Journal said, "Mr. Obama is relying on the so far unidentified technocratic reforms of 15 so far unidentified geniuses who are supposed to give up medical practice or academic research for the privilege of a government salary. Since the board is not allowed by law to restrict treatments, ask seniors to pay more, or raise taxes or the retirement age, it can mean only one thing: arbitrarily paying less for the services seniors receive, via fiat pricing.

"Now Mr. Obama wants to give the board the additional power of automatic sequester to enforce its dictates, meaning that it would have the legal authority to prevent Congress from appropriating tax dollars. In other words, Congress would be stripped of any real legislative role in favor of an unaccountable body of experts."


The New York Times noted that both Democrats and Republicans "fear" and oppose the board.

"Mr. Obama said he wanted to beef up the board's cost-cutting powers in unspecified ways should the growth of Medicare spending exceed certain goals. Supporters say the board will be able to make tough decisions because it will be largely insulated from legislative politics. Lawmakers do not agree."

It cited statements from Ryan, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa.


Dick Morris wrote, "The IPAB will be, essentially, the rationing board that will decide who gets what care. Its decisions will be guided by a particularly vicious concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years If you have enough QUALYS ahead of you, you'll be approved for a hip replacement or a heart transplant. If not, you're out of luck.


From Kurtz, "Obama promised tax hikes for 'the rich,' and vaguely alluded to plans to expand IPAB's powers as deficits mount. Of course, even as he laid the groundwork for strengthening IPAB, Obama gave no real hint of the massive health-care rationing that would imply.
Meanwhile, Obama officials have granted 1,040 waivers to the new law already, because many groups, especially unions who supported Obama, and companies, contend they simply cannot meet its requirements, so shouldn't have to.

The total prompted a video commentary on Obama administration actions:


The site is sponsored by Let Freedom Ring, Americans for Tax Reform, CWA, 60 Plus, Independent Women's Voice and the College Republican National Committee. It allows visitors to e-mail the Obama administration asking for their own waivers. Visitors can select whether they want to ask for exemptions from the law's $500 billion in tax increases, taxpayer funding of abortion or the individual health insurance mandate, among others.

In the federal courts, Obamacare already has been declared unconstitutuional by at least two federal judges and it appears en route to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, numerous state legislatures are considering state legislation that simply would exempt their state's citizens from its requirements. One state had a proposal to make it a crime to try to enforce Obamacare provisions.



Read more: Obama wants more 'death panel' power http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=291465#ixzz1KaabVYTg

alnorth
04-25-2011, 08:19 PM
"I hate death panels" basically means "I'm really not serious at all about the deficit. Give me unlimited health care when I'm old"

FD
04-25-2011, 08:34 PM
"I hate death panels" basically means "I'm really not serious at all about the deficit. Give me unlimited health care when I'm old"

Thats why they are called "entitlements." As soon as you talk about reducing people's generous benefits even a little, there is no limit to what they will say to keep them, deficits be damned. "Death panels," yeesh.

mikey23545
04-25-2011, 11:21 PM
It's always funny to read the opinions of the self-centered short-sighted under-40 crowd when they're talking about death panels.

mikey23545
04-25-2011, 11:22 PM
Oh, and since this is the Obama regime we're talking about, the correct term is actually "Death Czars".

Amnorix
04-26-2011, 06:06 AM
The word "more" in the thread title assumes he has any to begin with.

jiveturkey
04-26-2011, 07:08 AM
Does anyone think that privatizing Medicare won't result in tougher choices being made at the end of ones life?

cdcox
04-26-2011, 07:17 AM
It's always funny to read the opinions of the self-centered short-sighted under-40 crowd when they're talking about death panels.

I'll be 50 this year, see an obvious need for government to supply health care for retired people and am serious about cutting deficits. Reeling in Medicare costs is a must. You can call it death panels, but adding 3 months of poor quality life at the cost of hundreds of thousands of $ just doesn't make sense.

mlyonsd
04-26-2011, 09:54 AM
If we're serious about the money side of it probably the best solution is to give the terminally diagnosed a loaded .45 and tell them to do the honorable thing.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 10:04 AM
I will never understand people's desire to go into massive debt to live another two miserable months. It's especially ironic that so many of those people claim to believe in an afterlife where they will get a great reward.

mlyonsd
04-26-2011, 10:26 AM
I will never understand people's desire to go into massive debt to live another two miserable months. It's especially ironic that so many of those people claim to believe in an afterlife where they will get a great reward.

Maybe you'll never understand it until you go through it.

Cave Johnson
04-26-2011, 10:38 AM
And, per usual, sports"shrink" is being a disingenuous POS.

I will never understand people's desire to go into massive debt to live another two miserable months. It's especially ironic that so many of those people claim to believe in an afterlife where they will get a great reward.

Why should they care.... it's not like THEY'RE paying the bill.

patteeu
04-26-2011, 10:46 AM
"I hate death panels" basically means "I'm really not serious at all about the deficit. Give me unlimited health care when I'm old"

That's not true. Government death panels aren't the only way to ration health care.

chiefsnorth
04-26-2011, 11:06 AM
Does anyone think that privatizing Medicare won't result in tougher choices being made at the end of ones life?

At least my family and I would make those choices instead of some rationing board.

jiveturkey
04-26-2011, 11:15 AM
At least my family and I would make those choices instead of some rationing board.
The private insurance company would be making that decision for you and your family.

It's the same side of a different coin. Gov decides to end benefits or private insurer decides to end benefits.

Either way it's never a good idea to put new tires on a car that doesn't run.

chiefsnorth
04-26-2011, 11:31 AM
The private insurance company would be making that decision for you and your family.

It's the same side of a different coin. Gov decides to end benefits or private insurer decides to end benefits.

Either way it's never a good idea to put new tires on a car that doesn't run.

I'm sure it sounds fantastic for other people to die for the good of the state's budget, until it's your wife or your child the government deems is not cost-effective to repair.

This all illustrates why the government shouldn't be providing the necessities of life in the first place.

jiveturkey
04-26-2011, 11:41 AM
I'm sure it sounds fantastic for other people to die for the good of the state's budget, until it's your wife or your child the government deems is not cost-effective to repair.

This all illustrates why the government shouldn't be providing the necessities of life in the first place.That's a different argument all together.

Some has been making that decision for most people for a long time. There's a lot of people a lot younger than those in Medicare that are being denied care by their insurance providers.

Whether it's for the good of the state budget or the good of the share holders.

mlyonsd
04-26-2011, 11:55 AM
And, per usual, sports"shrink" is being a disingenuous POS.



Why should they care.... it's not like THEY'RE paying the bill.

Yes, in most cases they paid the bill with every paycheck.

Chief Faithful
04-26-2011, 11:56 AM
The private insurance company would be making that decision for you and your family.

It's the same side of a different coin. Gov decides to end benefits or private insurer decides to end benefits.

Either way it's never a good idea to put new tires on a car that doesn't run.

Not the same coin, not even close.

Simplex3
04-26-2011, 12:22 PM
Maybe you'll never understand it until you go through it.

We're all terminal. It's a fact of life. Nobody knows the exact day or time, and some of us are closer than others and some of us have a more precise guess as the when it will end, but we're all terminal. You have to decide every day to do the things you need to do in order to stay alive. For most of us that's food and water. That's a very low barrier, so living through the day is the obvious choice. You get to see your friends and family, do the things you love, etc.

There may come a day where the thing you have to do today to stay alive includes living with great pain, hooked up to some very expensive machines, in a cold hospital while your loved ones have to be out continuing to live their lives. All I'm saying is that if I get to that point I'm going to elect not NOT be plugged in. I'd rather live a couple of days at home with my family than have them visit me once a day for a month.

mlyonsd
04-26-2011, 12:34 PM
We're all terminal. It's a fact of life. Nobody knows the exact day or time, and some of us are closer than others and some of us have a more precise guess as the when it will end, but we're all terminal. You have to decide every day to do the things you need to do in order to stay alive. For most of us that's food and water. That's a very low barrier, so living through the day is the obvious choice. You get to see your friends and family, do the things you love, etc.

There may come a day where the thing you have to do today to stay alive includes living with great pain, hooked up to some very expensive machines, in a cold hospital while your loved ones have to be out continuing to live their lives. All I'm saying is that if I get to that point I'm going to elect not NOT be plugged in. I'd rather live a couple of days at home with my family than have them visit me once a day for a month.Absolutey. Well worded.