IPAB

Independent Payment Advisory Board aka Death Panel. Apparently the definition depends upon your perspective...

 

 

For the record the AMA continues to fight for the elimination of the IPAB which will impose arbitrary across-the-board cuts to physicians and other providers.

 

Last week I presented you with the Senate rule change. Now the reasons for Reid's abrupt proposal to change the rules are clear - it paves the way for President Obama to stack the advisory board, unobstructed, with his choices. Or, maybe, for Valerie Jarret to pay back her supporters... 

 

IPAB Board members are to include:

1. 15 members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. In selecting individuals for nominations for appointments to the Board, the President shall consult with: (i) the majority leader of the Senate concerning the appointment of 3 members; (ii) the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning the appointment of 3 members; (iii) the minority leader of the Senate concerning the appointment of 3 members; and (iv) the minority leader of the House of Representatives concerning the appointment of 3 members;
2. The HHS Secretary, the Administrator of CMS, and the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration (all of whom will serve ex officio as nonvoting members of the Board).

The question of whether one's life is worth saving or one's condition is worth treating is a key part of the Affordable Care Act, even while being eclipsed by political maneuverings and enrollment difficulties. And having that decision made by a body such as IPAB has led to legislative efforts to pull the plug on the ACA itself.

Amazingly, or maybe not considering the rats are jumping off the sinking ACA ship, a House bill to repeal IPAB attracted 22 Democrat co-sponsors. Arkansas Democrat Sen. Mark Pryor co-sponsored a Senate repeal bill after spending the previous three years defending IPAB. The Senate and House measures had, at last count, 32 and 192 co-sponsors, respectively. Under the Affordable Care Act, the IPAB's board of 15 presidentially appointed "experts" will be empowered to make arbitrary Medicare spending-cut decisions with virtually no congressional oversight or control. Its decisions will not be made on an individual level, but it will decide what treatments and therapies are cost-effective and therefore covered, affecting and possibly costing the lives of those in need of them.

It has been documented for years how socialized medicine around the world, particularly Britain's National Health Service, makes centralized decisions based on cost-effectiveness rather than medical need, and how this has led to rationing and denial of service. People literally die while on waiting lists. The ACA tries to apply that same approach to Medicare through IPAB.

According to an article by Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, 'the surest way to avoid rationing is to adequately compensate providers. One way to ensure adequate reimbursement that also allows market forces to work freely is to enroll more people in private insurance'.

Yet the President and his (suddenly) dissipating group of ACA supporters are going out of their way to reassure us that despite the IPAB's sole function of saving money by restricting access to health care - deciding if one's life is worth saving or one's condition is worth treating - there are no death panels.

JULIET:
      'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
      Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
      What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
      Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
      Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
      What's in a name? that which we call a rose
      By any other name would smell as sweet;
      So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
      Retain that dear perfection which he owes
      Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
      And for that name which is no part of thee
      Take all myself.
-From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, 1600

What matters is what something is, not what it is called.

America - our future IS in your hands. Dr. Ben Carson sums it up like this - "We've got to bring courage and bravery back." "Our goals are to return healthcare to the practitioner and to the patient, and not have a third party making medical decisions for people, and finding an appropriate way to pay for it. That's what we want to do."

Do we need another American War of Independence?

The American Revolutionary War was the culmination of the civil and political American Revolution resulting from the American Enlightenment. Brought to a head over the lack of American representation in Parliament, which was seen as a denial of their rights as Englishmen and often popularly focused on direct taxes levied by Parliament on the colonies without their consent, the colonists resisted the imposition of direct rule after the Boston Tea Party. Creating self-governing provinces, they circumvented the British ruling apparatus in each colony by 1774. Armed conflict between British regulars and colonial militiamen broke out at the Battles of Lexington and Concord in April 1775. After petitions to the Crown for intervention with Parliament were ignored, the rebel leaders were declared traitors by the Crown and a year of fighting ensued. The colonies declared their independence in July 1776, listing grievances against the British king and legislature while asking the support of the populace. Among George's other offences, the Declaration charged, "He has abdicated Government here ... He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people." The gilded equestrian statue of George III in New York was pulled down. The British captured the city in 1776, but lost Boston, and the grand strategic plan of invading from Canada and cutting off New England failed with the surrender of the British Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratogs.

 

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#utwzexBkohq1vluu.99

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html#utwzexBkohq1vluu.99



When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Thomas Jefferson

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff412712.html#y6HjHcLbfWGDxG3o.99

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

Today Harry Reid made history and for the first time since King George III ruled America, the rules of the Senate have been changed to benefit a political party and their ideology rather than the Americans who elected those Senators to represent them.

For the record, the Senate voted on and passed - a purely partisan vote by the way (like the Affordable Care Act) - a procedural rule change which allows the majority party to silence the minority by reducing the votes required to break a filibuster from 60 to 51. Interestingly those same Senators who (are currently in the majority) decided it was the right and just thing to do, vehemently opposed the idea when they were in the minority: Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Joseph Biden. In fact just minutes after the vote occurred, President Obama praised Harry Reid for his actions. Is Barack admitting that his hold on power is now more important to him than the fairness to American citizens which he so often cites? Harry must have changed his mind about our founding fathers and apparently Joe didn't pray hard enough... The bottom line in all of this is the facilitation of political divisiveness which is already at unprecedented levels under the actions of the Obama administration.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff125003.html#m9Y13wbX1fv9EKM8.99

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
- Thomas Jefferson

So let's consider the points highlighted above:

Lack of American representation -
Today the Democrat majority in the Senate, on a party line vote, approved a rule change effectively silencing the minority party for the first time in over 200 years, rendering the 48 Republican votes - representing half of the country - irrelevant...

Denial of rights -
Since we had to "pass the bill to know what is in it" (thanks Nancy) we are now finding out. We do not have the right to choose our doctor, we do not have the right to choose a health care plan tailored to our individual needs and if we are in the minority we do not have the right to prevent our government from taking action to which we oppose; our voice is no longer relevant...

Taxes levied without consent -
The penalty in the Affordable Care Act became a tax thanks to Chief Justice John Roberts and in that change to the law, illegal according to our constitution, Americans will soon be taxed rather than penalized for not participating in a law that half of our country disapproved of at the time it was passed and over 61% disapprove of now!

With a president who has at times acted like a king through his abuse of executive orders and seems to be doing everything he can to divide rather than unite our country, are the reasons for demanding independence from tyranny in 1775 really that much different from today?

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-Thomas Jefferson

What is the purpose of health insurance?

It's a simple question. Yet ask 20 people and the number of different answers might surprise you. For my purpose, the answer too is simple - to provide health care when it is needed.

 

 

The dangerous behavior depicted in the photo above is a perfect example of why you might want to purchase health insurance. At the speed he is traveling, with no protective gear and in the middle of traffic, he is an accident waiting to happen.

 

Assuming I am right, and I usually am, a law that provides health care to everyone when it is needed is on it's face a good thing. If the law provides everyone with insurance but NOT health care then it is a bad thing. If the government seizes control of private industry it is called nationalization, even if the IRS is the enforcer rather than the military. And finally, if the law is not a law then it is fraud.

 

Stay with me.

 

In general and with limitations, health care has been available to all people - even non-citizens visiting our country and illegal aliens. That's undocumented immigrants to my politically correct friends. If you do not have health insurance and break your leg you can still go to a county hospital and have it set. You might wait for 8 hours while the gunshot and automobile crash victims (who also didn't have insurance) were tended to but you would eventually receive health care. So while you might be hard pressed to find a private orthopedist who would see you without insurance the county hospital will not turn you away.

 

Industry regulations have improved our health and the environment for years. The explosion in regulations in the last few decades however seem to have increasingly more political motives. The Nebraskans For Peace really have a valid point regarding their concern for the contamination of a major groundwater source. Does that mean the government should assume control of the oil and gas industry because, as the Nebraskans For Peace state, "building the pipeline would provide oil companies more incentives for further development of the tar sands in Canada"? For the benefit of its citizens, is it better for a government which has proven time after time that it cannot effectively run an enterprise (See: The US Post Office, Social Security, Fanny Mae...) to nationalize an industry or rather to simply provide it direction (approved of course by a democratic vote - NOT BY EXECUTIVE ORDER)?   

 

In proving foresight may be vain;
The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley,
An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,
For promis’d joy!

-Robert Burns

 

Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution specifically states that ALL bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. The Affordable Care Act originated in the Senate (by no less than Harry Reid who was voted the most unpopular politician on the planet) with a "penalty" rather than a tax - and this is important - for not purchasing health care. When the legitimacy of the law went before the US Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts spent several pages in his written decision explaining in great detail how the penalty mandate violates the constitution if imposed under the Commerce Clause. Then, he inexplicably, ruled that the mandate was a tax, not a penalty, and thus fell under Congress's constitutional authority to levy such taxes. The Supreme Court effectively re-wrote the law changing the penalty to a tax, therefore it did not originate in the House of Representatives as required by the US Constitution. Considering it was passed in the dark of night, behind closed doors, on a purely partisan vote, contrary to President Obama's promise of transparency, this law really is not a law at all. It is fraud.

 

It turns out that Vice President Joe Biden was right. This is a big effing (content edited) deal!

 

In the end we have a law which violates our constitution, nationalizes health care - meaning it will be run in the image and with the success of the likes of the US Post Office and the IRS, and due to doctors dropping out of practice and Medicaid roles swelling we may all soon be waiting in line at the county hospital for our health care. Not only doesn't this fraud provide more health care but appears to be reducing the number of Americans who actually have health insurance.  

 

So of what value then is Obama's promise of health insurance?