Untouchable except by supermajority!
Meet the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
I guess the politically correct term will be “life panels.” You know, the panels that decide whether you get the government-issued privilege of life-saving medical treatment. Why bring death into it?
Hey, remember when death panels were just some crazy lie crazy right-wingers made up becuase they’re crazy? Oh wait, that was just last week.
UPDATE: Lefties have really dug themselves into a hole on this issue. Yes, by shouting “Death Panels!” the right is demagoging the issue of rationing. But rather than take the honest but unpopular path and admit ugly rationing will be necessary, the left has by and large responded with “That’s a lie! There won’t be any rationing by gov’t panels!” which is just laughably untrue. And now Sarah Palin is rubbing their faces in that lie.
{ 12 comments }
Why are we still talking about this? It still is a crazy lie. Writing yet another post about it does not change that.
So there is a panel that will decide what sort of care will be provided within an insurance plan. It is a plan that everyone is required to have. You have no other choice but that plan. If this panel decides that treatment X is not cost effective, by whatever metric, you will not be allowed to get that treatment. It kinda sounds like an unaccountable government panel that gets to decide whether or not you get treatment that can be the difference between life and death.
Mike: is this an innaccurate description of what will be happening under the government plan? If it’s accurate, is it the name “death panel” that bothers you? Would lollipop panel be better?
Or, could you tell us how you see the government plan operating? What would be the function of the Independent Panel Advisory Board be, in your opinion?
The “Liverpool Care Pathway” isn’t death, it’s liberation! Cost-effectiveness is only a bonus.
They’re Liberation Panels!
Dishman,
Thanks. Now you’ve given me Logan’s Run flashbacks. Renew! Renew! Renew!
Logan’s Run wasn’t meant to be prescriptive.
If this panel decides that treatment X is not cost effective, by whatever metric, you will not be allowed to get that treatment.
No, it just means insurance won’t pay for it.
Just like the existing “death panels” already do with insurance.
If you want it, then you just pay cash. The wonders of the market!
Those are the wonders of the free market now. But if I am mandatorily in a government plan, am I still allowed to go out and buy a procedure for cash? If so, what’s up with Canadians coming to the US to pay for procedures? I had understood that under their government plan, they are not allowed to buy care privately.
Our plan may not be there yet, but has anyone in the Senate or House who voted for this said that this is where it stops, and no other changes are needed? And does it seem likely that future changes from those who support this plan will tend toward less control?
Maybe it’s the same for any piece of legislation, but I can’t help but feel that this bill comes more from an attitude held by those who like power and control and telling others what they can and can’t do than from any particular desire to actually help people. And I can’t help but feel that in the long run, we will regret the passage of this bill.
Ah, Dean, but that is exactly the difference between actual government rationing and how resources are alloted in a free market. In a free market, yes, you can choose to buy something very rare if you are willing to pay a higher price.
The idea behind government rationing is not rationing for its own sake. The government HAS TO ration health care because once the profit motive for working in health care or innovating new medical devices are gone, and additional people have what they will view as “free” health care, there will not be enough health care resources to go around. And so under that regime, when the government decides treatment X is no longer cost effective and they won’t pay for it anymore, that means treatment X effectively ceases to exist because the underlying reason for rationing is to allocate resources. And therefore there won’t be any surplus resources to provide treatment X at a higher cost.
I also agree entirely with Jay. The whole point of this fraud of health care “reform” is to make it more “fair”. And the only thing LESS fair than what we have now would be a tiny, super priced market for health care that only the very rich could afford. So I think it not only likely, but inevitable that such private markets for health care will ultimately be banned under the law.
And for the privilege of living under such a pathetic system, we will all be paying higher taxes AND higher insurance premiums. My ain’t life grand ?
Regret passing this POS ? We will yearn for the day when we only “regreted passing health care reform”. Regret is for times when things used to cost $10, but now cost $50. When the entire country is bankrupt, what will we call that ?
This bill was never intended to be about improving access to health care or controlling the cost of health care. There are far more direct ways of doing both, simply by directly addressing those issues. This bill is about extending control over the populace. Once the bill takes effect, you report to the government. We just don’t know yet know all the terms of the covenant that we have just been handed.
No one knows everything that’s in the bill, because it was finalized out of sight by Harry Reid, and sent off for passage with no time for the Senate to read it. Also missing was time for the public to express an opinion (other than roughly 55% or more opposition to previous proposals). The midnight votes, back room dealing and rushed passage have to be considered red flags to any thinking person. How’s that transparency working out for you? It’s not doing so well for me.
Your elected representatives went right over the objections of the populace. Even CNN, the media wing of the Democratic Party, showed a majority opposed to this act. Key votes came from Senators whose states opposed this measure upwards of 65 and 70%.
The government will now mandate what is covered, how it can be covered, for whom it will be covered, and what options you will be allowed by force of law. Heavy emphasis on force. This from an administration that politicizes EVERYthing. Remenber the Whitehouse website where you could report your neighbors for conduct unsupportive of the administration? Stasi much? Remember the statement, “Don’t think we’re not keeping score”? That administration will soon be appointing the Life Panel membership. Their track record is good – Tim Geithner, Van Jones, Kevin Jennings among others. I’m sure you can expect even more quality on their Life Panels. I’m also sure that you’ll be able to appeal their decisions, and sue for redress of injuries caused by the panel actions (and inactions) – NOT.
Who knew that when the Democrats were accusing W of shredding the constitution, appointing unaccountable “czars” for key agencies, and making sweeping signing statements to interpret legislation that they were actually projecting? They were declaring intent, not protesting.
So far as I can tell, the only campaign promise Obama has kept is the one where Michelle said that Barack will change everything – he won’t let you continue the way you have lived so far. Everything else has been a lie. Sarah Palin called this guy to a T on her campaign speeches, particularly the convention speech.
If this bill is not found to be unconstitutional, and soon, it will be an unmitigated disaster to the self-determination and personal ambition that built this country. No one will have a reason to get ahead – they’ll be taxed back to their pre-determined rank. No one will need to work, all they need will be given to them. For the first time in my adult life, I am despondent about the opportunites awaiting my children.
PolitiFact has named death planels as the lie of the year.
By the way we already have health care rationing. Insurance companies do it all the time. Medicare already does it for those over 65.
You aren’t really suggesting that insurance companies should be required to pay for any treatment, no matter how expensive, no matter how small the benefit? What about a treatment that costs 10 million dollars and prolongs life by one day?
Palin is now doubling down on her original lie, by claiming that health care rationing was what she was talking about, when it very clearly was not what she was talking about.
Or, I could choose another plan that does cover this or that treatment. If I am forced to take a mandatory plan from the government, that option is taken away from me. I can only have what the government offers, and nothing else. And those in the government doing the offering seem far more likely to offer or withhold treatments for political or other subjective, less legitimate, reasons, and with no other possible recourse.
Plus, if my policy covers it, then my insurance company has decided that the treatment is worth providing. If I have a policy that pays 10 million dollars to let me live one more day, I got it because the insurance company has charged me premiums that allow for this benefit.
If I pay a billion dollars for a policy that has a lifetime payout cap of 900 million, would a company be willing to write that policy? Obviously this is an extreme example, but my point is that if I am willing to pay for a product, who is the government to say I can’t have that one, and must take the one they want me to have? If I want to keep my house 50 degrees in the summer and 90 degrees in the winter, and I’m willing to pay the electric bill that goes with it, what right does the government have to deny me, or to put a thermostat in my home that turns off the AC so I can cool my house to no lower than 78 degrees in the summer?
I guess I’m suggesting that I should be able to have any plan that any insurer would like to offer, or not to have a plan at all if that is my choice. I am suggesting I should not be forced to buy a product I don’t want. I am suggesting that I don’t believe a government plan will be better than privately run plans. I am suggesting that decisions about what care to offer will be made on a less legitimate basis by government panels than by insurance panels.
This is not a real option. If you have employer based insurance, at most you have a choice of a few plans and you can only change that selection once a year. Assuming your employer did offer another plan that covered the treatment you wanted, it would be months before you would have the option to change.
If you do not have employer based insurance, well you are totally screwed, because of preexisting condition restrictions.
None of the bills that have been considered in Congress force you to buy a plan from the government, so this is totally irrelevant argument.
The current bills in Congress allow you to buy any plan that meets certain minimum coverage standards.
Would you be ok with people who chose the no coverage option being refused emergency medical care if they cannot prove they can pay for it? Would you be ok with poor people who cannot afford insurance and have contagious diseases like TB were simply left to die on the street?
You may be, but society has decided that is not acceptable. If people are allowed to select no coverage, then when they are in an accident they expect me and everyone else that buy insurance to pay for their care. I think they should be required to pay for their own care.
There is no government insurance plan in the Senate bill, except the ones we already have, Medicare and Medicaid. The government already has panels for setting standards for Medicare. These panels will at most set minimum standards for insurances plans sold through the new exchanges.
There is a kind of two prong attack being launched here by people that like the system just the way it is. They claim the current bills do not do enough to contain the growth of health care cost, and then they scream that the provision to contain costs amount to rationing.
Comments on this entry are closed.