Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on December 23, 2009, 08:27:39 AM
-
Skip to comments.
Sarah Palin: I told you so! (Reid protecting those 'nonexistent' death panels ?)
Hotair ^ | 12/23/2009 | Ed Morrissey
Posted on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 11:18:59 AM by SeekAndFind
________________________ ________________________ _
It didn’t take long for Jim DeMint’s outrage over highly unusual language protecting a care-rationing board to generate a response from Sarah Palin. This came just days after Politifact called her statement about “death panels” the “lie of the year,” but the attempt to rule any Congressional motion that changes the rulings of the Independent Medical Advisory Board out of order in perpetuity has highlighted once again this rationing board and its potential impact in a government-run system. And that, Palin writes at her Facebook page, was her point all along:
No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing. Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:
“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”
In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision. Could it be because bureaucratic rationing is one important way Democrats want to “bend the cost curve” and keep health care spending down?
The Congressional Budget Office seems to think that such rationing has something to do with cost. In a letter to Harry Reid last week, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted (with a number of caveats) that the bill’s calculations call for a reduction in Medicare’s spending rate by about 2 percent in the next two decades, but then he writes the kicker:
“It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.”
Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.
All health care gets rationed in one manner or another, as does every commodity (except air, although with cap-and-trade, that would change). Insurers ration, and so do consumers in a fully free-market system such as the Lasik or cosmetic-surgery industries. The difference is that those systems involve free choice, especially the latter. With insurers as third-party payers, there is less free choice, but the solution to that is more competition and better ability to be completely portable — or better yet, the removal of third-party payers for normal health care services.
When government rations commodities, it does so with the force of law. Considering the power it would have had in a completely government-run system to make the kind of decisions now left to insurers in a competitive market, people are correct to be worried about how exactly IMAB would bend the cost curve. Their mission in the ObamaCare bill is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” The way ObamaCare is structured, the only way to hold down costs would be to start denying more treatments, or to cut compensation to the point where long wait times take care of the rationing by discouraging access to a dwindling number of providers. Will that prevent more deaths and make Americans healthier?
With insurers, consumers have the option to find another insurer or self insure. Those options won’t exist in a government-run system, and are seriously limited in ObamaCare, even in the latest incarnation. Without those options, the IMAB’s decisions will be inescapable — and thanks to Harry Reid’s language, citizens won’t even have the opportunity to challenge IMAB actions in Congress. It’s an abomination.
Update: I just talked to a source on Capitol Hill who wants to make sure everyone understands the mechanics of the issue. The bill sets up a supermajority threshold of 67 votes to bring accountability to IMAB decisions, and the rule on being in or out of order can get waived at 60 votes. However, as this battle shows, even getting to 60 is almost an impossibility, let alone 67. Clearly Reid wants to put accountability out of reach with these radical propositions.
________________________ ___________________
Thank you for the Xmas gift you marxists.
-
hahaha Wrong! Not death panels sunshine. Palin once again is a retard.
-
hahaha Wrong! Not death panels sunshine. Palin once again is a retard.
KC - what does this clip say to you:
-
It's an example he uses to show that medicare should be more fiscally responsible when it comes to unnecessary testing etc. I thought as an opponent on medicare/mediaid on financial grounds you would welcome such a move?
-
It's an example he uses to show that medicare should be more fiscally responsible when it comes to unnecessary testing etc. I thought as an opponent on medicare/mediaid on financial grounds you would welcome such a move?
Good try. Did you even listen to what he said?
-
Good try. Did you even listen to what he said?
Of course i did. I answered your question, will you answer mine? As a fiscally responsible person would you prefer medicare/mediaid went without any oversight into unnecessary treatments? You did post how much it is costing is this not a fiscally smart move? Or would you prefer it abolished?
-
Of course i did. I answered your question, will you answer mine? As a fiscally responsible person would you prefer medicare/mediaid went without any oversight into unnecessary treatments? You did post how much it is costing is this not a fiscally smart move? Or would you prefer it abolished?
So she is right - its essentially a death panel since Obama is saying that the govt will decide if a pain pill is better than the surgery.
Its not the doctor and patient, but the govt deciding. Just admit she was right KC.
-
So she is right - its essentially a death panel since Obama is saying that the govt will decide if a pain pill is better than the surgery.
Its not the doctor and patient, but the govt deciding. Just admit she was right KC.
How is that right? Without being a Dr i don't think Obama would know what treatment would be appropriate it was an EXAMPLE he used.
Why are you not answering my question?
-
palin's just as bad as the rest of them... she just has poorer grammar skills. You're lying to yourself if you think she's an independent thinker. Her taking both positions on global warming, and defending the bailout Bill, are proof of that.
-
palin's just as bad as the rest of them... she just has poorer grammar skills. You're lying to yourself if you think she's an independent thinker. Her taking both positions on global warming, and defending the bailout Bill, are proof of that.
Based on this clip - what do you think 240? Is the govt making the decisison or the doctor and patient?
-
Based on this clip - what do you think 240? Is the govt making the decisison or the doctor and patient?
Why won't you answer my question 333?
-
For the 2387623489573th time, dude, I'm against the bill as well as the death panels which were started in 2008.
FFS dude, you want to argue shit I agreed with 2 months ago. Thune 2012. Boom :)
-
Why won't you answer my question 333?
Which is what?
-
Of course Palin's right, Dems are just upset because she's using direct wording to make the point.
But, it seems that there is no mention now of the same panels for private insurance companies. Under our current system, insurance companies deny coverage such as "exploratory surgery" and "experimental treatments" all the time. They routinely make decisions that a person of such and such age will not be covered because the treatment has not been clearly proven to be helpful in a sufficient number of patients.
Rationing is inevitable - be it private insurers or the government, nobody is getting a blank check.
-
I answered your question, will you answer mine? As a fiscally responsible person would you prefer medicare/mediaid went without any oversight into unnecessary treatments? You did post how much it is costing is this not a fiscally smart move? Or would you prefer it abolished?
-
I answered your question, will you answer mine? As a fiscally responsible person would you prefer medicare/mediaid went without any oversight into unnecessary treatments? You did post how much it is costing is this not a fiscally smart move? Or would you prefer it abolished?
I dont believe in medicaire to begin with, but that is another story.
I think the issue should be between a dcotor and patient, not a death panel by the govt.
-
I dont believe in medicaire to begin with, but that is another story.
I think the issue should be between a dcotor and patient, not a death panel by the govt.
But wait a second. You are against medicare so why do you care what happens with patients covered under it? If you would prefer to have them not covered what does it matter TO YOU if there were 'death panels'? You are opposed to medicare so surely any means of bringing it's costs under control would suit you right?
BTW there is no death panel, there is no proof of it and it's purely speculation and misinterpretation on Palin's part.
-
But wait a second. You are against medicare so why do you care what happens with patients covered under it? If you would prefer to have them not covered what does it matter TO YOU if there were 'death panels'? You are opposed to medicare so surely any means of bringing it's costs under control would suit you right?
BTW there is no death panel, there is no proof of it and it's purely speculation and misinterpretation on Palin's part.
Because these programs are inherently money drains and the govts' sole response is going to be forcing rationing as these programs always fail.
However, we are slaves to this system via the tax code and there is no way out for millions of people.
When the govt is the only option left, and it goes utterly bankrupt, as it is, than what? Soylent Green you dope. .
-
Because these programs are inherently money drains and the govts' sole response is going to be forcing rationing as these programs always fail.
However, we are slaves to this system via the tax code and there is no way out for millions of people.
When the govt is the only option left, and it goes utterly bankrupt, as it is, than what? Soylent Green you dope. .
But aren't they trying to stop it being a 'money drain' shouldn't you support that? Or any sort of fiscal responsibility to such a program?
You surely see the hypocrisy of your stance on this right? You're against medicare but when a democrat wants to bring fiscal responsibility to the program you are against that to? On what grounds exactly? That he's a democrat or that it's a fiscally responsible thing to do?
-
But aren't they trying to stop it being a 'money drain' shouldn't you support that? Or any sort of fiscal responsibility to such a program?
You surely see the hypocrisy of your stance on this right? You're against medicare but when a democrat wants to bring fiscal responsibility to the program you are against that to? On what grounds exactly? That he's a democrat or that it's a fiscally responsible thing to do?
Ha Ha!!!!! Democrat and fiscal responsibility is an oxymoron.
-
Ha Ha!!!!! Democrat and fiscal responsibility is an oxymoron.
You're dodging the issue. How can you be against something that you are for? I.E. fiscal oversight? And how can you be against anything related to medicare when you are against medicare in the first place? Shouldn't you be happy if cuts were made to medicare considering your stance on it?
-
You're dodging the issue. How can you be against something that you are for? I.E. fiscal oversight? And how can you be against anything related to medicare when you are against medicare in the first place? Shouldn't you be happy if cuts were made to medicare considering your stance on it?
Hey fool, we already are supposed to have that and look at the result. 50 Billion in waste every year at least and 34 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.
-
Hey fool, we already are supposed to have that and look at the result. 50 Billion in waste every year at least and 34 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.
But apparently you're against some sort of financial oversight committee according to what you've posted. How can this be?
-
But apparently you're against some sort of financial oversight committee according to what you've posted. How can this be?
Because I know just like the last empty promises, these too are nothing more than lies to sell to the ignorant public like yourself who accepts absolutely anything the govt tells them.
-
Because I know just like the last empty promises, these too are nothing more than lies to sell to the ignorant public like yourself who accepts absolutely anything the govt tells them.
So you're saying an oversight committee will spend more on medicare?
-
Great article...it was right on point actually.
Especially the last part about the rationing with the rule of law...not cool in any way, shape, or form.
-
Great article...it was right on point actually.
Especially the last part about the rationing with the rule of law...not cool in any way, shape, or form.
Can you imagine if GWB proposed anything like this?
-
Can you imagine if GWB proposed anything like this?
Dodging my questions again 333 ;D
-
bump for answer from 333
-
2nd bump for 333. going twice...
-
just like the movie clip we'll "put up with the retard" ,thats you 333386
-
At least KC constructs an argument. I will give KC that, he actually debates a topic.
As far as his question, I answered it, I dont believe the measures that the govt will take will work since nothing tit has done has worked in the past.
-
At least KC constructs an argument. I will give KC that, he actually debates a topic.
As far as his question, I answered it, I dont believe the measures that the govt will take will work since nothing tit has done has worked in the past.
Okay you don't believe they will work, but do you agree with the principal behind them. To reduce unnecessary costs in medicare?
-
Okay you don't believe they will work, but do you agree with the principal behind them. To reduce unnecessary costs in medicare?
Of course we need to go after waste, abuse, and fraud like hawks. Who could disagree with that?
However, what I heard in that clip was not waste fraud and abuse. The question was whether a 90 y/o should get life pro-longing surgery or a pain pill.
-
Of course we need to go after waste, abuse, and fraud like hawks. Who could disagree with that?
However, what I heard in that clip was not waste fraud and abuse. The question was whether a 90 y/o should get life pro-longing surgery or a pain pill.
Come on 333 Obama is not a Dr is he. how is he to know what is the best treatment, he's using that as an example. Nothing more. Dr's and patients will continue to make the decisions. Now they have an oversight committee to help eliminate wasted spending that doesn't help anyone.
-
kc is 100% right
It's an example he uses to show that medicare should be more fiscally responsible when it comes to unnecessary testing etc.
i don't have the time to try to explain shit to you because all you do is come up with the dumbest rebuttals and then you will throw in the palin would be better shit
-
Come on 333 Obama is not a Dr is he. how is he to know what is the best treatment, he's using that as an example. Nothing more. Dr's and patients will continue to make the decisions. Now they have an oversight committee to help eliminate wasted spending that doesn't help anyone.
And that commitee will dictate if old people REALLY nned that operation.Sounds like death pannels.
-
Come on 333 Obama is not a Dr is he. how is he to know what is the best treatment, he's using that as an example. Nothing more. Dr's and patients will continue to make the decisions. Now they have an oversight committee to help eliminate wasted spending that doesn't help anyone.
Oh no?
I think he thinks he is a doctor.
-
we Had the teabaggers the birthers now we have the deathers can we say nutjobs
-
And that commitee will dictate if old people REALLY nned that operation.Sounds like death pannels.
And you know this how Billy? All we know is that it will instill a more fiscally responsible medicare, one that doesn't do unnecessary testing and could (in fact) lead to lives saved through more efficient and effective care. You really think Billy that a committee is going to look at every single medicare claim for an old person and stamp live or die on it? Because that's the simplification we are dealing with from people like Palin.
Also Billy what is your opinion on medicare? Do you support it as a function of American society? Or do you think it should be abolished because it's a money waster?
-
we Had the teabaggers the birthers now we have the deathers can we say nutjobs
Awesome - now I am a deather, racist, birther, teabagger, VRWC, arayan nation, and nutjob.
-
And you know this how Billy? All we know is that it will instill a more fiscally responsible medicare, one that doesn't do unnecessary testing and could (in fact) lead to lives saved through more efficient and effective care. You really think Billy that a committee is going to look at every single medicare claim for an old person and stamp live or die on it? Because that's the simplification we are dealing with from people like Palin.
Also Billy what is your opinion on medicare? Do you support it as a function of American society? Or do you think it should be abolished because it's a money waster?
The only way you can have savings is to ration care.Since the elderly take up about 85% of the health care in the country whom do you suppose will get rationed.
-
The only way you can have savings is to ration care.Since the elderly take up about 85% of the health care in the country whom do you suppose will get rationed.
Old people will get screwed and young people will have pay through the nose.
-
The only way you can have savings is to ration care.Since the elderly take up about 85% of the health care in the country whom do you suppose will get rationed.
Who has said anything about rationing care? This is designed to stop medicare's useless spending not to ration care. Besides Billy in other threads you have talked about how medicare is a broke system and agreed with 333 that it's costing too much. Why the sudden interest now in fiscal oversight in medicare? Do you honestly think it's a bad thing to get rid of unnecessary testing etc? Or are you just against this because it's a democrat thing?
-
Who has said anything about rationing care? This is designed to stop medicare's useless spending not to ration care.
It is rationing and it's a sad, heartbreaking necessity. Neither the government nor private insurance can afford to give every sick person all the possible tests, all the possible surgeries, all the possible treatments. In my future ideal world (where I'm a Jedi Knight), this may come to pass. But, not here and now.
Right now, it's being done by insurance company's. So I'm not getting the outrage at the government.
Nobody gets a blank check.
-
On her facebook, in august and this week, she posted 2 different definitions of death panels. That which she originally claimed were death panels, groups defining who gets care based upon their contrib to society. In this recent post, she said she meant this whole other new part of the bill. NBC just read both of her posts - they are different items - I ENCOURAGE YOU TO READ BOTH AND REACH YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.
She's using facebook so taht she's not challenged. it's like releasing press releases. The good thing about these contradictions is that in the 2012 primaries, her contradictions are very easy to point out.
honestly guys - I don't think she understands death panels. She used 2 very clearly different definitions.
-
33 or anyone - can you please psot the August facebook post, as well as the recent one?
I think the wording will make it very clear she changed what she meant, and that which she called a death pabel isn't even in the actual bill. If you can't or won't, I understand.
-
33 or anyone - can you please psot the August facebook post, as well as the recent one?
I think the wording will make it very clear she changed what she meant, and that which she called a death pabel isn't even in the actual bill. If you can't or won't, I understand.
They took the death pannel language out of the bill AFTER she brought up the subject.Anyone who doesnt think the government is hell bent on making these decisions is a fool with their head in the sand.Enviro kooks started up 30 years ago,they now have banned plasma televisions in Cali.What in the world possibly makes you think the same thing wont happen in health care.
-
share her facebook tweets please.
-
share her facebook tweets please.
Sorry,Im not a homo and Im not 12 years old.Ive never been on facebook and dont intend to.
-
are you implying something about facebook users? (Remembering Ms Palin is one)
-
are you implying something about facebook users? (Remembering Ms Palin is one)
Im saying unless your a celebity or under 20 years old your a straight up homo if you go there or worse have an account.
-
Im saying unless your a celebity or under 20 years old your a straight up homo if you go there or worse have an account.
Well said Billy.
-
Well said Billy.
I like Facebook and use it to inform a lot of my friends of a lot of crap going on. I went out with a few females last night who I never imagined were interested in politics and they told me they loved my postings. Its a way to inform people and get a message out.