Tag: death panels

The latest thing about ObamaCare that will make you say OH SHIT!

Soon to be EX Speaker Face Lift told us we had to pass the bill to see what was in it didn’t she? YUP, and since it passed there have been lots of OH SHIT moments!

It’s very easy for Obamacare supporters to scoff at the whole idea that there are “death panels” ensconced in Obama’s health care power grab. But the fact of the matter is that they exist in a defacto form. One of those defacto death panels is the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), an agency invented under Obamacare that has no congressional oversight and will be able to summarily cancel your drug prescriptions as paid for by Medicare.

The IPAB is not well known by Americans, but it is a 15-member board appointed by the president and while members are confirmed by the Senate, the board is not otherwise answerable to anyone but the president. As to its duties, this board was given the responsibility to put a spending cap on Medicare. One way that the IPAB intends to do that is to decide what drugs are cost effective enough for government to pay for.

In other words, the IPAB will decide whether or not Medicare patients will be allowed to have a drug and its decision to eliminate the drug will be based solely on cost, not effectiveness or medical necessity. These decisions will also not be made with your doctor. It will be a top down, bureaucratic decision, not a decision based on medical science.

If the government decides that your lifesaving drug is too expensive, then you simply won’t be allowed to have it. How is that not a “death panel”? Can anyone see a meaningful difference between a “death panel” and the IPAB’s powers?

Read the whole thing folks, this is scary, and this is the very thing we all knew this bill would do! That is why most Americans were, and are vehemently opposed to this bill, or any other “comprehensive” health care bill. We fear granting the government such power. Sarah Palin, and anyone else who raised fears of death panels was ripped by the media as a fear monger or a nut. Yet, many aspects of this bill scream death panels!

Carol is getting pretty salty over at her Closet

Did you ever think you would hear the words No Shit, from sweet, kind Carolyn Tackett? I guess this whole Obamunistic Health Care fiasco has her pretty PO’d.

From the Washington Examiner:

Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth

Well, blow me down. Who would have ever thought that?

It hasn’t attracted much notice, but recently some prominent advocates of Obamacare have spoken more frankly than ever before about why they supported a national health care makeover. It wasn’t just about making insurance more affordable. It wasn’t just about bending the cost curve. It wasn’t just about cutting the federal deficit. It was about redistributing wealth.

Health reform is “an income shift,” Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. “It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans.”

In his halting, jumbled style, Baucus explained that in recent years “the maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind.” The new health care legislation, Baucus promised, “will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”

At about the same time, Howard Dean, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and presidential candidate, said the health bill was needed to correct economic inequities. “The question is, in a democracy, what is the right balance between those at the top … and those at the bottom?” Dean said during an appearance on CNBC. “When it gets out of whack, as it did in the 1920s, and it has now, you need to do some redistribution. This is a form of redistribution.”

Summing things up in the New York Times, the liberal economics columnist David Leonhardt called Obamacare “the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.”

Yeah, well, “prominent advocates of ObamaCare” are suddenly showing their true intentions on several fronts.

Those of us who haven’t been blinded by the moonbeams flying out of the asses of Obama’s unicorns could see this coming. Can anyone name any of Obama’s domestic policies that aren’t intended to redistribute wealth? Worse, nothing in Obama’s policies are uplifting. The policies are not designed to improve the overall economic health of the lower classes. Rather, the policies are aimed at bringing the middle and upper classes down. Obama’s “level playing field” is in the sub-basement and he envisions us all down there singing Kumbaya together. Well, not all of us. The ruling class, aka Obama and the other enlightened ones, will still be chillin’ in the penthouse.

I feel like giving Carol a standing ovation for those words. BRAVO! She is absolutely correct! The aim of every Marxist policy is to reach “equality” by not elevating anyone, but by bringing everyone to a sub-standard of living. Marxism promises equality, and “universal rights”, but delivers only suffering, poverty, and desperation.

Here is the video linked by Carol, that shows a shocking scene. Paul Krugman, who just loves him some ObamaCare,, starts by mocking Republican claims and fears of “death panels” then goes on to explain how they will work. Krugman is the perfect example of what Marxists call useful idiots.

So where did those “death panel” rumors begin?

Well, as Tom Macguire explains

Let’s see – as candidate and President Obama has talked endlessly about the need to reduce health care costs, although his plans for doing so are opaque.

And in the course of talking about runaway costs and ways to reduce them, Obama actually advocated end-of-life panels issuing voluntary guidelines with Timesman David Leonhardt, as reported in the Times; by way of introduction, Obama had been discussing the story of his grandmother, who was terminally ill with cancer when she had an expensive hip replacement procedure so that she would not be bed-ridden for the last three to nine months of her life:

THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.

So as of April 2009 Obama himself expected the final legislation to include some sort of group (but NOT a “death panel”!) that would produce voluntary guidelines for end of life care with an eye towards saving money. 

Ah, now we can see pretty clearly why some folks might worry about ObamaCare creating so-called “death panels”. After all, if cutting costs of health care IS the goal, and MOST of the cost comes from treating the chronically ill, and the lederly, then do the math right?

See, the people worried, and sounding the alarm about “death panels” simply heard what Obama said. You want to blame someone for the uproar, then blame Mr. “We Gotta Cut Costs”, he brought it up.