Replies

“Howard Dean: ObamaCare has a ‘rationing’ panel, after all”

BY BEN JOHNSON
Mon Jul 29, 2013 20:19 EST

SNIPPET: “WASHINGTON, D.C., July 29, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate, chairman of the Democratic Party, and proponent of universal health care, has said a key provision of the president’s health care law will not work – and amounts to “rationing.”

“One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board,” Dean wrote in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today.

“The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body,” he wrote. “By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them.”

The IPAB would consist of a panel of 15 unelected “experts” who would determine appropriate treatments for maximum “cost-effectiveness.” Former Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag said the group would have “an enormous amount of potential power” to set medical policy nationwide.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/ipab/index

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2895404/posts

Cato Study: Heretofore Unreported Obamacare ‘Bug’ Puts IPAB Completely Beyond Congress’ Reach
The Cato Institute ^ | 14 June 2012 | Michael F. Cannon
Posted on June 14, 2012 4:47:42 PM PDT by CharlesMartelsGhost

Today, the Cato Institute releases a new study by Diane Cohen and me (me as in the co-author of the study, not the one posting this executive summary on FR) titled, “The Independent Payment Advisory Board: PPACA’s Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature.” Cohen is a senior attorney at the Goldwater Institute and lead counsel in the Coons v. Geithner lawsuit challenging IPAB and other aspects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. ObamaCare.

From the executive summary:

When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court.

Worse, PPACA forbids Congress from repealing IPAB outside of a seven-month window in the year 2017, and even then requires a three-fifths majority in both chambers…

IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

The creation of IPAB is an admission that the federal government’s efforts to plan America’s health care sector have failed. It is proof of the axiom that government control of the economy threatens democracy.

Importantly, this study reveals a heretofore unreported feature that makes this super-legislature even more authoritarian and unconstitutional:

[I]f Congress misses that repeal window, PPACA prohibits Congress from ever altering an IPAB “proposal.”

You read that right.

The Congressional Research Service and others have reported that even if Congress fails to repeal this super-legislature in 2017, Congress will still be able to use the weak tools that ObamaCare allows for restraining IPAB. Unfortunately, that interpretation rests on a misreading of a crucial part of the law. These experts thought they saw the word “or” where the statute actually says “and.”

How much difference can one little conjunction make?

Under the statute as written, if Congress fails to repeal IPAB in 2017, then as of 2020 Congress will have absolutely zero ability to block or amend the laws that IPAB writes, and zero power to affect the Secretary’s implementation of those laws. IPAB will become a permanent super-legislature, with the Secretary as its executive. And if the president fails to appoint any IPAB members, the Secretary will unilaterally wield all of IPAB’s legislative and executive powers, including the power to appropriate funds for her own department. It’s completely nutty, yet completely consistent with the desire of ObamaCare’s authors to protect IPAB from congressional interference.

It’s also completely consistent with Friedrich Hayek’s prediction that government planning of the economy paves the way for authoritarianism.