Sarah Palin's Death Panels Are For Real!
Posted by: unclesmrgol
On December 18, 2009, Sarah Palin won the PolitiFacts.org Lie of the Year award for her comments concerning "death panels" in the Democrat's health care legislation.
Three days later, Senator Jim DeMint challenges the inclusion of a clause in the legislation making illegal any attempt by Congress to make changes to an organization called the Independent Medicare Advisory Board unless such changes shall by a supermajority of 67%.
Now, what is the purpose of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board?
Sounds like a death panel to me....
So, we would have not only a death panel, but a death panel on autopilot, which can be turned off only if 67% of the pilots agree.
I think PolitiFacts.org owes Mrs. Palin an apology. But, given that their website carries no mention of these latest developments, I doubt she'll get one.
Update 23 Dec 2009 11AM: Even before I posted the above, Sarah Palin had already thought it through and responded.:
Three days later, Senator Jim DeMint challenges the inclusion of a clause in the legislation making illegal any attempt by Congress to make changes to an organization called the Independent Medicare Advisory Board unless such changes shall by a supermajority of 67%.
Now, what is the purpose of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board?
Sounds like a death panel to me....
The letter that Peter Orszag sent to Nancy Pelosi explained how it would work:
This draft bill would establish an Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC), which would have the authority to make recommendations to the President on annual Medicare payment rates as well as other reforms. Both the annual payment updates and the broader reforms would be prohibited from increasing the aggregate level of net Medicare expenditures. This proposed legislation would require the President to approve or disapprove each set of the IMAC?s recommendations as a package. If the President accepts the IMAC?s recommendations, Congress would then have 30 days to intervene with a joint resolution before the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to implement them.
In a way, this seems small. But it's what cost control looks like in practice.It's Congress recognizing that it's a process, and a process for which it is ill-suited. It's an expert body able to continuously evaluate the data and make changes to Medicare that will increase the program's effectiveness and decrease its costs. There has been a theory, for many years now, that the health-care system's cost problems would eventually be solved all at once when some popular president and some large congressional majority finally got serious about the issue and made the big, hard decisions.
So, we would have not only a death panel, but a death panel on autopilot, which can be turned off only if 67% of the pilots agree.
I think PolitiFacts.org owes Mrs. Palin an apology. But, given that their website carries no mention of these latest developments, I doubt she'll get one.
Update 23 Dec 2009 11AM: Even before I posted the above, Sarah Palin had already thought it through and responded.:
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?