Greatest Hits: They Said if I Voted for Romney, They’d Come After my 401(k), and They Were Right!

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

They Said if I Voted for Romney, They’d Come After my 401(k), and They Were Right!:   Don’t be surprised when they come for your savings…

That’s right kids, they government is eyeing your 401(k), IRA, or 403(b) with great envy.  And, as for the title, since Stacey is talking blog shtick, I thought I’d borrow from his well, which is deep with all sorts of goodness.  

But, back to the seriousness.  There has been rumblings about the government taking over all private retirement accounts for some time.  Apparently, the democrats just can’t let a big pool of money sit there in private hands-it must be controlled, and redistributed, bythe kind hands of government.  Bob Belvedere at  TCOTS has more…

The Editors at Investor’s Business Daily published an excellent editorial yesterday [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum] on the coming attempt by the national government to seize control of retirement accounts, like the 401(k).

A highlight:

President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, for instance, proposed lowering the cap on the amount workers could place in their 401(k)s without incurring taxes.

And nearly three years ago, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara wrote on these pages about the Treasury and Labor departments “asking for public comment on ‘the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.’”

“In plain English,” said Gingrich and Ferrara, “the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

More than 60 million American workers have a 401(k) or similar — 403(b) or 457(b) — plan. But taxing these accounts or lowering the amount that can be contributed to them tax-free would do little to close the deficit and cut the debt.

Do take the time to click here and read it all [and weep].

Hmmm, let’s take a look at the following a bit more closely…

“the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

That sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?  I mean, how does money get taken from me in exchange for payments when I’m retired?  Oh, that’s it, Social Security.  Well, I never expect to see a dime from that government ponzi scheme, which is why I have a 401(k).  However, if they government does to my 401(k) what they are doing to Social Security, should ever expect a single dime of that either?

I’m thinking retirement is going to be very cold and hungry.  Then again, IPAB would probably kill me off buy that time anyway.

Isn’t it great to live in the “fundamentally transformed USSA?”

We’ll be showing more and more posts about this today, as it is a current issue. 

Share

Bill Whittle: Sarah Palin Was Right About Death Panels

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

abortion vs obamacare

To follow up on last week’s story about Howard Dean emerging from the unreality bubble just long enough to admit that the IPAB is about rationing, Bill Whittle took on the infamous Death Panels. Of course, Whittle knocked it out of the park.  See for yourself…

H/T: America’s Watchtower

Share

Howard Dean Agrees That IPAB is the Death Panel

Share

Well, he didn’t exactly say that, but he did identify the  relationship between the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and rationing, or as Sarah Palin put it-Dealth Panels.  I covered that here at the CH 2.0 back in April of 2010…

ObamaCare Damage: IPAB, Rationing and the Dealth Panel?

Then, Paul Krugman admitted that the IPAB was the Death Panel back in November of that same year…

Paul Krugman Seems to Favor the Supposedly “Nonexistent” Death Panels UPDATED!

Now, “howling” Howard Dean has joined the reality club, admitting that the IPAB will ration care.  Phineas at Sister Toldja has the quote…

That’s not an exact quote, but a paraphrasing what the former Vermont governor and 2004 presidential flame-out said in a Wall St. Journal article yesterday. Here’s the money quote:

One major problem is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. 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.

There does have to be control of costs in our health-care system. However, rate setting—the essential mechanism of the IPAB—has a 40-year track record of failure. What ends up happening in these schemes (which many states including my home state of Vermont have implemented with virtually no long-term effect on costs) is that patients and physicians get aggravated because bureaucrats in either the private or public sector are making medical decisions without knowing the patients. Most important, once again, these kinds of schemes do not control costs. The medical system simply becomes more bureaucratic.

(emphasis added)

Instead of addressing the core problems that cause or medical system to be so expensive, like tort reform, to name one, they seek to simply restrict care by making it impossible provide it in an economical viable manner.  Like so many other liberal plans. they don’t ban something outright,  they just make it virtually impossible to get it.

And, when someone points that out, they will engage on the fine liberal tradition of Accuse the Accuser.  Just ask Sarah Palin about that one.

Share

They Said if I Voted for Romney, They’d Come After my 401(k), and They Were Right!

Share

That’s right kids, they government is eyeing your 401(k), IRA, or 403(b) with great envy.  And, as for the title, since Stacey is talking blog shtick, I thought I’d borrow from his well, which is deep with all sorts of goodness.  

But, back to the seriousness.  There has been rumblings about the government taking over all private retirement accounts for some time.  Apparently, the democrats just can’t let a big pool of money sit there in private hands-it must be controlled, and redistributed, bythe kind hands of government.  Bob Belvedere at  TCOTS has more…

The Editors at Investor’s Business Daily published an excellent editorial yesterday [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum] on the coming attempt by the national government to seize control of retirement accounts, like the 401(k).

A highlight:

President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, for instance, proposed lowering the cap on the amount workers could place in their 401(k)s without incurring taxes.

And nearly three years ago, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara wrote on these pages about the Treasury and Labor departments “asking for public comment on ‘the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.’”

“In plain English,” said Gingrich and Ferrara, “the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

More than 60 million American workers have a 401(k) or similar — 403(b) or 457(b) — plan. But taxing these accounts or lowering the amount that can be contributed to them tax-free would do little to close the deficit and cut the debt.

Do take the time to click here and read it all [and weep].

Hmmm, let’s take a look at the following a bit more closely…

“the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

That sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?  I mean, how does money get taken from me in exchange for payments when I’m retired?  Oh, that’s it, Social Security.  Well, I never expect to see a dime from that government ponzi scheme, which is why I have a 401(k).  However, if they government does to my 401(k) what they are doing to Social Security, should ever expect a single dime of that either?

I’m thinking retirement is going to be very cold and hungry.  Then again, IPAB would probably kill me off buy that time anyway.

Isn’t it great to live in the “fundamentally transformed USSA?”

Share

Paul Ryan Mentions IPAB, and Think Progress Seems to Think it Wrong

Share

Think Progress (More correctly:  Think Regress) seems to be a tad bit upset that Paul Ryan discussed the death panels, also known as IPAB, with a group of seniors.  I guess we can’t be letting granny know that it’s the Democrats that plan on offing them, can we?

Here is what the propagandists at Think Regress thought of Paul Ryan’s speech…

Paul Ryan likened a mechanism to control health care spending to “death panels,” during a town hall at the University of Central Florida in Orlando on Saturday.

After listening to Ryan repeatedly call for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, an elderly man asked the Republican vice presidential nominee about “the death panels.” Rather than dissuading the man from what PolitiFact named 2009?s Lie of the Year, Ryan laughed and responded, “that’s not the word I’d choose to use to describe it. It’s actually called….the Independent Payment Advisory Board”:

QUESTION: We love you Paul. But I’m getting long in years. Will you address the death panels that we’re going to have?

RYAN: The death panels, well! That’s not the word I’d choose to use to describe it. It’s actually called. It’s actually called, so in Medicare, what I refer to as this board of 15 bureaucrats. It’s called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. It sounds fairly innocuous.

Then, they played the video…

And, for their explanation, and transparently poor excuse for a rebuttal…

The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but despite Ryan’s claims, it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). The IPAB will consist of 15 members appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and will include a broad spectrum of experts and consumer advocates, like physicians, employers, economists, representatives of consumers and the elderly. In fact, relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.

Notice, that they don’t mention what will happen when providers are paid less.  They’ll provide less care!  I covered this extensively in the past.  Here are some highlights…

As all of this was going on, we took a look at a special health care advisor at the White House, Ezekiel Emanuel.

In discussing the “death panels,” we have to take yet another look at Ezekiel Emanuel.  Besides being the brother of Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm, Dr. Emanuel is a prominent if medical ethicist that has, shall we say, some rather interesting ideas about medical treatment.  Here are some quotes from Dr. Emanuel:

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

So, the government will have the authority to deny treatment for those individuals that they deem unfit for living.  What criteria would be use?  Do you get to appeal?  Do you have any choice?  Under a government controlled plan, I would venture to guess no.

Source: First Things

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Note that the decision has been made based on the amount on money the government has spent “developing” a human.  He is essentially reducing the value of human life to the amount of resources that society has expended upon the said human.  Now, the left can decry the 2% profit margin of the insurance companies; yet engage in far more sinister statistical calculations for who gets care and who gets to die?

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”

This is phenomenal wordsmithing.  He denies in the first part of the sentence, and endorses in the second.  Sir, just saying that the grass isn’t green does not make it orange!

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”

Then, after many counter-claims and insults from the left, ObamaCare eventually passed, and we heard this from David Orszag.


So, we have the IPAB, which stands for Independent Payment Advisory Board.  From what Orszag is saying; that it will cut costs by not being “based on quantity,” I think we can safely assume that this is a rationing body.

Now, if this is a rationing body, and they are going to cut costs by not treating things, might this also be the “death panel?”  Both Sunstein and Emanuel (EZKILL, not Rahm), have both tagged end of life care as something to be limited.  IPAB would seem to be a great way to accomplish just that.  No, you won’t have to stand before them and justify your life, but they might just arbitrarily decide to not pay for something that keeps you alive.  Considering that this already happens in the UK with cancer drugs, and 20,000 Brits with cancer are killed by the NHS each year, are we seeing a pattern here?

But that wasn’t the end of it.  Not content with simply having Emanuel and his ideas, he did a recess appointment for Donald Berwick, who now is in charge of Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s but one quote from him.

The Redstate article also shows that Berwick publicly embraces rationing.

The interviewer pointed out: “Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of health care.” To which Berwick replied: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

So, can we safely assume that there is a pattern here?  While the “progressives” in power say that rationing is not part of their plans, they certainly seem to like appointing people that do.

And now, for the latest, Paul Krugman appeared on This Week with the Latest Host, this past Sunday, and had the following exchange.

Pay particular attention at 4:35, where Krugman mentions “death panel people,” and that the host then mentions IPAB-all in reference to controlling costs.

Yes, Think Regress, I think that even when Paul Krugman agrees that the IPAB should be for not paying for procedures, is he not agreeing with Paul Ryan?

Share

ObamaCare Damage, a Glimpse of out Future: NHS Commits De facto Euthanasia with 130,000 a Year

Share

Now that ObamaCare has been deemed “constitutional” by the SCOTUS, we have some more glimpses into out future.  There are many aspects to this future that are rather chilling.  The latest is the revelation that the British NHS commits an informal form of euthanasia to deal with the overcrowding and lack of resources in their single payer system.  Life News has the details…

Shocking news from England today has top NHS officials indicating doctors acting in the UK government-run health program annually kill as many as 130,000 patients prematurely because of overcrowding at hospitals, medical clinics and nursing homes.

Professor Patrick Pullicino indicated doctors are turning to a so-called “death pathway” protocol that is essentially active euthanasia of patients, according to a London Daily Mail news report. Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, made his remarks in a speech before the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

He claimed there was often a lack of clear evidence for initiating the Liverpool Care Pathway, a method of looking after terminally ill patients that is used in hospitals across the country. It is designed to come into force when doctors believe it is impossible for a patient to recover and death is imminent.

It can include withdrawal of treatment – including the provision of water and nourishment by tube – and on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours. There are around 450,000 deaths in Britain each year of people who are in hospital or under NHS care. Around 29 per cent – 130,000 – are of patients who were on the LCP.

Professor Pullicino claimed that far too often elderly patients who could live longer are placed on the LCP and it had now become an ‘assisted death pathway rather than a care pathway’. He cited ‘pressure on beds and difficulty with nursing confused or difficult-to-manage elderly patients’ as factors.

From what I’m reading, there are people being put to death rather than care for them.  Apparently, the rationing system inherent in any government run heath care system is causing doctors to kill off people that can be otherwise saved.  Before someone says “rationing, there’s no rationing!” allow me to remind everyone that even the great NY Times columnist, Paul Krugman has referred to the rationing mechanism in ObamaCare, the IPAB, as the “death panel.”

video platform video management video solutions video player
So, we will have a rationing body that is designed to limit, or ration, if you will, care. That leads to the next question, what do we do with the people that we aren’t going to treat? How will they be “disposed of?” If this abomination of legislation holds, we will find out!

Share

Obama's Budget Speech Mentions the Death Panel?

Share

That most depised, and derided, part of the ObamaCare legislation, the Death Panels, are again making waves on the blogs.  Erick Erickson of Redstate and Bunkerville have both taken a look at Obama’s speech, and have came to the conclusion that he had made thinly veiled references to the “death panels.”

I happen to agree.

Here is  a brief excerpt from Redstate…

While everyone else was focused on Barack Obama bashing Paul Ryan, I noticed that he took full ownership of death panels yesterday. Naturally, Obama did not call them death panels. He called them “an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers.” But his description hits dead on with what his death panels will do.

I would recommend that you head over there and read Erickson’s post.

My take is that Obama is mentioning the IPAB, which is one of those parts of the legislation that we would see “after we pass it.”  Peter Orzag, then the Director of the Office of Management and Budget mentioned it back in April of last year…

 

 

Then, Paul Krugman mentioned the Death Panels while on the This Week program on ABC.

 

Pay particular attention at 4:35, where Krugman mentions “death panel people,” and that the host then mentions IPAB-all in reference to controlling costs.

So, these videos show that what we call the Death Panels is the IPAB, and Obama seemed to directly mention that in his speech.  While not calling it by name, it is clear that this is what he meant.

I also think it’s useful to take another look at the opinions of two administration officials; Donald Berwick, and Ezekiel Emanuel...

The interviewer pointed out: “Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of health care.” To which Berwick replied: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

OK, here’s the twist; we’ve heard some very similar things before.  Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm’s brother, is a government adviser on health care.  Here are some quotes from Emanuel.

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Source:  First Things

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”

So, they will use rationing per population, just like Berwick suggests.  Here’s some more.

“There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.”

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: “Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better.” Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: “Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide” and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”

Source: What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide? New England Journal of Medicine, July 1998

So, if were are to assume that Obama would not hire or appoint someone that is against his agenda for heath care, it’s a safe bet that Berwick and Emanuel  do represent the position of the administration.  In other words, heath care rationing is coming, and the elderly are going to pay for that with their lives.

Remember this?

Note: Bunkerville has another related post, Kidney Patients being told to accept death and forgo dialysis

Share

ATTENTION: Discussing End of Life Care is NOT the Death Panels!

Share

The blogosphere is all aflutter with talk of the Death Panels.  Since the Obama Administration has decided that the legislature is irrelevant and added reimbursement for discussions of “end of life care” to the Medicare regs, everyone is screaming “Death Panels.”  Here’s the problem:

This has nothing to do with  the death panels.

Here’s why I say that…

1.  Discussing end of life care is not at all unusual.  Doctors do it all the time.  In my profession, I have discussed advance directives, living wills, and “do not resuscitate orders.”  This is not devious, and the patient is in complete control of the process. Frankly, if you don’t follow their wishes, you might get sued.  If that happens, you will probably lose, and lose badly.

2.  The administration is already showing their game plan of disregarding the legislature and attempting to rule by bureaucratic fiat.  Nothing unexpected there.

3.  The actual Death Panel is the IPAB, which is the rationing mechanism built into ObamaCare.  Here are two videos about the IPAB.

The first is from David Orzag, the former WH Budget Director …

The second is from Paul Krugman, on This Week…

Pay particular attention at 4:35, where Krugman mentions “death panel people,” and that the host then mentions IPAB-all in reference to controlling costs.

It’s very clear to me that this is the Death Panel.

4.  The end of life care issue is irrelevant.  It means absolutely nothing because no matter what the doctor and patient decides for end of life care, the IPAB can say “no” to any life sustaining care.  If their standards or protocols determine that you’re no longer worth the cost or effort, they won’t pay for your care, and your end of life plans aren’t worth the paper that they’re written on. Game over.

5.  If you want to know what they’re really thinking, review what Ezekiel Emanuel and Donald Berwick have in mind.

6.  It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if this was leaked intentionally to get us off the path of the real deal.  If we focus on this regulation, that, in the end, will mean nothing, they might be behind the scenes doing other things that are far more dangerous.  Always watch what the other hand is doing my friends!

7.  It is always possible that the government might try to get doctors to follow a Nazi-styled “T-4” type program, and convince folks that some conditions constitute a “life not worth living.”  However, I can’t see that getting enough traction to being about the savings that they want.  It’s the rationing that will get them what they want.

8.  We need to have a coherent and convincing argument against ObamaCare in order to “repeal and replace.”  I have to be honest in saying that I don’t see this helping a bit.  We need to hit the black heart of ObamaCare, and I think IPAB is it.

What do the readers think?  Leave your comments and death threats in the comment section.

Share

Paul Krugman Seems to Favor the Supposedly “Nonexistent” Death Panels UPDATED!

Share

If you remember, we were discussing rationing throughout the ObamaCare debates.  Of course, we were called “fear mongers,” among other things.  Now that the law has been passed, and the other predictions we made are coming to pass, the entire rationing issue continues to brew under the surface.  However, every now and again, it rears its ugly head.  It started in the very early days of the Obama Administration…

We must always remember that what the messiah and his minions cannot accomplish outright, they will accomplish incrementally.  For more, look at this.

In testimony yesterday before the Senate Committee on Finance, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf presented options for controlling health care costs.  He warned that “reducing or slowing spending over the long term would probably require decreasing the pace of adopting new treatments and procedures and limiting the breadth of their application.”  That’s rationing by another name, not a comfortable concept to Americans.

As all of this was going on, we took a look at a special health care advisor at the White House, Ezekiel Emanuel.

In discussing the “death panels,” we have to take yet another look at Ezekiel Emanuel.  Besides being the brother of Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm, Dr. Emanuel is a prominent if medical ethicist that has, shall we say, some rather interesting ideas about medical treatment.  Here are some quotes from Dr. Emanuel:

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

So, the government will have the authority to deny treatment for those individuals that they deem unfit for living.  What criteria would be use?  Do you get to appeal?  Do you have any choice?  Under a government controlled plan, I would venture to guess no.

Source: First Things

“Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

Note that the decision has been made based on the amount on money the government has spent “developing” a human.  He is essentially reducing the value of human life to the amount of resources that society has expended upon the said human.  Now, the left can decry the 2% profit margin of the insurance companies; yet engage in far more sinister statistical calculations for who gets care and who gets to die?

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”

This is phenomenal wordsmithing.  He denies in the first part of the sentence, and endorses in the second.  Sir, just saying that the grass isn’t green does not make it orange!

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”

Then, after many counter-claims and insults from the left, ObamaCare eventually passed, and we heard this from David Orszag.


So, we have the IPAB, which stands for Independent Payment Advisory Board.  From what Orszag is saying; that it will cut costs by not being “based on quantity,” I think we can safely assume that this is a rationing body.

Now, if this is a rationing body, and they are going to cut costs by not treating things, might this also be the “death panel?”  Both Sunstein and Emanuel (EZKILL, not Rahm), have both tagged end of life care as something to be limited.  IPAB would seem to be a great way to accomplish just that.  No, you won’t have to stand before them and justify your life, but they might just arbitrarily decide to not pay for something that keeps you alive.  Considering that this already happens in the UK with cancer drugs, and 20,000 Brits with cancer are killed by the NHS each year, are we seeing a pattern here?

But that wasn’t the end of it.  Not content with simply having Emanuel and his ideas, he did a recess appointment for Donald Berwick, who now is in charge of Medicare and Medicaid. Here’s but one quote from him.

The Redstate article also shows that Berwick publicly embraces rationing.

The interviewer pointed out: “Critics of CER have said that it will lead to the rationing of health care.” To which Berwick replied: “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

So, can we safely assume that there is a pattern here?  While the “progressives” in power say that rationing is not part of their plans, they certainly seem to like appointing people that do.

And now, for the latest, Paul Krugman appeared on This Week with the Latest Host, this past Sunday, and had the following exchange.

Pay particular attention at 4:35, where Krugman mentions “death panel people,” and that the host then mentions IPAB-all in reference to controlling costs.

Seriously folks, how many times does this have to come up before our “progressive” friends drop all pretenses?  Just admit it! It’s about rationing.  It always has.  It’s not like they’re speaking in some unbreakable code.

H/T: NewsMax

Update: NewsBusters has Krugman’s feeble efforts to back away from his statements…

(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care

Er…so…they’ll have death panels, but just call it something else?  Noel Sheppard is right.  Krugman dug himself a bigger hole with his response.

Come to think of it, if I were wrong as often as Krugman, my employer would have discarded me long ago…and rightfully so.   Apparently, disingenuousness and incompetence are big resume items over at the Times.

Share

ObamaCare Damage: IPAB, Rationing and the Dealth Panel?

Share

I caught this video over at Hot Air today, and thought it best to share it here.  Kindly give a close listen to Peter Orszag, the current Director of the Office of Management and Budget under the POTUS.

So, we have the IPAB, which stands for Independent Payment Advisory Board.  From what Orszag is saying; that it will cut costs by not being “based on quantity,” I think we can safely assume that this is a rationing body.

Now, if this is a rationing body, and they are going to cut costs by not treating things, might this also be the “death panel?”  Both Sunstein and Emanuel (EZKILL, not Rahm), have both tagged end of life care as something to be limited.  IPAB would seem to be a great way to accomplish just that.  No, you won’t have to stand before them and justify your life, but they might just arbitrarily decide to not pay for something that keeps you alive.  Considering that this already happens in the UK with cancer drugs, and 20,000 Brits with cancer are killed by the NHS each year, are we seeing a pattern here?

You be the judge.  Also, note that Orszag states that the Congress was notified of this.  So, not only have they been denying that rationing is part of ObamaCare, they were clearly aware that this is a lie.  In the end, there will be unelected bureaucrats deciding what type of treatments that we can, or can not have.  Add to that, the quotes from the aforementioned government officials who have been suggesting that we cut end of life care, and this law is everything that we’ve been saying it was all along.

Better get Granny ready for the pain pill.

Share