The Gift That ...

[Yonivore]

They pushed it through new years eve in the dead of night anyway. They could have pushed anything if they'd wanted. They chose obamacare.

Nah, Obamacare was special. "We've got to pass it to see what's in it," isn't something that's said to justify passage of just any piece of legislation.

Bottom line, if they hadn't lied, they wouldn't have been able to pass it. As it stands, the Democrats who were promised cover if they voted it in are now finding out how valuable that promise was...

[ElNono]

Well, to be fair, Spurstalk's Political Forum isn't exactly representative of the rest of the universe. And, my recollection was that those of us who were pointing out the lies, whose predictions about cost, coverage, and all the rest were pretty much vilified in here. But, you're right, that's not what I remember about the rest of the world; everyone pretty much knew it was a piece of crap -- but, no one bothered to tell that to the Senators that sucked Obama's and passed it.

Nah, I think what you underestimate is the fact that a lot of people were just as tired of the status quo. Barrycare is a turd, but the previous status quo was just about as bad. What you did is pull a boutons on how doctors will refuse to see patients, etc, which really is silly. Even if Barrycare is a turd, not much of anything has changed (and shouldn't since the main issue wasn't addressed).

What was perhaps the most disappointing is the fact that it was a lost opportunity to address the real problem which is pricing/cost.

And, what we got was worse than the status quo. The same number of individuals that were uninsured before Obamacare, remain uninsured now. Many, many more have had their premiums shoot through the roof. Then, there are all the slights of hand the President has pulled over the past few years to try and shield Democrats from electoral fallout, due to their folly. Arbitrarily extending deadlines, and such.

I don't see that, tbh. There are in fact more people insured, IIRC, but costs wasn't addressed, so you're stuck on the same for possibly more money, which, again, was the main concern when it passed and labeled the turd it was labeled.

Well, his party controlled both Houses of Congress for two years and with Harry Reid's willingness to change Senate rules on a whim, it might as well have been veto proof.

But it effectively wasn't. That's not to say that Harry isn't a , but there's no need to make stuff up to get your point across.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This particular market intervention was a grab bag for the insurance industry who had already seen the windfall via car insurance mandates and mortgage lending laws. It was conceived by the Heritage Foundation before it got high-jacked by the Tea Party

I don't see why the justice department doesn't break up the hospital cartels. The Justice Department could trying applying an rust statutes on the hospital industry. I know there are regulations regarding price of goods and services. These were the types of actions that Teddy Roosevelt fought to be able to do 100 years ago when this land was last an oligarchy.

Instead we get civil right crusaders in the justice department to combat GOP gerrymandering. I hate the two party system.

[ChumpDumper]

lol death panels

[Yonivore]

lol death panels

Rationing = Death Panels

Obamacare Routes to Rationing

[ChumpDumper]

Rationing = Death Panels

Obamacare Routes to Rationing

lol routes

Republicans don't even want to repeal it now.

[2centsworth]

I was opposed to the law, but now that I've seen it in action, I'm a supporter of it. Needs some tweeking, but over the long haul it adds up to me.

As far as King v Burwell, I'm confounded why federal exchanges were ever created if this law only works with subsidies.

[ElNono]

Rationing = Death Panels

Obamacare Routes to Rationing

This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to take you seriously, Yoni, tbh

[Yonivore]

This is the kind of stuff that makes it hard to take you seriously, Yoni, tbh

Obamacare does include a death panel, and the separation of powers is its first target: Kevin O'Brien

[Th'Pusher]

Obamacare does include a death panel, and the separation of powers is its first target: Kevin O'Brien

Did the system pre Obamacare ration healthcare?

[Nbadan]

Did the system pre Obamacare ration healthcare?

It's not 'rationing' or 'death panel' when a corporation does it...

[ElNono]

Obamacare does include a death panel, and the separation of powers is its first target: Kevin O'Brien

Fearmongering and rants doesn't do it for me, tbh... They're not reasoned nor well thought out. "death panels" is hyperbole for the gullible. When you start down that road, you end up like boutons, more or less..

[ElNono]

I was opposed to the law, but now that I've seen it in action, I'm a supporter of it. Needs some tweeking, but over the long haul it adds up to me.

As far as King v Burwell, I'm confounded why federal exchanges were ever created if this law only works with subsidies.

That's my hope, tbh... the status quo needed to be shaken up... ACA is a turd, but it's a stepping stone into hopefully eventually getting a better system in place.

[boutons_deux]

"ACA is a turd"

not a total turd, and needs to be fixed, but your Repugs will definitely try to make it much worse and block all attempts at improvement.

[Yonivore]

Fearmongering and rants doesn't do it for me, tbh... They're not reasoned nor well thought out. "death panels" is hyperbole for the gullible. When you start down that road, you end up like boutons, more or less..

So, what would you call a panel whose decisions have the power to limit, restrict, or ration healthcare that could result in the death of an individual?

[tlongII]

"ACA is a turd"

not a total turd, and needs to be fixed, but your Repugs will definitely try to make it much worse and block all attempts at improvement.

Healthcare insurance was better before ACA was introduced. It should be repealed.

[ElNono]

So, what would you call a panel whose decisions have the power to limit, restrict, or ration healthcare that could result in the death of an individual?

what panel is that? The law states:

"The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

On top of that, the proposals get Congress oversight...

Now, whether this is the best way to monitor and reduce medicare spending whenever possible, that's certainly up for debate. But those are the kind of debates we need to have in order to improve the law, not unsubstantiated partisan clichés looking to lift a vote or two.

It's unfortunate we live in such a polarized environment where basic democratic tools like "compromise" are viewed as aiding and abetting the enemy... completely illogical, and ends up hurting all americans.

[CosmicCowboy]

Obamacare was basically just an expansion of Medicaid. Virtually all of the new signups are subsidized. Young healthy people that were supposed to bear the brunt of the financing were smart enough to just pay the penalty.

[boutons_deux]

Healthcare insurance was better before ACA was introduced. It should be repealed.

there's no going back

and the Repugs have NO replacement.

[ElNono]

Obamacare was basically just an expansion of Medicaid. Virtually all of the new signups are subsidized. Young healthy people that were supposed to bear the brunt of the financing were smart enough to just pay the penalty.

It was also a cozy deal with the Insurance industry... which is really one of the biggest turd aspects of the law.

I'm actually keen to see what's going to happen once the penalty starts to get enforced... the first year isn't that much, but we'll see what happens when it start growing, especially if the GOP ends up in control.

[DarrinS]

[Yonivore]

what panel is that? The law states:

"The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

On top of that, the proposals get Congress oversight...

Now, whether this is the best way to monitor and reduce medicare spending whenever possible, that's certainly up for debate. But those are the kind of debates we need to have in order to improve the law, not unsubstantiated partisan clichés looking to lift a vote or two.

It's unfortunate we live in such a polarized environment where basic democratic tools like "compromise" are viewed as aiding and abetting the enemy... completely illogical, and ends up hurting all americans.

I don't know where you get the idea the committee is subject to Congressional oversight. To me, it's all too reminiscent of "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," "Premiums will drop by $2,500 per family," "We will bend the cost of health care," "We have to pass it to see what's in it, " etc...

And, considering the person (about whom this thread was started) has admitted to deception in getting the ACA passed, in the first place, is it really that far of a stretch to believe there isn't deception here, as well?

Death Panels and the Independent Payment Advisory Board

How Does the IPAB Work?

Like many aspects of the ACA, the IPAB does nothing until 2014. But once it starts, it wields immense power. If growth in Medicare exceeds a target rate (growth in the economy plus 1% after 2017), then the IPAB must recommend savings that either reduce that growth to a target rate or otherwise reduce spending by 1.5% after 2017, whichever is less. The goal is for IPAB to prevent Medicare from growing too fast. While the IPAB’s recommendations are not binding, they will become law unless Congress passes subs ute legislation and the President signs it. In that regard, IPAB is somewhat reminiscent of the 2006 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Thus, IPAB’s proposals can become law without Congressional action or approval and will be impervious to a Presidential veto. The IPAB is not subject to Congressional oversight.

Without question, § 3403 concentrates vast power in the hands of a fifteen person Board. It can use that power independent of Congress, of the President, of the judiciary, and – some argue - of the will of the people. Proponents believe that such independence is necessary to protect Medicare from the will of special interests. That being said, the IPAB specifically is prohibited from rationing care, raising taxes or premiums, increasing cost-sharing, or restricting benefits or modifying eligibility for Medicare. As Peter Orszag, a former Obama Director of OMB, framed it in a discussion at the Economic Club of Washington: “This ins ution could prove to be far more important to the future of our fiscal health than, for example, the Congressional Budget Office. It has an enormous amount of potential power.” Significantly, former Bush administration CMS Chief Mark McClellan has called for “[strengthening] and [clarifying] the authority and capacity of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.”

[Yonivore]

Hearings floated as Hill Republicans seize on Gruber Obamacare comments

Sounds like a good idea to me.

[ChumpDumper]

So, what would you call a panel whose decisions have the power to limit, restrict, or ration healthcare that could result in the death of an individual?

A health insurance company.

[ElNono]

I don't know where you get the idea the committee is subject to Congressional oversight.

I said "the proposals get Congress oversight". The panel has no other power than to submit proposals to Congress.

Every year on September 1, IPAB must submit a draft proposal to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. On January 15 of the next year IPAB must submit a proposal to Congress. If IPAB fails to meet this deadline, the HHS must create its own proposal. Congress must consider this proposal under special rules. Congress cannot consider any amendment to the proposal that does not achieve similar cost reductions unless both houses of Congress, including a three-fifths super majority in the Senate, vote to waive this requirement. If Congress fails to adopt a subs ute provision by August 15, HHS must implement the proposal as originally submitted to Congress.

So Congress gets the final word. You wanted Congress to cut medicare spending? There you have it. This actually is one of the good aspects of the law, IMO, if we're talking about cutting the fat from medicare.

And Congress, and only Congress, can waive the cost-cutting if they want to.

Now we can argue that those recommendations might need to come from a different source than this panel, that, to me, would be a valid objection, and we can discuss what a better source should be.