Not surprising in the least.
"...IPAB has been highlighted by economists and health policy experts as a key contributor to Medicare’s long term solvency. Under current law, if the projected Medicare per capita growth rate exceeds a predetermined target growth rate, IPAB recommends to the Congress policies to reduce the rate of Medicare growth to meet the target. IPAB recommendations are prohibited from increasing beneficiary premiums or cost-sharing, or restricting benefits. To further moderate the rate of Medicare growth, this proposal would lower the target rate from the GDP per capita growth rate plus 1 percent to plus 0.5 percent. Additionally, the proposal would give IPAB additional tools like the ability to consider value-based benefit design." --Budget document quoted at Beltway
Another preferred Obama methodology is just killing 'em off with abortifacients or abortion. IPAB should look into the cost of bullets. They're cheap.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Give the man some credit, here. This represents a major step forward.
Death is always cheaper than life; and yet the problem is that we already don't have enough young people to support all the old people. More abortion and birth control won't fix our problems, it'll make them worse. Fewer children means fewer workers, fewer taxpayers, fewer nurses and fewer hands to carry the load.
Now, euthanasia for the old, coupled with confiscatory death taxes... hey, that could work!
So, this is indeed an improvement over the last set of suggestions. This one actually has the potential to solve the problem, rather than making it worse. It may still be wrong in a moral sense, but at least it's practical.
tools like the ability to consider value-based benefit design
And this differs from EVERY private health insurance company how?
Exactly. There isn't a difference. This is no big deal.
Except you can appeal and sue the insurance company. Any bets on how well that will work with the death panel?
I doubt anyone will have the financial resources or live long enough to get to the Supreme Court with it like the nice folks fighting the EPA have had to do.
You can sue the federal government, too. Or elect a president more to your liking. You'll probably have better luck with that than with the insurance company.
Electing a new President won't help since the appointees will serve staggered 6 year terms. It was put together to create inertia.
There are however, many instance out there of people appealing to the insurance companies and winning. Why? PR. At least until 2014, insurance companies have to compete to an extent. And customer service factors into that.
And yes, you may sue the federal government. Good luck with that. Because they don't care. And they won't have to compete, because they are in charge.
What ever became of the meme that Obozo was coming for my guns and ammo? Why is granddad29 now peddling this new snake oil?
There's also a little problem with suing the Federal government called sovereign immunity. You can sue them -- if they agree to let you.
Well, that takes care of Jim's evasion of the difference between a Gummint which arrogates rights to itself and a private enterprise.
But he'll be back....
Post a Comment