Does Palin Get Her Apology???

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps the greatest advantage the Left has is that wholly-owned subsidiary, the main stream media.

In Shakespeare's works we find important idea of repeating something of importance: "Why do the characters often repeat a line or word three times? Examples: Polonious asks Hamlet what he is reading. Hamlet answers "words, words, words". Shakespeare

With the media working hand in glove with the Progressives, their transgressions aren't repeated....they simply disappear. On the other hand, the media makes sure that any associated with their opponents never fades away: "The New York Times ran 47 front page stories on Abu Ghraib - including 32 days in a row on the front page,...." Flashback: Abu Ghraib Front Page of NY Times 47 Times

Who recalls the contumely that Sarah Palin received when she claimed that central to ObamaCare was 'Death Panels'?
Where are the headlines now that it is revealed that she was right?





1. " Signs of ObamaCare's failings mount daily, including soaring insurance costs, looming provider shortages and inadequate insurance exchanges. Yet the law's most disturbing feature may be the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, sometimes called a "death panel," threatens both the Medicare program and the Constitution's separation of powers. At a time when many Americans have been unsettled by abuses at the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department, the introduction of a powerful and largely unaccountable board into health care merits special scrutiny.

2. For a vivid illustration of the extent to which life-and-death medical decisions have already been usurped by government bureaucrats, consider the recent refusal by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to waive the rules barring access by 10-year old Sarah Murnaghan to the adult lung-transplant list.

3. .... the grip of the bureaucracy will clamp much harder once the Independent Payment Advisory Board gets going in the next two years.





4. The board..., is directed to "develop detailed and specific proposals related to the Medicare program," including proposals cutting Medicare spending below a statutorily prescribed level.

5. The ObamaCare law also stipulates that there "shall be no administrative or judicial review" of the board's decisions. Its members will be nearly untouchable, too. They will be presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed, but after that they can only be fired for "neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."

a. .... its decisions can be overruled only by Congress, and only through unprecedented and constitutionally dubious legislative procedures—featuring restricted debate, short deadlines for actions by congressional committees and other steps of the process, and supermajoritarian voting requirements.

b. If the board fails to implement cuts, all of its powers are to be exercised by HHS Secretary Sebelius or her successor.





6. The IPAB's godlike powers are not accidental. Its goal, conspicuously proclaimed by the Obama administration, is to control Medicare spending in ways that are insulated from the political process. This wholesale transfer of power is at odds with the Constitution's separation-of-powers architecture that protects individual liberty by preventing an undue aggregation of government power in a single entity.

7. Congress has willingly abandoned its power to make tough spending decisions (how and where to cut) to an unaccountable board that neither the legislative branch nor the president can control. The law has also entrenched the board's decisions to an unprecedented degree.

a. In Mistretta v. United States (1989), the Supreme Court emphasized that, in seeking assistance to fill in details not spelled out in the law, Congress must lay down an "intelligible principle" that "confine the discretion of the authorities to whom Congress has delegated power." The "intelligible principle" test ensures accountability by demanding that Congress take responsibility for fundamental policy decisions. The IPAB is guided by no such intelligible principle.

8. ObamaCare mandates that the board impose deep Medicare cuts, while simultaneously forbidding it to ration care. Reducing payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers may cause them to limit or stop accepting Medicare patients, or even to close shop.These actions will limit seniors' access to care, causing them to wait longer or forego care—the essence of rationing.




9. Since ObamaCare eliminates both judicial review for any of the board's decisions and public-participation requirements for rule making, this unprecedented insulation of the board guts due process.... the Independent Payment Advisory Board isn't a typical executive agency. It's a new beast that exercises both executive and legislative power but can't be controlled by either branch. Seniors and providers hit hardest by the board's decisions will have nowhere to turn for relief...

10 . While the board is profoundly unconstitutional, it is designed to operate in a way that makes it difficult to find private parties with standing to challenge it ..." David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley: An ObamaCare Board Answerable to No One - WSJ.com



It is every kind of evil that the Right said it was.......

This is what Obama voters have done to the rest of the nation.

 

[mamooth]

I'm sorry she's such a dishonest retard.

Better now?

 

[jwoodie]

I'm sorry she's such a dishonest retard.

Better now?

Well, you are sorry. Admitting this is the first step towards recovery.

 

[Greenbeard]

The IPAB (which doesn't even exist at this point since no one's been appointed to it) only gets to make recommendations if per capita Medicare spending growth exceeds a certain target.

Per capita Medicare spending growth last year--0.4%--was the lowest ever experienced by the program.

The slow growth in spending per beneficiary from 2010 to 2012 combined with the projections of spending growth at GDP+0 for 2012-2022 is unprecedented in the history of the Medicare program.

Per capita Medicare cost growth is currently under control. As a result, predictably, the IPAB won't be doing much of anything for a while.

When legislators drafted the Affordable Care Act, they recognized that a situation like this could occur, and that it wouldn’t quite make sense to work on cost control when, by and large, costs were being controlled.

So, they set a trigger. The IPAB would only come into effect when Medicare’s per-enrollee spending grew faster than the average of overall price growth (measured by the Consumer Price Index) and medical price growth. That way, Medicare costs wouldn’t rise as quickly as the rest of the health-care sector, but also have some wiggle room to grow faster than the rest of the economy.

The law also set a deadline: By April 30, 2013, Medicare’s chief actuary would need to determine whether the entitlement program would hit that trigger point. And, a few days ago, acting chief actuary Paul Spitalnic made his determination: Medicare cost growth would not be high enough to call the IPAB into action.

“Because the projected 5-year Medicare per capita growth rate does not exceed the Medicare per capita target growth rate, there is no applicable savings target for implementation year 2015,” Spitalnic wrote in an April 30 letter to Marilyn Tavenner, acting Medicare administrator.

In other words:

One consequence of gradual spending growth is that the IPAB will not be required to propose reductions in Medicare reimbursement. If low Medicare spending growth persists in the near term, then the most controversial feature of the IPAB — congressional consideration of IPAB proposals under expedited procedures — will not come into play.

In other words, because Medicare spending growth has moderated, the IPAB will not be as important as either its supporters or its detractors have claimed. It's much more likely to be irrelevant than to become the centerpiece of cost containment.

 

[daveman]

I'm sorry she's such a dishonest retard.

Better now?

Dishonest about Obamacare's death panels?

No, that would be Obama and his bootlickers -- you know, like you.

 

[Polk]

The IPAB (which doesn't even exist at this point since no one's been appointed to it) only gets to make recommendations if per capita Medicare spending growth exceeds a certain target.

Per capita Medicare spending growth last year--0.4%--was the lowest ever experienced by the program.

The slow growth in spending per beneficiary from 2010 to 2012 combined with the projections of spending growth at GDP+0 for 2012-2022 is unprecedented in the history of the Medicare program.

Per capita Medicare cost growth is currently under control. As a result, predictably, the IPAB won't be doing much of anything for a while.

When legislators drafted the Affordable Care Act, they recognized that a situation like this could occur, and that it wouldn’t quite make sense to work on cost control when, by and large, costs were being controlled.

So, they set a trigger. The IPAB would only come into effect when Medicare’s per-enrollee spending grew faster than the average of overall price growth (measured by the Consumer Price Index) and medical price growth. That way, Medicare costs wouldn’t rise as quickly as the rest of the health-care sector, but also have some wiggle room to grow faster than the rest of the economy.

The law also set a deadline: By April 30, 2013, Medicare’s chief actuary would need to determine whether the entitlement program would hit that trigger point. And, a few days ago, acting chief actuary Paul Spitalnic made his determination: Medicare cost growth would not be high enough to call the IPAB into action.

“Because the projected 5-year Medicare per capita growth rate does not exceed the Medicare per capita target growth rate, there is no applicable savings target for implementation year 2015,” Spitalnic wrote in an April 30 letter to Marilyn Tavenner, acting Medicare administrator.

In other words:

One consequence of gradual spending growth is that the IPAB will not be required to propose reductions in Medicare reimbursement. If low Medicare spending growth persists in the near term, then the most controversial feature of the IPAB — congressional consideration of IPAB proposals under expedited procedures — will not come into play.

In other words, because Medicare spending growth has moderated, the IPAB will not be as important as either its supporters or its detractors have claimed. It's much more likely to be irrelevant than to become the centerpiece of cost containment.

Beyond that, it's a steaming load of crap to claim organ shortages are being caused by the ACA, since they'd been happening as long as organ transplants have been a thing.