Wednesday, January 11, 2012

New "Rationing Board" Threatens Health Care Access in America

Dear Readers,

This is a CRUCIAL SUBJECT so PLEASE READ and share with everyone you know! Recall how the media of mass deception mocked Sarah Palin for her concern about the "death panels" written in the Obamacare bill? She was CORRECT FOLKS!

Sarah Palin's Face Book Page Notes: Lies, Damned Lies – Obamacare 6 Months Later; It’s Time to Take Back the 20!


And remember when the Obama administration said they would not be “rationing care” in the future? That ol’ “death panels” thing I wrote about last year? That was before Obamacare was passed. Once it passed, they admitted there was going to be rationing after all. There has to be. The reality of Obamacare is that it enshrines what the New York Times called “The Power of No” – the government’s power to say no to your request for treatment of the people you love. The fact that the president used a recess appointment to push through the nomination of Dr. Donald Berwick as head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services tells you all you need to know about this administration’s intentions. After all, Berwick is the man who said, “The decision is not whether we will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

By the way, when the administration was talking about that independent board that has the statutory power to decide which categories of treatment are worthy of funding based on efficiency calculations (that, again, sounded to me like a panel of faceless bureaucrats making life and death decisions about your loved ones – which, again, is what I referred to as a “death panel”), it was another opportunity for Americans to hear the truth about Obamacare’s intentions.

So, yes, those rationing “death panels” are there, and so are the tax increases that the president also promised were “absolutely not” in his bill. (Aren’t you tiring of the untruths coming from this White House and the liberals in Congress?) When the state of Florida filed a challenge to Obamacare on the basis that the mandates in the bill are unconstitutional, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the suit by citing the Anti-Injunction Act, which blocks courts from interfering with the federal government’s ability to collect taxes. Yes, taxes! Once the bill was passed it was no longer politically inconvenient for the Obama administration to admit that it makes no difference whether the payment is a tax or a penalty because it’s “assessed and collected in the same manner.” The National Taxpayer Advocate has already warned that “Congress must provide sufficient funding” to allow the IRS to collect this new tax. Pretty soon we’ll be paying taxes just to make it possible for the IRS to collect all the additional taxes under Obamacare! Seems as if this is another surprise that the public found out about after the bill was rammed through.

There is a Christian ministry called Truth In Action which has set up a petition to sign at the website. You will find the petition link at the end of the following article:

Truth In Action: New Rationing Board Threatens Health Care Access In America.

This is a ministry that deserves support and I encourage everyone to read about the new "rationing board" that threatens health care access in America. Donate just $5 or more and receive a booklet: Ration Care: The Powerful Unelected Board that Threatens Healthcare in America

Dear Children, let us not love with word or tongue but with actions and in truth. - 1 John 3:18 NIV

I was so glad when Michele Bachmann was in the race for the presidency because she kept this issue front and center at all of the debates. Since her exit, the debates that I have witnessed have not mentioned the need to repeal Obamacare!

Also, please read the entire issue of the Impact Newsletter [PDF].

On page two, there is an article that covers why newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should RECUSE HERSELF FROM THE UPCOMING CASE!

Copy of article:

Why Justice Kagan Should Withdraw
from Health Case

Should a U.S. Supreme Court justice pass judgment on a law she is known to support, one for which she apparently took a role in devising a legal defense strategy?

That’s a question many people are asking about Elena Kagan, who was U.S. Solicitor General when health care reform became law. Kagan’s “Simply amazing…” email to a colleague on March 21, 2010, celebrating the imminent passage of the health care restructuring bill, demonstrates her support for the law in which she is about to sit in judgment.


But there’s more. A Jan. 8, 2010 email from her deputy, Neal Katyal, states that “Elena would definitely like OSG [Office of the Solicitor General] to be involved in this set of issues [legal defense of health care reform].

Kagan was also copied on a March 18, 2010 email which outlined privileged information regarding the government’s legal strategy to defend the law.
Federal law requires a judge to withdraw from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” We believe that reasonable standard has been met in Justice Kagan’s case.

Please read, sign and return the enclosed petition to Justice Kagan, asking her to withdraw herself from the case.

Example of petition to print out, sign, and mail:


Dear Justice Kagan:

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Your past involvement as an advocate for this law while Solicitor General, as evidenced by emails released as a consequence of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, makes it clear that you have a conflict of interest and a legal duty to recuse yourself from hearing this case.

Your view of the law itself is clear from your email to your colleague Laurence Tribe on March 21, 2010, celebrating its imminent passage. You also commissioned your deputy, Neal Katyal, to participate in strategy sessions within the Obama administration to defend the law and had access too privileged information regarding that legal strategy.

God's Word states that judges are to be impartial: "You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality..." (Deuteronomy 16:19 NKJV). (bold mine)

Federal law states that a judge who has "served in governmental employment" must recuse if she has "expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." The law, 28 USC 455, also requires a judge to withdraw from "any proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

That standard is more than met by the information contained in the few emails released by the U.S. Justice Department. With all due respect, Justice Kagan, you have a clear duty to recuse yourself in this case. Should you fail to do so, it will deeply stain your reputation and that of the Court. For all these reasons, we implore you to withdraw from this case.


[sign name and include address]


Hat Tips to all links.


GMpilot said...

“Truth in Action Ministries”, hm?
Formerly known as Coral Ridge Ministries.
I'm sure the coral ridges are still out there in the Florida surf, but after the death of DJ Kennedy, someone decided that a name change might be in order. Same poison, different bottle.
In any case, there is still no truth in Truth in Action Ministries, at least in regard to IPAD. gets closer to the mark:

First, what is this board and what can it do?

It was created to reduce Medicare spending, if spending surpasses the targeted rate, which is the average of consumer and medical care inflation. Medical inflation has been higher than general inflation 24 of the past 25 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Board members are chosen by the president, with advice from the U.S. Senate. Board proposals to reduce spending must be submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by Sept. 1 of each year and to the president and Congress by Jan. 15 of the following year. The Senate can vote by a three-fifths majority to reject the board’s recommendations, but it then must come up with Medicare spending cuts.

Board members should include doctors, employers, health economist researchers and third-party payers and can serve six-year terms. The HHS secretary, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrator and the administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration are nonvoting members of the board.

The health care law has goals of maintaining or enhancing beneficiary access to quality care. It prohibits IPAB from reducing payments for inpatient and outpatient hospital services, inpatient rehabilitation and psychiatric facilities, long-term care hospitals and hospices until 2020, noted an April report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that researches health policy. The Kaiser report says there could be changes in "Medicare Advantage, the Part D prescription drug program, skilled nursing facility, home health, dialysis, ambulance and ambulatory surgical center services and durable medical equipment."

Another Georgia congressman, Rep. Phil Gingrey, claimed a few months ago that "a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy." Those bureaucrats were, yes, IPAB. We reviewed that claim and rated Gingrey’s statement as False. Section 3403 of the health care law noted that IPAB may not submit "any recommendation to ration health care."
(emphases mine –GM)

The real 'death panels' are busy planning the next war.

Christinewjc said...

Sooo...what happens after 2020? Answer: RATIONING by IPAB when the prohibition ends for reducing payments for inpatient and outpatient hospital services, inpatient rehabilitation and psychiatric facilities, long-term care hospitals and hospices.

You can try and spin the truth all you want GM, but people aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are.

GMpilot said...

Really? Got any evidence that'll happen? Like, say...any documents hinting (or mandating) that IPAB will begin 'RATIONING' as of that date, are are you simply screeching again? If you got 'em, show 'em.

A great deal can happen between now and 2020. If you're that concerned, I suggest you demand that the Congress--and the candidates-- address this. What would Palin herself propose as an alternative?

Like you, hostess, I just call them as I see them. Apparently, people aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are, either.

Christinewjc said...

I agree that a "great deal can happen between now and 2020." That is why Obamafraudcare needs to be repealed NOW!

So, Mr. Pilot - nothing to say about the need for Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamafraudcare Supreme Court case?

GMpilot said...

CJW: ”I agree that a 'great deal can happen between now and 2020.' That is why Obamafraudcare needs to be repealed NOW!”

Then there had better be a viable alternative to replace it as soon as the 'NOW!' comes. Nobody seems to have one, or even proposed one; no TEAbagger or GOPper has announced one that I know of. This seems to be because that NOW! moment isn't likely to come.

”So, Mr. Pilot - nothing to say about the need for Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the Obamafraudcare Supreme Court case?”

Whaddaya want me to say, Mrs. Watson? Kagan doesn't seem to feel the need to do so.
I also say: there have been calls for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself, too. Funny how you didn't mention that...

Christinewjc said...

There is a HUGE difference between the need for Kagan to recuse herself vs. Thomas.

Kagan (as reported in original post) was DIRECTLY INVOLVED with the passage of the bill. Thomas' wife, being a member of the TEA Party, held the opinion of being opposed to the bill.

GMpilot said...

Yes, I knew that. But you still conveniently neglected to mention it.
What's good for the goose...

It's also interesting that you haven't mentioned any counter-proposals to 'Obamacare'. Guess there aren't any.