Death Panels? ....You Betchya!

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
Turns out the LIE of the year, goes to THE DEMOCRATS regarding the so-called "death panel." Not only will there BE a death panel, as Sarah Palin warned us, but once it is established by law, it can never be repealed by a future Congress!!!


Excerpt from The Bill:

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If, with respect to a
7 determination year, the Chief Actuary of the
8 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
9 makes a determination under paragraph (6)(A)
10 that the growth rate described in clause (i) of
11 such paragraph exceeds the growth rate de12
scribed in clause (ii) of such paragraph, the
13 Chief Actuary shall establish an applicable sav14
ings target for the implementation year.
15 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE SAVINGS TARGET.—For
16 purposes of this section, the applicable savings
17 target for an implementation year shall be an
18 amount equal to the product of—
19 ‘‘(i) the total amount of projected
20 Medicare program spending for the pro21
posal year; and
22 ‘‘(ii) the applicable percent for the im23
plementation year.
24 ‘‘(C) APPLICABLE PERCENT.—For pur25
poses of subparagraph (B), the applicable per1016
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 cent for an implementation year is the lesser
2 of—
3 ‘‘(i) in the case of—
4 ‘‘(I) implementation year 2015,
5 0.5 percent;
6 ‘‘(II) implementation year 2016,
7 1.0 percent;
8 ‘‘(III) implementation year 2017,
9 1.25 percent; and
10 ‘‘(IV) implementation year 2018
11 or any subsequent implementation
12 year, 1.5 percent; and
13 ‘‘(ii) the projected excess for the im14
plementation year (expressed as a percent)
15 determined under subparagraph (A).
16 ‘‘(8) PER CAPITA RATE OF GROWTH IN NA17
TIONAL HEALTH EXPENDITURES.—In each deter18
mination year (beginning in 2018), the Chief Actu19
ary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
20 shall project the per capita rate of growth in na21
tional health expenditures for the implementation
22 year. Such rate of growth for an implementation
23 year shall be calculated as the projected 5-year aver24
age (ending with such year) percentage increase in
25 national health care expenditures.
1017
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(d) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.—
2 ‘‘(1) INTRODUCTION.—
3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—On the day on which
4 a proposal is submitted by the President to the
5 House of Representatives and the Senate under
6 subsection (c)(4), the legislative proposal (de7
scribed in subsection (c)(3)(B)(iv)) contained in
8 the proposal shall be introduced (by request) in
9 the Senate by the majority leader of the Senate
10 or by Members of the Senate designated by the
11 majority leader of the Senate and shall be in12
troduced (by request) in the House by the ma13
jority leader of the House or by Members of the
14 House designated by the majority leader of the
15 House.
16 ‘‘(B) NOT IN SESSION.—If either House is
17 not in session on the day on which such legisla18
tive proposal is submitted, the legislative pro19
posal shall be introduced in that House, as pro20
vided in subparagraph (A), on the first day
21 thereafter on which that House is in session.
22 ‘‘(C) ANY MEMBER.—If the legislative pro23
posal is not introduced in either House within
24 5 days on which that House is in session after
25 the day on which the legislative proposal is sub1018
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 mitted, then any Member of that House may
2 introduce the legislative proposal.
3 ‘‘(D) REFERRAL.—The legislation intro4
duced under this paragraph shall be referred by
5 the Presiding Officers of the respective Houses
6 to the Committee on Finance in the Senate and
7 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
8 and the Committee on Ways and Means in the
9 House of Representatives.
10 ‘‘(2) COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PRO11
POSAL.—
12 ‘‘(A) REPORTING BILL.—Not later than
13 April 1 of any proposal year in which a pro14
posal is submitted by the President to Congress
15 under this section, the Committee on Ways and
16 Means and the Committee on Energy and Com17
merce of the House of Representatives and the
18 Committee on Finance of the Senate may re19
port the bill referred to the Committee under
20 paragraph (1)(D) with committee amendments
21 related to the Medicare program.
22 ‘‘(B) CALCULATIONS.—In determining
23 whether a committee amendment meets the re24
quirement of subparagraph (A), the reductions
25 in Medicare program spending during the 3-
1019
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 month period immediately preceding the imple2
mentation year shall be counted to the extent
3 that such reductions are a result of the imple4
mentation provisions in the committee amend5
ment for a change in the payment rate for an
6 item or service that was effective during such
7 period pursuant to such amendment.
8 ‘‘(C) COMMITTEE JURISDICTION.—Not9
withstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of
10 the Senate, a committee amendment described
11 in subparagraph (A) may include matter not
12 within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Fi13
nance if that matter is relevant to a proposal
14 contained in the bill submitted under subsection
15 (c)(3).
16 ‘‘(D) DISCHARGE.—If, with respect to the
17 House involved, the committee has not reported
18 the bill by the date required by subparagraph
19 (A), the committee shall be discharged from
20 further consideration of the proposal.
21 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD
22 RECOMMENDATIONS.—
23 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in
24 order in the Senate or the House of Represent25
atives to consider any bill, resolution, or amend1020
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 ment, pursuant to this subsection or conference
2 report thereon, that fails to satisfy the require3
ments of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of sub4
section (c)(2).
5 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE
6 BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLA7
TION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or
8 the House of Representatives to consider any
9 bill, resolution, amendment, or conference re10
port (other than pursuant to this section) that
11 would repeal or otherwise change the rec12
ommendations of the Board if that change
13 would fail to satisfy the requirements of sub14
paragraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
15 ‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS
16 SUBSECTION.—It shall not be in order in the
17 Senate or the House of Representatives to con18
sider any bill, resolution, amendment, or con19
ference report that would repeal or otherwise
20 change this subsection.
21 ‘‘(D) WAIVER.—This paragraph may be
22 waived or suspended in the Senate only by the
23 affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members,
24 duly chosen and sworn.


So you have (1.) A Death Panel (aka: Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) and (2.) The legal means to keep the death panel implemented, regardless of anything a future Congress may want to do.
 
Last edited:
This "Death Panel" stuff is the biggest bunch of nonsense out there.

No matter where you receive your medical insurance, from BlueCross/BlueShield to the gov't public option, you will have some point at which medical treatment is refused to patients for financial reasons.

If I have a brain tumor that is inoperable and terminal, I am not going to be given a kidney transplant. And that is as it should be.

The cold hard truth is that we either make the decision not to provide treatment to those for whom there is no hope, or we flush millions of dollars down the drain.
 
WinterBorn said:
This "Death Panel" stuff is the biggest bunch of nonsense out there.

No matter where you receive your medical insurance, from BlueCross/BlueShield to the gov't public option, you will have some point at which medical treatment is refused to patients for financial reasons.

If I have a brain tumor that is inoperable and terminal, I am not going to be given a kidney transplant. And that is as it should be.

The cold hard truth is that we either make the decision not to provide treatment to those for whom there is no hope, or we flush millions of dollars down the drain.
Click to expand...

So you are okay with death panels and believe this is a practical approach to dealing with the cost of medical care.... glad you are on record with that!

Just a few years ago, we heard liberal pro-choicer's screaming, "get the government out of our wombs!" Well now, not only will the government be in your womb, but they will be making every decision regarding every aspect of your health care. What if a social conservative administration in the future, decides we can't cover pregnancies for unwed mothers? Under the plan, they could indeed do that, and you would be powerless to stop them!

My thing is, I want ME and MY FAMILY to make determinations on what is best for ME and MY FAMILY... and I don't want some government bureaucracy making those decisions for ME and MY FAMILY! The LAST person who knows a damn thing about ME and MY FAMILY and what is in their best interest, is a bunch of NO-NOTHING politicians in Washington!
 
Dixie said:
So you are okay with death panels and believe this is a practical approach to dealing with the cost of medical care.... glad you are on record with that!

Just a few years ago, we heard liberal pro-choicer's screaming, "get the government out of our wombs!" Well now, not only will the government be in your womb, but they will be making every decision regarding every aspect of your health care. What if a social conservative administration in the future, decides we can't cover pregnancies for unwed mothers? Under the plan, they could indeed do that, and you would be powerless to stop them!

My thing is, I want ME and MY FAMILY to make determinations on what is best for ME and MY FAMILY... and I don't want some government bureaucracy making those decisions for ME and MY FAMILY! The LAST person who knows a damn thing about ME and MY FAMILY and what is in their best interest, is a bunch of NO-NOTHING politicians in Washington!
Click to expand...

What I said was that, no matter what system you have, there will be determinations that will limit medical care based on cost or future benefits.

My father-in-law has a bad heart. His body produces huge amounts of plaque, regardless of what meds and dietary changes he has. A heart transplant would put a new heart into a body that would eventually destroy it.

The family would say do the transplant so we can have him for another year or two. But that would mean the insurance company would have to spend huge sums of money to delay his death by a year or so.

Here is what it would cost:

"According to Transplant Living, the average total cost of a single heart transplant in 2007 was $658,800. This figure includes the cost of obtaining a donor heart, at an average of nearly $90,000, about $23,000 in evaluation fees, $40,000 for doctor's fees, $383,000 in hospital costs, $93,000 in post-operative care, and over $29,000 for immunosuppressive prescription medications. Transplants that involved both a heart and a lung cost an average of $874,800, while heart and kidney combination transplants cost an average of $758,700."



So Dixie, who gets to decide whether a half a million dollars is spent on a patient who's body will destroy the transplanted heart??

If he has private insurance, the rest of the people who pay premiums will havetheir rates go up because of his wasted transplant.

If he is on gov't programs, our tax dollars are wasted.




I want control over my healthcare and my family's healthcare. That is not my point.

My point is that any insurance program is going to have a line that they draw. And that means all sources of medical care will make decisions that will deny someone care.
 
Now kiddies.... let's take a look at what the current Actuary says about the bill...

Some Savings in Senate Reform Bill are Unrealistic, Says CMS Actuary
<source>

By 2019, the number of uninsured could be reduced from an estimated 57 million to 24 million under the current Senate healthcare reform bill. However, the accompanying additional demand for services that would accompany this expansion would be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources—leading to "price increases, cost-shifting and/or changes in providers' willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage," according to a Dec. 10 memo compiled by Richard Foster, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) chief actuary.

The memo also notes that while net Medicare savings are estimated at $493 billion for the next decade, some of those savings may be unrealistic. For instance, the Senate reform bill would add "permanent annual productivity adjustments" to price updates for most providers--such as hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies—using a one-year average of productivity gains throughout the economy.

While the payment update reductions could provide "strong incentives" for all providers to improve their efficiency in providing services, "it is doubtful that many could improve their own productivity to the degree achieved by the economy at large," the memo noted.

Over time, this could cause Medicare rates to grow more slowly and "in a way that that was unrelated to the providers' costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries," according to the memo. This would mean that for those providers for whom Medicare "constitutes a substantial portion of their business," they could find it in the long run difficult to remain profitable.

And without legislative intervention, they could possibly end their participation in the program—thus jeopardizing the care of Medicare beneficiaries. Simulations by the Office of the Actuary also show that about 20% of Part A providers could end up becoming unprofitable, as well.

Janice Simmons is a senior editor and Washington, DC, correspondent for HealthLeaders Media Online.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rationing by 'death panels'.... Less availability for all.... less accessible for all.... more expensive for taxpayers.... leaves many millions still uninsured.... cedes personal freedom and liberty to the government, permanently!

No fucking wonder they are passing things in the middle of the night on weekends! No wonder they have had to outright BRIBE this thing to a vote! No wonder they had to pay off the pharmaceutical lobby, the AMA, AARP, and whatever politician they needed to!
 
Understand, Dixie, I am against gov't provided healthcare. I have always maintained that anything that the gov't takes over has gotten worse and less efficient.

But the "death panel" complaints are nonsense.

Our healthcare system is in need of change. But putting it in the hands of the most inefficent bureacracy known to man is a mistake.
 
So Dixie, who gets to decide whether a half a million dollars is spent on a patient who's body will destroy the transplanted heart??
Click to expand...

Who decides now? Generally speaking, shouldn't it be the patient/doctor, and no one else? As I said before, the pro-choice people should be very worried about this... the whole premise of their argument for abortion is the patient/doctor privilege, that IS the right claimed, or at least the basis for it. Your Senators are about to fritter that right away for a socialistic nightmare like you can't even begin to imagine.

Have you read the text that I posted from the bill? I realize it has a lot of quirks in the type, it was in pdf form, with subtext and stuff, I didn't strip that out... but if you read through what I posted, you can clearly see what they are planning to do, and it isn't going to be what your bleeding liberal hearts conceived at all. We will have a 'health czar', and his committee will be charged with making the square peg fit in the round hole on this thing... the cost of services can't exceed a set amount, which is calculated based on an average from the previous period. And I also posted the CYA statement from the current Actuary, who says... square peg can not fit in a round hole... just wanted you to understand that up front here... He looked at what they are about to saddle him with doing, and he said... uhm... guys, this can't be done without rationing services.
 
WinterBorn said:
Understand, Dixie, I am against gov't provided healthcare. I have always maintained that anything that the gov't takes over has gotten worse and less efficient.

But the "death panel" complaints are nonsense.

Our healthcare system is in need of change. But putting it in the hands of the most inefficent bureacracy known to man is a mistake.
Click to expand...

READ THE TEXT I POSTED!

The CMMS Actuary WILL BE IN CHARGE OF RATIONING YOUR HEALTH CARE!

This will actually be done on a 'committee' basis, comprised of five people! This is all outlined in another part of the bill not posted, but it's available online if you want to read through some it. So we are going to have a DEATH PANEL who will decide when care is too expensive, or not appropriate for you, based on what THEY consider your "worth" to society.

If you just want to remain in ignorant denial of what is spelled out above in black and white (and red), then you are too far gone to ever reach, and there is no sense in discussing it further. The actual text of the bill, lays out the "death panel" exactly as Sarah Palin articulated it, months ago!
 
WinterBorn said:
This "Death Panel" stuff is the biggest bunch of nonsense out there.

No matter where you receive your medical insurance, from BlueCross/BlueShield to the gov't public option, you will have some point at which medical treatment is refused to patients for financial reasons.

If I have a brain tumor that is inoperable and terminal, I am not going to be given a kidney transplant. And that is as it should be.

The cold hard truth is that we either make the decision not to provide treatment to those for whom there is no hope, or we flush millions of dollars down the drain.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with that line of thinking. ALL, every single one of them, ALL insurance policies are nothing more than corporate gambling. They are gambling that the money you give them will not have to be used to provide you a service that they promised in return for that money. Therefore, if you've purchased an insurance policy and then have need of it, the insurance company should be contractually bound to provide you those services regardless of the cost.
 
I've heard this morning that after passing the bill will make the already shortage of primary care dr critical. Rationing will occur right away due to not enough dr. Great
 
WinterBorn said:
This "Death Panel" stuff is the biggest bunch of nonsense out there.

No matter where you receive your medical insurance, from BlueCross/BlueShield to the gov't public option, you will have some point at which medical treatment is refused to patients for financial reasons.
WHAT? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!
If I have a brain tumor that is inoperable and terminal, I am not going to be given a kidney transplant. And that is as it should be.
sAME THING. STFU IDIOT
The cold hard truth is that we either make the decision not to provide treatment to those for whom there is no hope, or we flush millions of dollars down the drain.
Click to expand...

WHAT AN IDIOT
 
Can anyone actually explain what the difference is between an insurance company deciding what treatments will paid for and a government functionary, whose primary described duty is keeping costs under control and recommending cost cutting measures, deciding what will paid for?

How is it the continued proponents cannot see the writing on the wall when at the same time a law putting government in charge of which medical treatments are paid for, this self-same government comes out with a new "recommendation" for breast cancer detection that cuts screens by 60%?

So, tell us, what exactly IS the functional end difference between insurance companies deciding what to pay for according to profit margins, and the government deciding what to pay for according to a legal mandate to cut costs?
 
As for the section stating that no one can repeal their garbage, that is simply the arrogance of totalitarianism peeking through the veil of modern liberalism, thinking they have the authority to write a law which cannot be repealed. Not even the Constitution is so written.

It has absolutely zero meaning since all that needs happen is a future congress repeal the statement making it illegal to change anything, then repeal/change the rest.
 
Good Luck said:
Can anyone actually explain what the difference is between an insurance company deciding what treatments will paid for and a government functionary, whose primary described duty is keeping costs under control and recommending cost cutting measures, deciding what will paid for?

How is it the continued proponents cannot see the writing on the wall when at the same time a law putting government in charge of which medical treatments are paid for, this self-same government comes out with a new "recommendation" for breast cancer detection that cuts screens by 60%?

So, tell us, what exactly IS the functional end difference between insurance companies deciding what to pay for according to profit margins, and the government deciding what to pay for according to a legal mandate to cut costs?
Click to expand...

ooo... Ooo... ooooo... *dixie raises his hand* ...let me answer this!

The functional difference is, an insurance company is a capitalist private enterprise, and as such, is somewhat bound by competition to give the customer acceptable customer service, and they are also regulated and monitored by the insurance commissioner, to prevent them from taking advantage of people. Government answers to no one, as there is no competitor, and the only oversight is Congress, who won't really care about customer satisfaction, because the customer has no recourse but to accept what the government gives them.
 
Good Luck said:
As for the section stating that no one can repeal their garbage, that is simply the arrogance of totalitarianism peeking through the veil of modern liberalism, thinking they have the authority to write a law which cannot be repealed. Not even the Constitution is so written.

It has absolutely zero meaning since all that needs happen is a future congress repeal the statement making it illegal to change anything, then repeal/change the rest.
Click to expand...

They can only do this with a 3/5 majority, and that isn't likely to happen as long as liberals still exist.
 
Good Luck said:
Can anyone actually explain what the difference is between an insurance company deciding what treatments will paid for and a government functionary, whose primary described duty is keeping costs under control and recommending cost cutting measures, deciding what will paid for?

How is it the continued proponents cannot see the writing on the wall when at the same time a law putting government in charge of which medical treatments are paid for, this self-same government comes out with a new "recommendation" for breast cancer detection that cuts screens by 60%?

So, tell us, what exactly IS the functional end difference between insurance companies deciding what to pay for according to profit margins, and the government deciding what to pay for according to a legal mandate to cut costs?
Click to expand...

they can't see it because they're staring at the pie in the sky
these fucking idiots clearly have no idea what they are supporting.
We've done our best to expose the likely outcome. these clowns believe 100% in their fearless leaders like Reid and Pelosi, the champions of the poor.

They are so loyal, Pelosi and crew know they can get away with anything and still keep their jobs.
 
Dixie said:
Turns out the LIE of the year, goes to THE DEMOCRATS regarding the so-called "death panel." Not only will there BE a death panel, as Sarah Palin warned us, but once it is established by law, it can never be repealed by a future Congress!!!


Excerpt from The Bill:

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—If, with respect to a
7 determination year, the Chief Actuary of the
8 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
9 makes a determination under paragraph (6)(A)
10 that the growth rate described in clause (i) of
11 such paragraph exceeds the growth rate de12
scribed in clause (ii) of such paragraph, the
13 Chief Actuary shall establish an applicable sav14
ings target for the implementation year.
15 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE SAVINGS TARGET.—For
16 purposes of this section, the applicable savings
17 target for an implementation year shall be an
18 amount equal to the product of—
19 ‘‘(i) the total amount of projected
20 Medicare program spending for the pro21
posal year; and
22 ‘‘(ii) the applicable percent for the im23
plementation year.
24 ‘‘(C) APPLICABLE PERCENT.—For pur25
poses of subparagraph (B), the applicable per1016
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 cent for an implementation year is the lesser
2 of—
3 ‘‘(i) in the case of—
4 ‘‘(I) implementation year 2015,
5 0.5 percent;
6 ‘‘(II) implementation year 2016,
7 1.0 percent;
8 ‘‘(III) implementation year 2017,
9 1.25 percent; and
10 ‘‘(IV) implementation year 2018
11 or any subsequent implementation
12 year, 1.5 percent; and
13 ‘‘(ii) the projected excess for the im14
plementation year (expressed as a percent)
15 determined under subparagraph (A).
16 ‘‘(8) PER CAPITA RATE OF GROWTH IN NA17
TIONAL HEALTH EXPENDITURES.—In each deter18
mination year (beginning in 2018), the Chief Actu19
ary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
20 shall project the per capita rate of growth in na21
tional health expenditures for the implementation
22 year. Such rate of growth for an implementation
23 year shall be calculated as the projected 5-year aver24
age (ending with such year) percentage increase in
25 national health care expenditures.
1017
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(d) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.—
2 ‘‘(1) INTRODUCTION.—
3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—On the day on which
4 a proposal is submitted by the President to the
5 House of Representatives and the Senate under
6 subsection (c)(4), the legislative proposal (de7
scribed in subsection (c)(3)(B)(iv)) contained in
8 the proposal shall be introduced (by request) in
9 the Senate by the majority leader of the Senate
10 or by Members of the Senate designated by the
11 majority leader of the Senate and shall be in12
troduced (by request) in the House by the ma13
jority leader of the House or by Members of the
14 House designated by the majority leader of the
15 House.
16 ‘‘(B) NOT IN SESSION.—If either House is
17 not in session on the day on which such legisla18
tive proposal is submitted, the legislative pro19
posal shall be introduced in that House, as pro20
vided in subparagraph (A), on the first day
21 thereafter on which that House is in session.
22 ‘‘(C) ANY MEMBER.—If the legislative pro23
posal is not introduced in either House within
24 5 days on which that House is in session after
25 the day on which the legislative proposal is sub1018
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 mitted, then any Member of that House may
2 introduce the legislative proposal.
3 ‘‘(D) REFERRAL.—The legislation intro4
duced under this paragraph shall be referred by
5 the Presiding Officers of the respective Houses
6 to the Committee on Finance in the Senate and
7 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
8 and the Committee on Ways and Means in the
9 House of Representatives.
10 ‘‘(2) COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF PRO11
POSAL.—
12 ‘‘(A) REPORTING BILL.—Not later than
13 April 1 of any proposal year in which a pro14
posal is submitted by the President to Congress
15 under this section, the Committee on Ways and
16 Means and the Committee on Energy and Com17
merce of the House of Representatives and the
18 Committee on Finance of the Senate may re19
port the bill referred to the Committee under
20 paragraph (1)(D) with committee amendments
21 related to the Medicare program.
22 ‘‘(B) CALCULATIONS.—In determining
23 whether a committee amendment meets the re24
quirement of subparagraph (A), the reductions
25 in Medicare program spending during the 3-
1019
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 month period immediately preceding the imple2
mentation year shall be counted to the extent
3 that such reductions are a result of the imple4
mentation provisions in the committee amend5
ment for a change in the payment rate for an
6 item or service that was effective during such
7 period pursuant to such amendment.
8 ‘‘(C) COMMITTEE JURISDICTION.—Not9
withstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of
10 the Senate, a committee amendment described
11 in subparagraph (A) may include matter not
12 within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Fi13
nance if that matter is relevant to a proposal
14 contained in the bill submitted under subsection
15 (c)(3).
16 ‘‘(D) DISCHARGE.—If, with respect to the
17 House involved, the committee has not reported
18 the bill by the date required by subparagraph
19 (A), the committee shall be discharged from
20 further consideration of the proposal.
21 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD
22 RECOMMENDATIONS.—
23 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in
24 order in the Senate or the House of Represent25
atives to consider any bill, resolution, or amend1020
O:\MAL\MAL09863.xml [file 3 of 9] S.L.C.
1 ment, pursuant to this subsection or conference
2 report thereon, that fails to satisfy the require3
ments of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of sub4
section (c)(2).
5 ‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE
6 BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLA7
TION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or
8 the House of Representatives to consider any
9 bill, resolution, amendment, or conference re10
port (other than pursuant to this section) that
11 would repeal or otherwise change the rec12
ommendations of the Board if that change
13 would fail to satisfy the requirements of sub14
paragraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
15 ‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS
16 SUBSECTION.—It shall not be in order in the
17 Senate or the House of Representatives to con18
sider any bill, resolution, amendment, or con19
ference report that would repeal or otherwise
20 change this subsection.
21 ‘‘(D) WAIVER.—This paragraph may be
22 waived or suspended in the Senate only by the
23 affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members,
24 duly chosen and sworn.


So you have (1.) A Death Panel (aka: Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) and (2.) The legal means to keep the death panel implemented, regardless of anything a future Congress may want to do.
Click to expand...

I have to thank you conservatives for helping to deliver the senate HC bill.
If you guys hadn't worked so hard to marginalize those who weren't buying into the fringe position, Arlen Specter might have been the card up your sleeve. As it was, you drove him right into our waiting arms.

Keep up the good work. Your loss, our gain! :cof1:
 
Dixie said:
The functional difference is, an insurance company is a capitalist private enterprise, and as such, is somewhat bound by competition to give the customer acceptable customer service, and they are also regulated and monitored by the insurance commissioner, to prevent them from taking advantage of people. Government answers to no one, as there is no competitor, and the only oversight is Congress, who won't really care about customer satisfaction, because the customer has no recourse but to accept what the government gives them.
Click to expand...

Is this a joke or simply irony? If an insurance company can drop you or has strict limits due to profit being the primary motivation, then government would be the better choice as Medicare demonstrates. And most companies have little or no competition in heathcare insurance.

And a side thought, the idea of competition - genuine competition - went out in the 18th or 19th century, business today is primarily large conglomerates and oligarchies. We may just be the world's first working plutocracy. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top