REVIEW RSS FEED
SENATE WOULD TURN MEDICARE OVER TO A FEDERAL RESERVE OF HEALTH CARE. . . AND NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT IT.
With a few exceptions, that is -, like Klaus Files and David Broder last July. This provision in the bill represents another major step away from tripartite government and the U.S, Constitution. But these days, it's hard to find anyone in government or the media who cares.
David S. Broder, Washington Post, July 26 - Americans are familiar with -- if not altogether comfortable about -- unelected officials exercising great authority over our lives. The nine justices on the Supreme Court and hundreds of other jurists exert their power from the bench. The economy is managed by the Federal Reserve Board, though no one ever forced Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke to campaign for a vote.
If President Obama has his way, another such unelected authority will be created -- a manager and monitor for the vast and expensive American health-care system. As part of his health-reform effort, he is seeking to launch the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, or IMAC, a bland title for a body that could become as much an arbiter of medicine as the Fed is of the economy or the Supreme Court of the law. . .
Since 1997, the bureaucracy has included a similarly titled advisory body to Congress known by its nickname, MedPAC. But, as Obama has noted, its semiannual reports and recommendations have been quickly shelved, because it lacks any action-forcing mechanism. Its 17 expert members and small staff are conscientious but have no authority.
Obama is recommending that the successor agency, IMAC, be smaller and potentially more decisive. Under his plan, the president would name five physicians or other health-care-savvy members to serve for five-year terms on its board, picking one of them as chairman. Like the nominees to the Fed and the Supreme Court, they would have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Each year, IMAC would have two responsibilities. First, it would recommend to the president updated fees that Medicare would pay doctors, hospitals, rehab centers, nursing homes, labs, home-care and ambulance services, equipment manufacturers, and all other providers. That is now done by Congress itself, and the lobbying by potent hometown individuals and institutions is one reason Medicare costs keep growing. To control costs, IMAC's recommendations could not exceed the "aggregate level of net expenditures" under Medicare. . .
Because Medicare looms so large in the overall health system, the changes required by IMAC would undoubtedly transform all private delivery systems as well. . .
But Congress will have to decide if it is willing to yield that degree of control to five unelected IMAC commissioners. And Americans will have to decide if they are comfortable having those commissioners determine how they will be treated when they are ill.
David S. Broder, Washington Post, July 26 - Americans are familiar with -- if not altogether comfortable about -- unelected officials exercising great authority over our lives. The nine justices on the Supreme Court and hundreds of other jurists exert their power from the bench. The economy is managed by the Federal Reserve Board, though no one ever forced Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke to campaign for a vote.
If President Obama has his way, another such unelected authority will be created -- a manager and monitor for the vast and expensive American health-care system. As part of his health-reform effort, he is seeking to launch the Independent Medicare Advisory Council, or IMAC, a bland title for a body that could become as much an arbiter of medicine as the Fed is of the economy or the Supreme Court of the law. . .
Since 1997, the bureaucracy has included a similarly titled advisory body to Congress known by its nickname, MedPAC. But, as Obama has noted, its semiannual reports and recommendations have been quickly shelved, because it lacks any action-forcing mechanism. Its 17 expert members and small staff are conscientious but have no authority.
Obama is recommending that the successor agency, IMAC, be smaller and potentially more decisive. Under his plan, the president would name five physicians or other health-care-savvy members to serve for five-year terms on its board, picking one of them as chairman. Like the nominees to the Fed and the Supreme Court, they would have to be confirmed by the Senate.
Each year, IMAC would have two responsibilities. First, it would recommend to the president updated fees that Medicare would pay doctors, hospitals, rehab centers, nursing homes, labs, home-care and ambulance services, equipment manufacturers, and all other providers. That is now done by Congress itself, and the lobbying by potent hometown individuals and institutions is one reason Medicare costs keep growing. To control costs, IMAC's recommendations could not exceed the "aggregate level of net expenditures" under Medicare. . .
Because Medicare looms so large in the overall health system, the changes required by IMAC would undoubtedly transform all private delivery systems as well. . .
But Congress will have to decide if it is willing to yield that degree of control to five unelected IMAC commissioners. And Americans will have to decide if they are comfortable having those commissioners determine how they will be treated when they are ill.
Labels: HEALTH INSURANCE, MEDICARE
3 Comments:
And the payments to providers will only go in one direction - down. This will adversely effect all seniors, who need the Medicare-provided care. But, then, Congress and the administration only care about the source of campaign funds and likely voting blocs and don't seem to think that seniors matter. With AARP, etc. in their pocket most of the time, they don't worry about or fear senior power.
Like the Fed, and the Pentagon oversight farce, the members of the regulatory process will be the same slavering jackals who profit from the taxpayers' misery. What we need is a taxpayer embargo: we just tell our employers we have fifteen kids and they should withold at that rate, Of course if you refuse to file you go to jail. In my case they'd put a lien on my wife's paycheck and my Social Security. When I first applied for Social Security, the first thing they told me was that you can't draw a check if you're in jail. I'm a veteran with no convictions of any crime. Guess that shows you what they think of poor people and why they have to have fatass armed guards in federal offices. In the old days if you'd said something like that to my father, you might have found yourself on you're back looking up at a man.
on your back..
Post a Comment
<< Home