Ration Roulette: House Debates Death Panel
Now that Democrats have had five years to read the health care law, most of them agree with the GOP: we need to kill at least part of the bill — before it kills Americans! The Independent Payment Advisory Panel (or “death panel,” as it’s been dubbed) has been a major sticking point with both parties since ObamaCare passed. Among other things, IPAB would be responsible for keeping Medicare costs down, which sounds innocent enough. But the big controversy isn’t *whether* IPAB should save money — but *how* it does. As the former chief of Medicare said, it’s much cheaper for the government to let sick people die than care for them. So, the President’s team invented this Board, which would be hand-picked by the White House to determine who is worthy of care and who isn’t. Not only would IPAB be free of congressional oversight, but it would also operate without much input from health care providers. Instead of discussing the options with your doctor, IPAB will be sitting at the controls in Washington making health decisions for your family.
Now that Democrats have had five years to read the health care law, most of them agree with the GOP: we need to kill at least part of the bill — before it kills Americans! The Independent Payment Advisory Panel (or “death panel,” as it’s been dubbed) has been a major sticking point with both parties since ObamaCare passed. Among other things, IPAB would be responsible for keeping Medicare costs down, which sounds innocent enough. But the big controversy isn’t whether IPAB should save money — but how it does.
As the former chief of Medicare said, it’s much cheaper for the government to let sick people die than care for them. So, the President’s team invented this Board, which would be hand-picked by the White House to determine who is worthy of care and who isn’t. Not only would IPAB be free of congressional oversight, but it would also operate without much input from health care providers. Instead of discussing the options with your doctor, IPAB will be sitting at the controls in Washington making health decisions for your family.
Essentially, the Board’s 15 members would be completely unaccountable — to Congress or anyone else. They’d have the power to limit which doctors you see, what treatments are available, and in some cases, whether you’re eligible for care at all. “The ‘independent’ part of IPAB’s name is no joke…” Forbes points out. “If Medicare spending exceeds limits set by law, then IPAB can impose its own set of cost controls… Once IPAB settles on its cuts, lawmakers must either offer an alternative plan that cuts the same level of spending or muster a super-majority to block the Board’s cuts from taking effect.”
Republicans have called it a “rationing board” — and even liberals agree. Hundreds of groups like the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (which supported the overall health care law) have been pushing to repeal IPAB. And believe me, Congress is trying.
[Today] in the House, members will be voting on a measure to bury the panel. In committee alone, the repeal had 20 Democratic cosponsors. In fact, you have to go a long way to find someone in favor of the idea. Since its inception, not one person has said they would accept an invitation to join the Board. They understand what most Americans do: What should control health care isn’t IPAB. It isn’t even Congress. What should control health care is the relationship between doctors and patients. Injecting more government into the equation only punishes patients and squeezes out the cutting-edge science that could treat them. In many respects, IPAB is just a microcosm of the President’s political philosophy: bypassing Congress to implement Big Government lawlessness.
It’s another symptom of an ObamaCare system that’s plaguing America — physically, politically, and economically. Insurers are already pushing for massive rate hikes under the ObamaCare exchange, meaning that premiums (which have already climbed significantly) will skyrocket. In places like New Mexico, Tennessee, Maryland, and Oregon, the “rate boosts” would be anywhere from 25-51%! Under the rules of the state exchanges, companies have to appeal to regulators for a rate increase (and, according to the Wall Street Journal, only Maine’s market leader has not).
As most of us predicted, the medical costs for sick enrollees (which are the bulk of people using the coverage) are too high, and there’s no way for insurance plans to absorb them. In the end, it all points to the bigger picture on ObamaCare — which is that rationing boards or not, the only thing we should be killing is this law!
A Boone for Transgenderism?
It’s one thing for the media to glorify Bruce Jenner’s disorder with magazine covers and talk show fests, and quite another to witness the real-life pain that Photoshop can’t fix. In today’s New York Times, Americans meet a young boy who’s putting a teenage face on the transgender movement — proving that the condition isn’t quite the picnic the tabloids are making it out to be. In a long and poignant column, the Times follows “Katherine” Boone, who was born a boy but identifies as a girl — and now has the body to match.
His story, which can only be described as tragic and sad, is prompting more people to ask how young is too young to “transition” to another sex? It’s a physically and mentally painful process that one Johns Hopkins doctor believes is so harmful he called it “child abuse.” Kat, as he likes to be called, stunned his parents with the news that he was pursuing the surgery — and after much pleading, they consented. Unfortunately for Kat, the decision has led to depression, suicide attempts, and earnest health complications. Although Kat doesn’t regret the change, it certainly doesn’t paint a rosy picture of the challenges and delicacy of the situation.
For its part, the Times does at least address some of the potential criticisms of the idea of teen transitions. “There is no consensus in the medical community on the central question,” it writes, “whether teenagers, habitually trying on new identities and not known for foresight, should be granted an irreversible physical fix for what is still considered a psychological condition… Has the internet liberated teenagers like Kat from a narrow view of how they should live their live, or has it seduced them by offering them, for the first time, an answer to their self-searching, an answer they might later choose to reject?”
As people have argued, the “identities” of adolescents are inherently fluid. They may be making permanent physical changes based on a psychological state and desire that may not be permanent. People with gender dysphoria are supposed to be evaluated for “psychological co-morbidity” (that is, mental health problems that are present the same time as the gender issues) and should be effectively treated for those first, before reassignment is even considered. In the rush to affirm someone’s chosen gender identity, however, this often doesn’t happen.
The fact that this boy was cutting himself (even after the beginning of his reassignment, as the correction at the end of the story says!) is a huge red flag that should have been addressed. Of course, transgender activists insist that all of these mental health problems happen because they’re living in the wrong gender, and that reassignment surgery, like Kat had, is the solution. But, as even this article points out, experts in Sweden just finished a large study in which the continuing problems of post-surgical transgenders (like high suicide rates) still exist. That, and the depression he experienced after surgery, prove those activists wrong.
As Rev. Franklin Graham said so perfectly after Jenner’s announcement: “changing the outside doesn’t change the inside. No man-made modification can fix what’s wrong with the heart. Only God can fix the human heart.” Neither lawmakers nor counselors, pastors, teachers, nor medical professionals should participate in or reinforce the transgender movement’s lies about sexuality — nor should they be required by the government to support such distortion. To read why, check out FRC’s latest publication, “Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement,” available here for free.
Bush’s Roots Grow Campaign
For months, Governor Jeb Bush ® has been a frontrunner in a race he hadn’t officially joined. That all changed this week, when the brother of George joined the family business: running for President. With name recognition taken care of, the campaign will have to focus on another task — uniting all wings of the Republican Party around the once popular governor.
As far as social conservatives are concerned, there’s a lot to like about Jeb, including his support for natural marriage, which he reiterated as recently as [Tuesday] on “Hannity.” Like every GOP candidate, he believes the issue should be decided by the states — not unelected judges. “I believe in traditional marriage,” he told Sean. “I hope the Supreme Court rules that way.” Although he wasn’t incredibly out front on the issue as Governor, he recognizes that the overwhelming majority of conservatives agree that same-sex “marriage” isn’t a constitutional right and has increasingly made an effort to speak out on the subject. The largest concerns for social conservatives have been the same-sex “marriage” advocates the governor has hired in prominent campaign issues — but so far, they haven’t succeeded in changing Jeb’s positions.
As Florida Governor, Bush was probably best remembered by pro-lifers for having the feeding tube reinstated in the Terri Schindler Schiavo case. He also required that parents be notified before minor girls have an abortion and created the state’s “Choose Life” license plates. During his term, he signed a law allowing the state’s health care agency to write regulations for abortion facilities that perform second-trimester abortions, saying he hoped “to create a culture of life in our state.”
On religious liberty, Bush — like many of the candidates — have been outspokenly supportive. Jeb agreed with the original Indiana RFRA, has thrown his support behind Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor in the health care mandate, and has attacked Secretary Hillary Clinton’s record on the issue. Unfortunately, he did back the horrible Utah compromise on same-sex “marriage” and religious liberty and has not backed away from his defense of Common Core.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.
