Video: Orszag explains how ObamaCare imposes rationing

posted at 8:48 am on April 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Not that any of this comes as a surprise to those who paid attention to the ObamaCare bill, of course. I wrote about the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) twice in December, first when the CBO scored the bill as a $130 billion deficit reduction, and the second time just before the passage of ObamaCare by the Senate. In both posts, I noted how the IPAB was set up specifically as a rationing system, which ObamaCare advocates denied, but which none other than OMB Director Peter Orszag confirms in this interview from earlier this month, caught by Naked Emperor News for Breitbart TV:

If anything, Orszag might be underestimating the difficulty in changing the IPAB’s decisions on rationing. The bill required a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate to override the IPAB, which made Jim DeMint irate and prompted a big “I told you so” from Sarah Palin. As I wrote at the time, based on information from a Capitol Hill source:

The bill sets up a supermajority threshold of 67 votes to bring accountability to [IPAB] decisions, and the rule on being in or out of order can get waived at 60 votes. However, as this battle shows, even getting to 60 is almost an impossibility, let alone 67. Clearly [Harry] Reid wants to put accountability out of reach with these radical propositions.

ObamaCare is a rationing system, and the IPAB will be one of the key drivers for that rationing. If you don’t believe me, just listen to Orszag.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Jimbo3 on April 27, 2010 at 12:43 PM

By playing the victim card and manufacturing villians is a stale and saturated argument. The people who live and breathe by the v and v are entertaining for a while, but like all things that cry wolf when there is no wolf present except for their own poor personal choices made, it ultimately becomes annoying.

Americannodash on April 27, 2010 at 1:08 PM

They do not cancel your policy *only* for nonpayment or undisclosed preexisting conditions. They will cancel on almost any pretext if your medical problem is deemed too costly. Both Assurant and Wellpoint operated on the principle that their customers had no effective legal recourse. They miscalculated and lost in court, but who knows how many other companies are getting away with the same practices?

ObamaCare is a mess, but let’s not pretend the status quo is working well. It’s not.

sauropod on April 27, 2010 at 12:54 PM

–They can’t cancel it just because of cost problems. They can cancel it if you made any omissions or errors on your application (or any significant omissions or errors on your application, depending on the law). They can raise insurance premiums annually to help cover the cost increases.

Jimbo3 on April 27, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Ann’s finally gone at long last.

Lady, now that we’re all alone, would you care for some wine?

DarkCurrent on April 27, 2010 at 1:21 PM

Actually, Jim, it’s not a debate with someone who comes here only to muck up the place, cause frustration by obfuscation, changing the subject, and all else the trolls do. For them, coming here is basically a blood-sport.

While my intolerance for liberals finds you a pain sometimes, at least you have a brain. I think you’re wrong about your beliefs, which is fair from your side, too, about my views.

Most trolls here are pains just for its own sake. Or they’re nuts, like AnninCA seems. Getting those people banned, or to leave on their own, would enhance HA. By the same token (NOT being racist with that word), more libs with intelligence would be enjoyable. Maybe with such liberals we can all come to a common ground and solve the problems facing America.

While I disagree with you about 99% of the time, you’re not someone I would call a troll.

Liam on April 27, 2010 at 1:04 PM

–Thanks, Liam.

Jimbo3 on April 27, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Why, thank you DC, I’d love some wine.

ladyingray on April 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM

I hear you’re quite the flirt Lady. How about a kiss? ;)

DarkCurrent on April 27, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Well, DC, that sounds intriguing…

*KISS*

ladyingray on April 27, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Just a kiss?

DarkCurrent on April 27, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I can’t afford birth control!

ladyingray on April 27, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Don’t worry, I’ve got it covered!

DarkCurrent on April 27, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Well, in that case…

ladyingray on April 27, 2010 at 1:37 PM

LOL. Get a room, you two.

Dark-Star on April 27, 2010 at 1:38 PM

AnninCA:
 
You didn’t respond as it related to the conversation, specifically her financial concerns over your anthropological concerns. Now that we’re back on topic, can you think of a solution that you could introduce within the next ten minutes and that she could employ today which empowers her and immediately solves her “birth control is too expensive” problem?

rogerb on April 27, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Here’s the deal that Sarah Palin was getting at:

She was not disputing that “end of life” decisions had to be entertained eventually with regards to aging parents or loved ones who it was determined that they were basically now “vegetables” or their prognosis was highly unfavorable and COSTLY but that it should be left up to the family or guardians to determine what course of treatment should be entertained by doctors after weighing the options, and not be consigned to government bureaucrats to arbitrarily or willy-nilly deciding to order that heroic treatments be suspended or drugs no longer be administered.

Palin never claimed that the Obama administration favored forced euthanasia or genocide a la the Holocaust, but what she was saying that “government rationing” would lead to the same result as what happened in the Holocaust, except it would be seen as more “acceptable” or less complicit in that instead of being a strategy of commission, the shortening of American lives would be imposed with a strategy of omission.

technopeasant on April 27, 2010 at 1:43 PM

The idea of government-controlled rationing is such anathema to me. In a way, it’s quite personal.

My mom died last Friday, at the ripe old age of 86. She had a DNR order–Do Not Resuscitate. That was bad for me and my children, but those were my Mom’s wishes and we honored them. It was hard to have to let her go in a case of catastrophe.

It would have been worse for us if, under ObamaCare, not even my mom would have had a say about her own life.

To me, it’s a horror for someone who would never have known my mom’s name had power to make up rules about whether she lived or died. There’s something deeply wrong about that kind of set up.

One day, to the horror of liberals who are all for ObamaCare, some of them are going to be without an option. Those liberals will one day face what they have wrought. What will they say to their loved ones who are dying but, because of Obama, can’t be saved when before him they might have been?

“Gee, I’m sorry,” just doesn’t quite seem to cut it.

Liam on April 27, 2010 at 2:03 PM

Sarah Palin was right on the money when she warned us about the hidden rationing and “death panels” to come.

Now we are finding out Obama and Sebelius hid reports which would have exposed their ObamaPelosiReidCare lies to the public.

Nov. 2010 and 2012 can’t get here quick enuff!

sarahpalinfan99 on April 27, 2010 at 2:08 PM

The idea of government-controlled rationing is such anathema to me. In a way, it’s quite personal.

My mom died last Friday, at the ripe old age of 86. She had a DNR order–Do Not Resuscitate. That was bad for me and my children, but those were my Mom’s wishes and we honored them. It was hard to have to let her go in a case of catastrophe.

It would have been worse for us if, under ObamaCare, not even my mom would have had a say about her own life.

To me, it’s a horror for someone who would never have known my mom’s name had power to make up rules about whether she lived or died. There’s something deeply wrong about that kind of set up.

One day, to the horror of liberals who are all for ObamaCare, some of them are going to be without an option. Those liberals will one day face what they have wrought. What will they say to their loved ones who are dying but, because of Obama, can’t be saved when before him they might have been?

“Gee, I’m sorry,” just doesn’t quite seem to cut it.

Liam on April 27, 2010 at 2:03 PM

–My sympathies about your mom, Liam. I’m still not convinced that there will be more rationing under ObamaCare than there is now under most health insurance policies.

FYI: This could be a good way to reduce costs:

CNSNews.com) – The Senate Committee on Aging last week offered a preview of the government’s future role in health care, showing how Americans will interact with doctors and other health care providers. The demonstration offers a glimpse at an overlooked effect of health care reform.

The effort, loosely called e-Health or e-Care, combines health-care technology with 21st-century Internet connectivity. It will allow doctors to interact with their patients through innovations such as video chats, telephone health checkups, and home-health monitoring devices that relay data over wireless Internet connections.

………….

One of the new health technologies on display last Thursday was an automatic drug dispenser that can monitor and adjust medication dosages wirelessly, allowing doctors to tailor dosages of drugs such as insulin without having to schedule in-person visits with patients.

“………..

“That means that a doctor can vary the doses based on the information the doctor is receiving [from the monitor]. The patient doesn’t have to go in to the doctor and then the pharmacy to change his or her prescription,” he said.

The data recorded by such devices would be automatically uploaded to a patient’s electronic health record, which could then be reviewed by a doctor from a computer or smart phone, allowing the doctor to monitor a sick patient in almost real time.

“………..

“What all these devices and technologies require is access to a high-speed Internet connection, or what is commonly called ‘broadband,’” he said.

In adopting these new technologies, the government aims is to reduce the cost of Medicare by changing the way it pays doctors, who would be allowed to bill for Internet-based “visits” with patients instead of in-person visits.

“Five percent of Medicare beneficiaries, who in most cases have one or more chronic conditions, constitute 43 percent of Medicare spending,” Dr. Mohit Kaushal, health care director at the Federal Communications Commission, told the committee.

“But there’s a set of broadband-enabled health information technology, both now and emerging from development, that can mitigate many of these issues and reduce the cost of care while improving clinical outcomes,” Kaushal said.

…………..

Other areas of interest include medicines that can tell a doctor if they have been taken on time, wireless monitoring of nutritional information, and sensors worn on the body or placed around the home that can detect if an elderly person has experienced a fall, alerting emergency personnel and the person’s doctor.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64663

Jimbo3 on April 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Jimbo3 on April 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Thank you for your kind condolences.

Not everyone has Internet connections, and it will be hard for many older people to use them. While the idea seems a good one, someone’s still going to have to pay for it. I mean, would be ‘cheaper’ to engage a doctor’s time over broadband than seeing him in person? Then we still have to add in the doctor’s added cost of his connection, wouldn’t we?

The government is already talking about rationing care, as you know from another thread. The ‘care’ part of this package hasn’t kicked in yet, and won’t for years, but already Orszag is mentioning rationing. Funny, but the Dems never brought up rationing of care when pushing this monstrosity on us, and derided anyone on the Right who spoke of it. Now, all of a sudden, the Administration is talking of rationing as if it’s a good thing?

This law doesn’t solve a single problem, not even as its proponents advertised. If it was going to actually work as it was pitched, I’d probably be on your side of the issue.

But it’s not going to work at all! And it’s going to cost a mint we don’t have in the first place, and be more expensive than it was billed.

There’s gotta be a better way than this.

Liam on April 27, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Jimbo3 on April 27, 2010 at 2:21 PM

You’re trying to sell us on the idea of a Government program lowering costs.

It simply will never happen. Why? Because if any department reduces its costs, it will get less budget next year.

I’ve seen it time and time and time again, in every public sector institution I’ve ever had to deal with. Hell, it’s even happened to the Marines in the past.

If you lower costs, you lose budget. That’s all there is to it. There is no incentive to lower costs in the Government, and there is incentive to spending every part of your budget.

This is why no public sector program can ever be cheaper than the private sector. A perfect example is the post office.

But to your bigger point from the article:

The effort, loosely called e-Health or e-Care, combines health-care technology with 21st-century Internet connectivity. It will allow doctors to interact with their patients through innovations such as video chats, telephone health checkups, and home-health monitoring devices that relay data over wireless Internet connections. [Emphasis mine]

What? Doctors aren’t allowed to interact with their patients through technology without a giant government take over of health care?

Well no, of course this program doesn’t actually allow anything. It just spends money on technology that doctors would buy themselves if they needed it.

And somehow, that lowers costs.

‘kay.

Maybe you’re not taking my tax dollars into account as a cost?

apollyonbob on April 27, 2010 at 2:43 PM

The government is already talking about rationing care, as you know from another thread. The ‘care’ part of this package hasn’t kicked in yet, and won’t for years, but already Orszag is mentioning rationing. Funny, but the Dems never brought up rationing of care when pushing this monstrosity on us, and derided anyone on the Right who spoke of it. Now, all of a sudden, the Administration is talking of rationing as if it’s a good thing?

This law doesn’t solve a single problem, not even as its proponents advertised. If it was going to actually work as it was pitched, I’d probably be on your side of the issue.

But it’s not going to work at all! And it’s going to cost a mint we don’t have in the first place, and be more expensive than it was billed.

There’s gotta be a better way than this.

Liam on April 27, 2010 at 2:32 PM

–I worked at one company that was working on this idea ten years ago. There were liability concerns, and that’s why it ultimately was dropped. We’ll see. If it’s wholly automated with a wi-fi or 3G connection, it could probably work in about 90% of the US. (Not sure it would work for Badger, though, and others in her situation).

Jimbo3 on April 27, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Not everyone has Internet connections, and it will be hard for many older people to use them.
 
Liam on April 27, 2010 at 2:32 PM

 
Big picture- Laws requiring broadband distribution and access (“Thanks to the stimulus package, we’ve established that broadband networks — the Internet — are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure.” – H. Waxman, Feb. 2009) and an increase in social workers for the folks who can’t use computers.
 
A total job creation + control win/win.

——
 
And sorry you’re having to go through that loss.

rogerb on April 27, 2010 at 3:09 PM

ObamaCare is a rationing system

Good job democrats! Brave new world!

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Leave already, Hair Boy.

ya2daup on April 27, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Still baffles me how Orszag could land a hottie like Bianna Golodryga.

pain train on April 27, 2010 at 1:04 PM

well, i just bought a kabuki powder brush made from ‘grey squirrel’ fur, and all i can say in response is…. Maybe, she likes how soft his hair is?

ooonaughtykitty on April 27, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Geez not another Ann-in-a-can sideshow!

Dhuka on April 28, 2010 at 1:08 AM

As a communitive organizer in inner city communities, Obama is familiar with the use of tax payer funded free medical care provided in ER’s and nieghborhood charity clinics. In recent years we have seen a growing number of walk in clinics entering in middle class neighborhoods that fill the needs of those who choose to pay for their care out of pocket or for the convience of seeing a general doctor for basic medical problems. One difference between those and Obama’s plan, is they have the freedom to hire those they feel are qualified to meet their needs, they know that they must provide quality care to stay in business, and they are concerned with the cost of that care.

If you have listen to Obama talk about medical care, it is about clinics staffed by nurses and PA’s working under a doctors supervision. In practice, and I am basing that on my own experience with a PA staffed medical care facility, they only consult the doctor if the problem is not on the list of things they have a specified treatment for. For the PA’s It was OTJT. I went to one PA with a advanced athlets foot problem that I had put off dealing with. He insisted that it was just dry skin and got mad when I disagreed and refused to treat me. I had to go to another doctor to get treatment.

If you are paying attention to Obama he is advancing the goal of building thousand of clinics to deal with the basic medical care that Obamacare will provide. We do not have the doctors to oversee them, though I am sure a few laws making it hard to be in private practice could remedy that situation, until they run out of doctors again. That is how they handled the problem in Great Britian. The second problem is the nurses and PA’s needed to staff those clinics. Obama often refers to the importance of communitve colleges. Those are the institutions that provide two year degrees and certificat programs, such as entry level nursing, medical technitions, and medical support careers, that are curcial to staffing those clinics.

A related issue; in the St. Petersburg times in Russia, it was reported this week that a duma (law) was just pasted that would move them from socialized medicine to private medical institutions. The stated reason was that socialized care was too expensive because there was no incentive to reduce cost and heavy incentive to insure that allocated funds were spent to prevent those funds from being reduced, driving up the cost of care as a result. Private hospitals and medical care they said would drive down the cost of as private medical facilites would be looking for ways to reduce cost. They are laughing at Obama for his goals to take us where they are moving away from. One statement they laughingly mentioned is that they have a socilist constitution and yet they are less socialist than the US, Canada, Brition and France.

Franklyn on April 28, 2010 at 1:10 PM

simple math: Socialism = price controls = shortages = rationing. 100% of the time.

kirkill on April 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM

–I worked at one company that was working on this idea ten years ago. There were liability concerns, and that’s why it ultimately was dropped. We’ll see. If it’s wholly automated with a wi-fi or 3G connection, it could probably work in about 90% of the US. (Not sure it would work for Badger, though, and others in her situation).

Jimbo3 on April 27, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I respect you Jim, but how can you not see what is right in front of you. So the trial lawyers on the left and in government made such technology too much of a liability to pursue for the private sector, but now that mama gubment wants to run the show it is perfectly fine?

Funny how that works out huh?

This bogus health care crisis would have been solved by Wal-Mart in two years. My wife was offered to run one of their pilot health clinics that would offer services for non critical health issues. Just like they offer for eye exams. So you pay your $40 bucks for your typical health issues like the flu and move on. Save the insurance for the catastrophic problems, but we will never get there now.

Not one part of this health care reform had anything to do with health care.

ClassicCon on April 28, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4