To the liberal though, comparative effectiveness is not the same as rationing because words are abstract constructs that can mean whatever they want them to mean. Kind of like redefining homelessness to solve the homeless problem. Sebelius defends the death panels:
Rep. Paul Ryan questioned Sebelius on the IPAB during a Budget Committee hearing Tuesday, July 12, 2011, and this was probably the best question that lead to her very weak response:
But then there was Medicare's Chief Actuary On The Pain of Price Controls
Congressman Tom Price of Georgia asked Medicare's chief actuary Richard Foster about the practical impact of the President's health care law -- in which savings are sought by paying providers less for the same amount of care. Under the President's health care law, according to Medicare's Chief Actuary, providers of Medicare services will see cuts to their Medicare reimbursements past the point at which they can reasonably provide care to seniors. Providers would be reimbursed for their services at under 50 cents on the dollar by 2030, and down to 33 cents on the dollar in the years beyond.The video:
When asked about the impact of these price controls on seniors' access to quality care, Medicare's chief actuary replied: "We'd like not to find out..."
All government run plans have one end result - rationing. And what is rationed is that which is most expensive. And those that bear the brunt of the rationing are those that need those expensive procedures but who aren't expected to be paying much in the way of taxes - the elderly. From the bureaucrat's point of view, why care for the elderly that 1) don't pay taxes and 2) aren't going to live much longer anyway? That's liberal compassion, the same that a fetus gets at Planned Parenthood. This is the essence of comparative effectiveness that is at the heart of ObamaCare. Comparative effectiveness, as per Obama's rationing czar 'Dr.' Ezekiel Emanuel, takes only 2 things into consideration when denying or approving treatment: 1) age, 2) cost. Simple as that. It yields this ghoulish chart:
This chart would be page 1 of the "how to" guide of any death panel. Old people are too expensive to be worth keeping alive because they've already paid their taxes and are thus essentially useless to a totalitarian state. The very young too are of little value since they won't be paying taxes for a while yet. The people that should be treated are healthy people that pay taxes, but don't really need it because, well - they're mostly healthy. Welcome to ObamaCare, where people that don't need treatment get it, and those that need it don't. Step 1? Healthcare plans dropping seniors via the 'doctor fix'.This is of course by design: Video: Doctors Face 23% Cut in Medicare Payments due to ObamaCare. Alzheimers patients are at risk. Just recently, the NYT's Paul Krugman said that death panels were needed to balance the budget (ie - kill seniors because they are too expensive). A couple of years ago, Obama adviser Robert Reich said this: Video: Obama Advisor Robert Reich To Elderly "We're Going To Let You Die!" Liberals want you to die if some bureaucrat determines that you are too expensive to treat. By definition a death panel. Democrat Gary McDowell, who lost to Dan Benishek (R) for the seat of disgraced Judas turncoat Bart Stupak in Michigan's 1st Congressional district, admitted to a crowd of supporters that people near the end of their will get kicked down the stairs to save on cost. Even the White House now admits that seniors will see higher costs and less benefits, something they wouldn't do in the runup to the unconstitutional boondoggle. Same with Doctors: Yeah - ObamaCare really screwed seniors.
Related from Legal Insurrection: When Will AARP, Consumers Union and AMA Be Held To Account for Obamacare?
More from an Insty thread:
Related: Imagine a Military Board With the Power of the Very Real ObamaCare Medicare Board.