Trump concocted DEATH PANELS

By now everyone should know that political scientists/clairvoyants lie like rugs.

"A Wall Street Journal columnist wrote that the revision “raises serious questions about the radical countermeasures inspired by public-health experts like Mr. Ferguson.” Even one of Trump’s coronavirus task force coordinator, Deborah Birx, seemed to lean into the questioning of Ferguson. “I’m sure many of you saw the recent report out of the U.K. about them adjusting,” Birx said. “If you remember, that was the report that said there would be 500,000 deaths in the U.K. and 2.2 million deaths in the United States. They’ve adjusted that number in the U.K. to 20,000. So half a million to 20,000. We’re looking into this in great detail to understand that adjustment.”"
THE WASHINGTON POST, Coronavirus modelers factor in new public health risk: Accusations their work is a hoax, 30 times Trump downplayed the coronavirus, By William Wan and
Aaron Blake, March 27, 2020.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/03/27/coronavirus-models-politized-trump/

 

Fake News. There Are No Death Panels being promoted under Trump.

BUREAUCRACY KILLS: Trump in the time of COVID-19: slashing red tape again like he was 39.

“Easing rules on everything from telemedicine to interstate trucking, the president and his coronavirus team spur creative repurposing and emergency adaptation to fight pandemic. If the president’s popular approval ratings are reaching new highs, it may be due in part to the Trump the public is seeing on display at the daily briefings of his Coronavirus Task Force. This Trump represents in many ways a return to form for the president, a rebirth of the hard-driving, can-do developer who famously slashed through red tape to restore New York’s iconic Wollman Skating Rink under budget and ahead of schedule 34 years ago.”

​

 

There are a ton of people who referred to the IPAB as a death panel. Palin didn't coin the term. The IPAB was not charged with "issuing general recommendations and proposals." They were charged absolutely limiting the costs of medical care by issuing inviolable dictates. ACA camouflaged the inviolability by allowing congress, with a 2/3 vote and, IIRC, presidential sign-off, to change the IPAB's specific recommendations as long as they maintained the dictated costs limits. Beyond that there was no recourse or litigation allowed with the IPAB's directives. Also, IIRC, members of the IPAB were appointed by the president but the president could not fire these principle officers except for cause.

It is impossible to absolutely limit total costs of medical treatment without allocating or rationing services. Now the method would not look anything like your Trump fantasy, but it would happen because it has to happen. They would ration by putting limiting boundaries around some treatments. (Somewhat like Medicare does today though it is just trying to reasonably limit costs and do not have a prescribed maximum ceiling.) Hypothetically for example: no knee or hip replacement surgery beyond 72 years old; routine physicals every 2 or 3 years instead of 1 year; limit major surgery to 3 days in a hospital and do all minor surgeries in an outpatient setting; no MRIs to check for ling cancers in smokers; things like that; most significantly, no invasive medical treatment for seriously ill patients 74 years or older regardless of Quality of Life assessment..

True the ACA said there was no recommendation for rationing, but it did not say there couldn't be rationing and it nimbly does not define exactly what constitutes rationing. So the IPAB could do whatever it wanted and simply say it was not rationing. All of this essentially describes what could easily be called a death panel -- a small group of protected people that make medical care decisions from afar for individuals primarily dictated by legal costs restrictions and without regard to individual or doctor or hospital concerns and thoughts.

 

I don't get it. Is there something negative here? $1 a dose sounds very reasonable.

BTW, welcome aboard.

 

So? What does that have to do with what I wrote?

 

We see how Univerisal Healthcare systems fail....and failed drastically here.

 

Simply showing how GOV works. Not a takeover, just ordering, and specifying.

 

I don't know... It just seems fit her mental capacity.

Dude... I just quoted the limitations to you. Do you need me to repeat them?

That's what providers who now love Trumpcare because it allows costs to run wild said. But you're changing the subject. I'll take one subject at a time.

Then IPAB was not allowed to take any actions. We'll never know if there were any way to limit costs without rationing service, because Trump eliminated the office tasked with finding ways to keep costs low without giving up services, benefits, increasing consumer costs or doing any "death panelly" thingies (like Palin would say). Much to the delight of providers who can now increase prices at will.

It's Trumpcare that is responsible for higher costs now. Not Obamacare.

That would be illegal for IPAB to do. Already quoted the law. It would be illegal to do anything you said.

It's pretty explicit.... Not sure why you insist...

Sure.... Congress could recommend rationing. But IPAB can't. You are changing the subject again.

You mean like a President could extort the President of Ukraine to help him win re-election and say it was not extortion?

Unfortunately, this Senate has definitely opened the door to that. But it wasn't the ACA that opened it.

 

Still waiting for an answer to my question. What does that have to do with what I wrote. One more chance to respond, or your answer is "nothing"

 

Universal healthcare would have failed here too

 

That has nothing to do with what I wrote!

Why don't you save some time and embarrassment and read what I wrote?

 

This is what you wrote. We know you are wrong based on what has happened in Italy and the UK

 

What is """"?

 

A superquote, that spells out why potentially millions of Americans must DIE.

 

bwahahaha...

this belongs on the conspiracies forum.

btw, thanks for the laughs

 

O.K.

 

You are bouncing off walls with a vain attempt to refute what I said.

Contrary to your assertion, the IPAB was directed by law to take actions. To limit medical costs they had to specify what specific actions to take. Your false assertion and silly non sequitur about Ukraine aside, the IPAB could legally take rationing actions such as I described because the "legal" directive against it has no meaning and is not valid since it does not define what rationing is. To make my own maybe silly non sequitur comparison it is like the House impeaching Trump for "abuse of power." "Abuse of power" cannot be illegal or impeachable because it is not explicitly defined.

 

Those, had to specify what specific actions to take, save MANY lives, and streamline diagnosis and treatment. Eliminating false choices, and making recommendations as simple as googling. This streamlining, even asa feeble as it has been, is a godsend.

Your making it as if a death sentence, is sheer ignorance. As any doctor could tell you.

 

Which is.... what?

What happened in Italy and the UK that has anything to do with what I wrote?

 

Sure it does...they have universial healthcare, and clearly were overwhelmed and unprepared.

 

It's not a non sequitur if you don't explain how just ... saying... that X is not X makes it not be X. And the only case I can recall when that has worked in our justice or political system has been for Trump. So it's the only example I can give.

That doesn't make sense. There is no controversy in Economics (from which the term is taken) about what the term means.

But what you described doesn't even necessarily refer to rationing. It would be restricting benefits or modifying eligibility criteria. But, of course, you can always argue that the law doesn't define what "is" is.

Well... I'm glad you are aware that it's not only a non sequitur, but also silly.

 

To be constitutional as ruled many times by the Supreme Court and others, to be valid a law has to be specific and explicit as to precisely what activity is illegal. What some economics textbook, or some economist, or some person anywhere does not matter one iota.

 

Interesting. That means the 2nd A is not valid because the term "bear arms" is not defined. Or "right"... or "infringed".... or "shall"... or even "The"

 

Don't be silly. We are talking about US and States' Codes, not the Constitution. Do you actually believe the SCOTUS could strike down the 2nd A because it is too loose, or are you just having fun?

 

It wouldn't be struck down. It would just be invalid from the offset because of some "legal principle" that you made up.

This concept that words that are of common use, and especially technical words that have a proper and clear definition in other areas of human knowledge, cannot be used in laws unless they are defined within the law itself, is complete nonsense.