Tag Archives: Peter Singer

Death panel (IPAB) is Obama’s way to cut medicare costs

Last week, President Barack Obama put the issue of death panels back on the table with a speech highlighting his desire to cut health care costs by giving more power to the Independent Physicians Advisory Board (IPAB), which is an unelected 15-member panel appointed solely by the president. IPAB has been a sore spot with opponents of Obamacare and pro-life advocates since the health care debate began in earnest in 2009.


Democrats and Republicans are joining to oppose one of the most important features of President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan, a powerful independent board that could make sweeping cuts in the growth of Medicare spending.

Mr. Obama wants to expand the power of the 15-member panel, which was created by the new health care law, to rein in Medicare costs.


So let the rationing begin.  The IPAB is the death panel.  Obama and congressional proponents of Obamacare have always known and intended that Obamacare contain extensive rationing of care to cut costs.  They lied and laughed about the death panels, but that’s exactly what they want.

Do you want your healthcare in the hands of 15 “experts” appointed by the president and completely out of the hands of the congress or anyone else for that matter?  Fifteen people?  I think not, especially when you realize just what these experts plan.   Obama has already said quality of life would not be considered because it was just too subjective when deciding certain care for the elderly and maybe just a red or blue pill would be fine.

The Obama administration is just eat up with whole lives people, all of whom want to devalue life, especially as to the elderly and the disabled.  Just knock them off, pull the plug, whatever it takes because it is a waste of money to treat such people.

It is a diabolical belief system, unChristian and un American.

I can’t think of anything more sinister than being in the hospital and being at the mercy of some list they must check to see how much my life is worth as decided by some presidential panel stacked with 15 whole lives adherents.

And anybody who is comfortable with that is one who thinks it does not apply to them.




Posted:  04.26.11 @ 8:29 a.m.


Filed under Barack Obama, Financial Crisis, health care, politics, President Barack Obama, Uncategorized

“Must I die?” Shiela Jackson Lee’s argument against repeal of Obamacare

Well, what an argument.  Repeal of the Obamacare will violate the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.   How in the world does healthcare fall under equal protection and grand juries and protection against search and seizure, due process.  And, of course, this will cause people to DIE.  This is such an outrageous argument.  Plus her state, Texas, is one of the 26 states suing to declare this law unconstitutional.  If it is so great, why are 26 states, and probably more to come, trying to get it overturned?

First of all, the healthcare law does not provide anybody with healthcare.  What it does is require everybody to buy health insurance, under penalty of fines or maybe even jail.

Secondly, the donut hole argument is bogus.  Very few people will fall into the donut hole if they are aware of how it works.  It is easy to avoid by using generics.

Here’s the way it works:  Under medicare part D (which is not free, by the way.  You pay a premium for it) there is prescription coverage up to a dollar amount. Let’s say that’s $2,000 in a year, after a sizable deductible.

But if your costs exceed that, you move into a phase called the donut hole where you must pay 100% of the cost of the meds until you buy about say $4,000 worth  before it picks back up again.

This whole process begins again at the beginning of each year.

Obamacare  would help pay for that by contributing a couple hundred dollars.

Let’s say a hundred percent of your medications at 100% cost totals $500 or $600 a month.  The $200 is of no help at all.  You still would have to expend $3,800 out-of-pocket.  You could take the $200 and buy groceries with it, but it won’t help you through the donut hole.

Below is Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee expounding further on her theory and argument with Neil Cavuto.  She finally has to admit that her example of someone who “could have died” without care is really on medicare.  That has nothing to do with the healthcare law.  In fact, they are defunding part of medicare in order to fund Obamacare.

So I say, it’s more likely the patient featured “could have died” under Obamacare than if the system is left as it is right now.  Under Obamacare, she might have been declared too old or too sick to be “worth” the money.  If they eliminate medicare, yes, people will die.  I think that’s what they want to do, create a medicare program for all with rationing of care, especially for elderly or handicapped since they will not be assigned much value.



Poor, dumb Neil does “not understand logic.”  🙂  1 plus 1 equals 2.  Got it?

Posted:   01.23.11

The current FICA withholding rate of 15.3 percent contains two parts: Social Security and Medicare. The Social Security tax equals 12.4 percent, with employers and employees each contributing 6.2 percent. Medicare withholding tax currently equals 2.9 percent, with employers and employees each contributing 1.45 percent. Self-employed workers must pay the whole 15.3 percent tax themselves.

I wonder how much money would be in the lock box if there actually was a lock box.  (Social Security deductions began in 1937, medicare in 1966, I believe.)

Obama reduced the employee contribution to 4.2 for one year.  This is what he has called a tax cut.


1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, health care, politics, Uncategorized