Everyone has heard of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), dubbed "death panels," that resulted as a part of Obamacare. It is a group of unelected bureaucrats who began changing the American Medical Association guidelines for procedures, screening, diagnostic and treatment oriented, under the guise of decreasing Medicare costs. However, what this panel has actually done is limited procedures to citizens based upon age – a discriminatory practice that is prohibited in other areas of business.
The high court left intact a ruling by San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that threw out the lawsuit.
The court's action in an unsigned order was a victory for Obama administration, which has faced a barrage of legal challenges to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare. The court is currently weighing a separate case challenging health insurance subsidies that are key to Obamacare's implementation.
A ruling is due by the end of June.
The lawsuit was brought by Arizona-based business owners Nick Coons and Dr. Eric Novack, an orthopedic surgeon, challenging the IPAB, a 15 member government panel, because of its role in cutting the cost of Medicare. In August of 2014, the lower court threw out the case citing the plaintiffs "had not shown they had suffered any harm that they could sue over."
On the IPAB claim, the court noted that under the terms of the healthcare law, the board only acts if Medicare spending increases at a certain level. The earliest it could ever take any action that could potentially reduce Novack's Medicare reimbursements would be in 2019.
According to what has been read, plaintiffs should have some sort of "harm" in order to bring a lawsuit. However, is it safe to say that it is not the doctors that have been harmed but individuals covered under Medicare and the unconstitutional Obamacare by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)?
In this previous article at Freedom Outpost, "Unconstitutional Obamacare Death Panels Wreak of the Nazi-Style Extermination Process," it was shown that the USPSTF had been busy altering recommended medical guidelines for preventative, diagnostic and screening procedures that were disparaging to the most elderly citizens of this nation covered by Medicare and Obamacare
As was pointed out, while these are just recommendations, it allows "the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the ability to add services to Medicare and to remove preventative services as recommended by the USPSTF."
What this essentially boils down to is the rationing of health care to individuals being determined by government. The USPSTF guidelines go against recommendations made by the medical community that have been based on scientific medical studies. This creates a "cookie-cutter" plan toward healthcare without considering other variables such as family history, gender, age, race or lifestyle that a physician considers when recommending preventative screening and diagnostic procedures. Studies have shown that early detection via screening and preventative procedures for certain disease processes not only save lives, it reduces medical health care costs. So, the USPSTF would deny costs for screening and preventative procedures that would ultimately lead to increased health care costs unless treatment will also be denied.
The Obama administration basically robbed Medicare of $716 billion dollars from 2013 to 2022 in order to fund Obamacare. Because of this, the cuts have to be made in the Medicare program and costs contained in the unconstitutional Obamacare. But, is this really the best way to cut health care costs – by limiting services and treatments to a "sect" of the population? Hardly. The federal government allows illegal alien invaders to receive Social Security and Medicare without having paid into the program, along with allowing some citizens to access the taxpayer funded programs without having paid into them as well. Isn't it this "fat" that should be eliminated from the program before "rationing" care to those who have paid into it and receiving benefits? Absolutely. But, the politicians in Congress would lose votes should they propose such – they are always "campaigning and politicking" to keep their elitist position.
Included in the $716 billion "fleecing" of the public, Obamacare increased the Medicare Part A payroll tax from 2.9% to 3.8% that goes to fund "other" parts of Obamacare instead of paying for Medicare. So, Obamacare robbed from the elderly, disabled and fleeced working Americans to pay for mandatory coverage of birth control and abortion. Don't forget, all health care insurance policies have to comply with the minimum coverage requirements of Obamacare.
Remember, Obamacare is not about "health care" or "health care insurance"; it is about exercising control over the people and elimination of unalienable rights – such as the right to dictate your own health care treatment. And, once government becomes in charge of anything, they, then, can "dictate" what is received based on "their" whims. While most people are not thinking beyond "everyone will have health care," the fact is that everyone ages and will fall under these USPSTF guidelines for preventative services while the government pushes further for a single-payer, socialized medicine system; Obamacare was designed to be unsustainable and to fail. The single-payer socialized medicine system leads to further rationing of health care based on any guidelines the government sees fit – such as denying health care to the disabled young or old or the "less productive" of society.
While physicians may not suffer a reimbursement loss until 2019, what about Americans who are denied services based on USPSTF guidelines that are in direct conflict with recommended medical guidelines that result in "harm" or death? Would the Supreme Court then declare "standing" to these individuals or their family members? The real travesty, in this whole muck-up that is Obamacare, is someone is going to have to die needlessly while enduring tremendous suffering, be victim to monetary devastation or irreparable physical disability before the courts act.
In a grossly wrong decision, the Supreme Court declared Obamacare constitutional – which it is not, as the Constitution does not provide for the government to mandate citizens purchase anything or government to control health care or health care insurance. Congress has continually funded this atrocity while claiming they wanted to repeal it. Republicans have introduced "their" unconstitutional plan to "replace" Obamacare while the States refuse to do their constitutional duty to nullify this atrocity.
Our duly elected officials in the federal government chose to usurp the health care insurance industry and pushed this nation's citizenry into the Looking Glass. The plans that have been "designed" by Republicans only "repeal" certain portions of Obamacare but keep others. Their "repeal and replace" is just another Looking Glass for citizens.
The Supreme Court is due to rule in June on the subsidy portion of Obamacare where subsidies were designated in the law only for those citizens who purchased the mandatory insurance through state exchanges. The administration allowed subsidies to individuals who purchased insurance through federal exchanges as well since many states did not establish their own exchanges. This decision will be paramount as it could mean the implosion of Obamacare; however, no one should hold their breath. Government has its claws into health care and health care insurance while Obama ignores Congress, the courts and the Constitution. These usurpers aren't about to relinquish their control now.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.