We already touched on the point of "private insurers rationing". The distinction between "coverage" and "care" nullifies that argument and has been discussed at length in this thread. You have offered nothing to counter that so your assertions to the contrary are empty.
As to the logic behind my claim that the IPAB will lead to death panels, that rationale has been spelled out numerous times and in numerous ways in this forum. It involves simply an understanding of basic economics (which is, unfortunately, a prerequisite far too many people fail to meet), the concepts of moral hazard and mission creep (both of which I have explained numerous times here) as well as an understanding of the typical worldview and incentives of the political class (specifically bureaucrats) and simply a look to the history of other countries where government has had to control costs in healthcare.
Entitlement programs, especially Medicare, create massive moral hazard leading to ever increasing costs. Since the program is set up as a Ponzi Scheme, it's unsustainability is guaranteed from the start.
Washington's response to set arbitrary reimbursement rates that don't even cover the costs of the medical care in question and significantly delay payment only further create massive distortions of the market and increased costs.
Considering the fact that the political class' worldview predisposes them to seeing the "solution" to these problems as more centralized control, a downward spiral of maldistributed resources and ever rising cost to the taxpayer occurs (again, Ponzi Scheme).
In order to keep costs down, government will be left with little choice but to directly determine what care is and is not provided.
Leftist economist Paul Krugman has admitted as much when he said, "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform."
The basic logic should not have to be spelled out like this because, as the numerous facts I have pointed out show, we are already at the point where they are looking to ration care. They have set up the structure to do so. Calling it "advisory" is Orwellian when that "advise" is AUTOMATICALLY put into law unless unrealistic political checks are met.
It is absurdly naive to assume that simply because the term "advisory" is in the name of the board, the proposals will be advisory in nature, especially as costs continue the inevitable rise these programs guarantee. Again, the naming of the Independent Payment "Advisory" Board is Orwellian and an attempt to mislead. Don't be so easily fooled.
All one needs to do is to look to the history and economic effects of Medicare to see proof of the logic behind this.
Medicare already sets arbitrary reimbursement rates; something it was forbidden to do in the 1965 law. This is simply another example of mission creep.
No one with any economic sense about them can deny the fact that Medicare has created massive moral hazard and driven up costs.
If and when Obamacare goes into full effect, costs will skyrocket as more private insurers are driven from the market. Robert Reich, Peter Orzag and Paul Krugman have already said that we will have to ration care using the system they supported putting in place.
This is not hard to understand (or "opaque") except to those who don't want to understand it.
As to the logic behind my claim that the IPAB will lead to death panels, that rationale has been spelled out numerous times and in numerous ways in this forum. It involves simply an understanding of basic economics (which is, unfortunately, a prerequisite far too many people fail to meet), the concepts of moral hazard and mission creep (both of which I have explained numerous times here) as well as an understanding of the typical worldview and incentives of the political class (specifically bureaucrats) and simply a look to the history of other countries where government has had to control costs in healthcare.
Entitlement programs, especially Medicare, create massive moral hazard leading to ever increasing costs. Since the program is set up as a Ponzi Scheme, it's unsustainability is guaranteed from the start.
Washington's response to set arbitrary reimbursement rates that don't even cover the costs of the medical care in question and significantly delay payment only further create massive distortions of the market and increased costs.
Considering the fact that the political class' worldview predisposes them to seeing the "solution" to these problems as more centralized control, a downward spiral of maldistributed resources and ever rising cost to the taxpayer occurs (again, Ponzi Scheme).
In order to keep costs down, government will be left with little choice but to directly determine what care is and is not provided.
Leftist economist Paul Krugman has admitted as much when he said, "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform."
The basic logic should not have to be spelled out like this because, as the numerous facts I have pointed out show, we are already at the point where they are looking to ration care. They have set up the structure to do so. Calling it "advisory" is Orwellian when that "advise" is AUTOMATICALLY put into law unless unrealistic political checks are met.
It is absurdly naive to assume that simply because the term "advisory" is in the name of the board, the proposals will be advisory in nature, especially as costs continue the inevitable rise these programs guarantee. Again, the naming of the Independent Payment "Advisory" Board is Orwellian and an attempt to mislead. Don't be so easily fooled.
All one needs to do is to look to the history and economic effects of Medicare to see proof of the logic behind this.
Medicare already sets arbitrary reimbursement rates; something it was forbidden to do in the 1965 law. This is simply another example of mission creep.
No one with any economic sense about them can deny the fact that Medicare has created massive moral hazard and driven up costs.
If and when Obamacare goes into full effect, costs will skyrocket as more private insurers are driven from the market. Robert Reich, Peter Orzag and Paul Krugman have already said that we will have to ration care using the system they supported putting in place.
This is not hard to understand (or "opaque") except to those who don't want to understand it.