Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' challenge


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' challenge Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' chal... - 3/30/2015 8:05:44 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare law that took aim at a bureaucratic board labeled by some Republicans as a "death panel" because it was designed to cut Medicare costs.

The high court left intact a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. 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.

In the case that the justices rejected on Monday, Arizona-based business owner Nick Coons and Dr. Eric Novack, an orthopedic surgeon, sued in 2011 in litigation backed by a conservative legal group.

Among other things, they challenged the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, a 15-member government panel dubbed by some Republicans as a "death panel" because of its intended role in trimming costs within Medicare, the government healthcare program for the elderly and disabled.

Lower courts threw out the lawsuit. In its August 2014 ruling, the appeals court said that 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 acts only 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.
at
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/30/us-usa-court-obamacare-idUSKBN0MQ1EU20150330


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' ... - 3/30/2015 11:14:46 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
Some useful information for this discussion:

"The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality. Under previous and current law, changes to Medicare payment rates and program rules are recommended by MedPAC but require an act of Congress to take effect. The new system grants IPAB the authority to make changes to the Medicare program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency's decisions through supermajority vote.

Beginning in 2013, the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services will determine in particular years the projected per capita growth rate for Medicare for a multi-year period ending in the second year thereafter (the "implementation year"). If the projection exceeds a target growth rate, IPAB must develop a proposal to reduce Medicare spending in the implementation year by a specified amount. If it is required to develop a proposal, the Board must submit that proposal in January of the year before the implementation year; thus, the first proposal could be submitted in January 2014 to take effect in 2015. If the Board fails to submit a proposal that the Chief Actuary certifies will achieve the savings target, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must submit a proposal that will achieve that amount of savings. The Secretary must then implement the proposal unless Congress enacts resolutions made to override the Board's (or the Secretary's) decisions under a fast-track procedure that the law sets forth.
"

SOURCE

These people are appointed by the current US President and confirmed via the Senate in Congress. Each of these postions is broken down into three groups of give. They are staggered so no two groups will be up for election/re-election at the same time. All are given six years after the first batch has had terms in office. The first group was given one year in office, the second, three years, and the final group six years. So in six years, the first and second group will have already been elected to their position when the President and Senate are dealing with the third group.

This panel was created to help streamline actions and take 'some work' off Congress's plate. Because the current Congress we have seems to be overwhelmed in handling problems to the nation. Ironically, without this panel in place, it would imply those 'Death Panels' would be members of Congress. Right now (if the panel didnt exist), that would mean many Republicans would be serving on those 'Death Panels' they attacked the President about with regards to the ACA.....

An irony lost on most conservatives and libertarians. Both on this forum and at large in the nation!

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' ... - 3/30/2015 11:17:56 AM   
littleladybug


Posts: 1082
Joined: 5/30/2013
Status: offline
So, there wasn't standing to bring the case? No current harm could be shown? Great, come back when it can.

Anyone with a semblance of knowledge about federal law in the US could have seen this coming a mile away.


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' ... - 3/30/2015 2:22:41 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
So, there wasn't standing to bring the case? No current harm could be shown? Great, come back when it can.

Anyone with a semblance of knowledge about federal law in the US could have seen this coming a mile away.


Being 'harmed' by this law is a matter of perspective. The Republican/Tea Party have been harmed by it. They now look like fools for doing anything and everything to undermine it. After all the Republicans in Congress were 'forced' fifty-six times to defund it. It only needed 7-9 million people signed up to make it successful. That well over three times that number have signed on to have benefits. And that 16 million that didn't access to good healthcare, now have it. That insurance policies are exceedingly easy to compare now than before. And that as more Americans look at what the law does, are even less likely to vote RepublicanTea Party in the next election.

Yeah, the Republican/Tea Party have been very 'harmed' by this law....

You hear that crying? Uh oh, its...its....





< Message edited by joether -- 3/30/2015 2:25:20 PM >

(in reply to littleladybug)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' ... - 3/30/2015 2:39:48 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: littleladybug
So, there wasn't standing to bring the case? No current harm could be shown? Great, come back when it can.
Anyone with a semblance of knowledge about federal law in the US could have seen this coming a mile away.


Beat me to it. Lucy even included that part in her quote.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to littleladybug)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' ... - 3/30/2015 8:15:47 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
This "death panel" stuff is entertaining.

Insurance companies have panels that decide what treatments are "medically necessary" and "medically efficacious" and their goal is (plainly) to ensure that the insurance company doesn't pay a penny more than it absolutely has to.

So if "death panel" is to become the conservative's word of choice for these panels, then it would be worthwhile to distinguish between...

Democratically appointed death panels and secretly appointed death panels.



_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 6
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> U.S. Supreme Court rejects Obamacare 'death panel' challenge Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078