We have seen the future, and it sucks.

Mandated Rationing

30th June 2012

Tyler O’Neil points out some of the stealthier fascist provisions of Obamacare.

The law gives the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the authority to issue “quality standards” that “control all providers of healthcare: doctors, hospitals, nurses, and so forth.” If a doctor does not comply with these standards, he “will be unable to get reimbursement from any of the insurance plans that all Americans will be required to have” under the individual mandate, which was ruled constitutional under the Congress’ power to tax.

Congress set up the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). This group of regulators “is directed, starting in 2015 and every two years thereafter, to make recommendations … to limit the ability of Americans to put resources into healthcare so that they stay below certain goals set forth in the legislation.” IPAB sets a price cap, a dollar amount beyond which Americans cannot pay for care. All of those limits are required to be below the rate of medical inflation.

To illustrate this principle, Balch used an analogy with food prices. “Imagine a situation where Congress said, ‘Whenever you go out to buy food, if the price of food has risen by ten percent next year, you’re not allowed to pay that extra ten percent to get the same food that you got this year. You’re only allowed to pay five percent more.’” Such a policy would force citizens to buy less food, or lower quality food, each year.

Your tax dollars at work. Aren’t you proud?

One Response to “Mandated Rationing”

  1. Dennis Nagle Says:

    *sigh* NeoCalvinists carry on and on about how Evil ‘rationing’ is/would be, as if we didn’t already have a de facto rationed system based purely on ability to pay: if you have money, you can get good health treatment. If you don’t, you can’t.

    Of course rationing by ability to pay is okey since it is sanctioned by the Invisible Hand (read: God).

    So what they object to is not rationing per se, since we already have it and they’re perfectly comfortable with it. What they object to is the possiblity of rationing by some other criterion under which the results might not be as favorable for them and theirs.