August 14, 2013
In Atlanta, 15 year old Anthony Stokes, who has an enlarged heart and will die in 6 months without a transplant, was first denied admittance to the waiting list because of a prior history of forgetting to take medication on time and appear at regular doctor’s appointments.
Stokes’ family told local media that Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta Hospital (CHAH) changed their position on Stokes after having their actions exposed to the public.
In a statement, CHAH said: “As we stated previously, a heart transplant evaluation is an ongoing process based on the patient and his or her family’s ability to meet specific transplant criteria. Our physician experts are continuing to work with this family to establish a care plan and determine the best next steps for the patient.”
Stokes’ mother explained that the hospital officials cited their concerns that Stokes would not comply with medical requirements after the transplant and did not want to perform the procedure on Stokes.
Joel Newman, spokesman for the United Network For Organ Sharing UNOS), claims that hospitals “consider a variety of factors besides medical necessity in deciding whether to put a patient on a transplant waiting list.”
Transplant policy is decided by Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN) who works in conjunction with the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). UNOS is contractually bound to the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Stokes’ family believes that the discrimination over Stokes extends beyond the CHAH claims of his “history of non-compliance”, but rather the fact that Stokes “has had a problem getting into fights.”
In fact, “at the time of his hospitalization the teen had been sentenced to house arrest by a judge due to his inability to physically control himself over what his mother called anger issues.”
Accessing these factors, doctors assigned Stokes to “a death sentence” by refusing his admittance onto a transplant waiting list.
In January, Jonathan Gruber, an economist and advisor to Obama that inspired the Affordable Care Act has been refused to be part of the IPAB. While this group is supposed to be comprised of economists, academia, members of the pharmaceutical industry, insurance industry representatives, hospital executives and medical practitioners, the IPAB is having a hard time filling spots for this “death panel”.
The IPAB is given authority over keeping the costs of healthcare low by controlling the amount and type of care patients will receive Although Congress is empowered to oversee how doctors will be paid for services rendered, those financial recommendations afforded by the IPAB are automatically adhered to.
This roundtable of “unelected bureaucrats” will make decisions, deem Americans worthy of health claims and approve or deny care to seniors. Mainstream media claims that the death panels are “expected to find savings by eliminating fraud and reducing payments to private insurance companies that work with Medicare and prescription drug providers.”
Since Congress must approve the members of the death panel, those considered for the position must be able to show their expertise in health finance, economics and medical science. A 6 month term on the death panel will reserve those who serve from “any other business, vocation or employment.”
In reality, the IPAB, in conjunction with Sebelius will implement laws without Congressional approval. Denying the law’s execution would necessitate the House, Senate and President agree on an alternate plan.
According to a study entitled, “The Independent Payment Advisory Board: PPACA’s Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature”, the IPAB’s plan would become law without Congressional approval, oversight, or even be subject to a presidential veto. Once this proposal is submitted, it is law.
The IPAB will be enabled to declare:
• Policies regarding healthcare to Congress
• Recommendations on costs, mitigating waste, prioritizing disbursement of care
• Impose taxes whether the US government pays the medical bills or not
• Ration medical care to Americans as they see fit
Congress, having the power to accept the IPAB’s recommendations can either act on them or let Sebelius do so.
The most authoritative aspect of the legislation is that “[I]f Congress misses that repeal window, PPACA prohibits Congress from ever altering an IPAB proposal.”
The legislative window for repeals extends to 2017. The Congressional Research Service has falsely interpreted this clause of complete control.
Failure to repeal in Congress by 2017 results in absolute power given to the IPAB by 2020 with no ability of Congress to change that fact. Any law the IPAB writes becomes effectual regardless of any member of the US government’s rejection of it and the over-reaching power extends to Sebelius who becomes an executive of the IPAB.
Furthermore, the IPAB would become as powerful as the executive branch of our government, with the right to appropriate funds within the DHHS own department.