"Congress should repeal it or test its constitutionality.”

The Wall Street Journal on IPAB, OBamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, you know that thing that all the democrats claimed did not exist…

THE DEATH PANEL

They report to, and are responsible to no one. 

The IPAB, sometimes called a “death panel,” threatens both the Medicare program and the Constitution’s separation of powers. At a time when many Americans have been unsettled by abuses at the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department, the introduction of a powerful and largely unaccountable board into health care merits special scrutiny.

For a vivid illustration of the extent to which life-and-death medical decisions have already been usurped by government bureaucrats, consider the recent refusal by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to waive the rules barring access by 10-year old Sarah Murnaghan to the adult lung-transplant list. A judge ultimately intervened and Sarah received a lifesaving transplant June 12. But the grip of the bureaucracy will clamp much harder once the Independent Payment Advisory Board gets going in the next two years.

The board, which will control more than a half-trillion dollars of federal spending annually, is directed to “develop detailed and specific proposals related to the Medicare program,” including proposals cutting Medicare spending below a statutorily prescribed level. In addition, the board is encouraged to make rules “related to” Medicare.

Oh, and pay attention to this:

The ObamaCare law also stipulates that there “shall be no administrative or judicial review” of the board’s decisions. Its members will be nearly untouchable, too. They will be presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed, but after that they can only be fired for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

“Excuse me,” said the local IPAB representative after reviewing my doctor’s recommendation for a 4th stent in my left main coronary artery, “but just for clarity,” he asked as he was calling me at home, even though I had no idea how he got my cell phone number, “the IRS agents assigned to enforce compliance of policies with the ACA, in a regular and routine scan authorized by regulations, while not reviewing the content of your calls, have placed your cell phone  by triangulation at the Mall in Washington on July 4th, 2015. I just need to know if that is correct.”

I try to control myself, knowing the stakes.  There was a gigantic Tea Party rally out there that day! Was that the day we were at the Smithsonian with the grandchildren? I can’t bring myself to argue this. Too craven.  Both my gorge and anger rise suddenly.

“And one more thing,” he said, “is it true you have been retired now for 4 years?”

And then understanding the stakes, I read that worn copy I had in some pocket, and know that what I HAVE TO LOSE is very little.

IS THAT THE WAY IT IT GOING TO GO?

For a good idea of the COVER the IPAB will use, read THIS:

Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions

We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classifi ed into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off , maximising total benefits,

and promoting and rewarding social usefulness

SCARED YET?

Paranoid, you say?

FEAR is the weapon which will silence.

As Chief Justice John Marshall observed in Wayman v. Southard (1825), Congress may delegate tasks to other bodies, but there is a fundamental constitutional difference between letting them “fill up the details” of a statute versus deciding “important subjects,” which “must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself.” Distinguishing between the two, the court said, requires an inquiry into the extent of the power given to the administrative body.
The power given by Congress to the Independent Payment Advisory Board is breathtaking. Congress has willingly abandoned its power to make tough spending decisions (how and where to cut) to an unaccountable board that neither the legislative branch nor the president can control. The law has also entrenched the board’s decisions to an unprecedented degree.
In Mistretta v. United States (1989), the Supreme Court emphasized that, in seeking assistance to fill in details not spelled out in the law, Congress must lay down an “intelligible principle” that “confine[s] the discretion of the authorities to whom Congress has delegated power.” The “intelligible principle” test ensures accountability by demanding that Congress take responsibility for fundamental policy decisions.
The IPAB is guided by no such intelligible principle

Is it the contention of the Congress (DEM majority in both houses when passed) that in the 2700 pages of the bill, there  WAS NOT ENOUGH DETAIL?