Nuclear and IPAB

As Jonathan Chait suggests, Senate Democrats were basically frustrated with democratic processes, and wanted to give the(ir) executive a stronger hand. (Friedrich Hayek had something to say about that urge.) Indeed, the rule change will make it easier for President Obama to appoint functionaries in the executive branch who will help him implement his agenda via regulation, and appoint district-court and appellate-level federal judges who will then vote to uphold that agenda against the inevitable legal challenges. C’mon, the president can hardly be expected to work with Congress, right?

National Journal‘s Sam Baker goes too far, though, when he writes, “The Senate’s decision to go ‘nuclear’ breathes new life into a dormant but extremely controversial part of Obamacare” known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB.

What’s IPAB? As Diane Cohen and I wrote in a groundbreaking — yes, groundbreaking — study on IPAB for the Cato Institute last year titled, “ The Independent Payment Advisory Board: PPACA’s Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature“:

  When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court…

  IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not…IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

IPAB is actually a good bit worse than this excerpt describes. Seriously, read the whole study.

Baker writes:

  The Senate’s rules change will likely make it much easier for President Obama to fill the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB—a 15-member panel…

  The IPAB is technically supposed to submit its first proposed cuts in January, but Obama hasn’t even nominated anyone to the board yet. Nominees have to be confirmed by the Senate, which until today required 60 votes—and Republicans were highly unlikely to help confirm anyone to the board.

  But now that the Senate has moved to a 51-vote threshold for executive appointments, Obama will likely be able to fill the board and move ahead with one of the most significant cost-control measures in his signature health care law—if he wants to.


All of which is true. The nuclear option enables the president to fill this 15-member panel. But it has absolutely zero effect on the president’s ability to use IPAB. That’s because the PPACA provides that if the president fails to nominate anyone to sit on this panel, or if the Senate fails to confirm anyone, then all of IPAB’s powers fall into the hands of…Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Obama doesn’t need to nominate anyone to IPAB. He can exercise more control over that super-legislature, with less political risk, by not nominating anyone and letting Sebelius act as a super-legislature unto herself.

This is also why Obama did not fire Sebelius when she violated a federal law prohibiting political activities by executive-branch officials, and why he will not fire her for her incompetent management of ObamaCare’s rollout. Another National Journal reporter, Matthew Cooper, claims the reason is the schmaltzy relationship between the two politicians:

  Throw in a mutual affection that’s just strong enough to keep them bound together, mix in their shared love of basketball, and it’s a formula for survival. “She has reminded the president that she made the varsity team in college,” jokes Sebelius’s brother Donald Gilligan.

  A passion for hoops is just one mystic chord between the two lanky pols.

All of which may be true. But it is definitely true that if the president fired Sebelius, her replacement would face the most brutal confirmation fight ever for a federal health official. That’s because it would be the first time the U.S. Senate would ever have to confirm someone who would wield IPAB’s considerable powers. (When Sebelius was confirmed, IPAB didn’t exist.) True, her replacement would only need 51 votes instead of 60. But even if that nominee got 51 votes, the confirmation process would be ugly. The sort of ugliness that Senate Democrats sought to avoid by never holding a hearing on Obama’s nomination of Donald Berwick to run Medicare. Only worse. If the nomination failed, Obama could find himself without an HHS secretary and without IPAB’s considerable powers. The president could always recess-appoint a replacement for Sebelius, as he recess-appointed Berwick. But that option also brings perils, and the Supreme Court may soon tell the president his recess-appointment powers are not as plenary as he seems to think.

So long as he retains Kathleen Sebelius as his HHS secretary, the president has all he needs to wield IPAB’s vast powers.

html Michael F. Cannon Contributor


The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.
Michael F. Cannon

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/11/22/nuclear-option-does-not-make-it-easier-for-obama-to-use-ipab/


_________________

The Independent Payment Advisory Board: PPACA’s Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature“:

When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto.

WOW, just WOW!

The enemy is within.  

We had to pass it to see what's in it.....

Some of the most ignorant words ever spoken by a human being.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board: PPACA’s Anti-Constitutional and Authoritarian Super-Legislature“:

When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto.

WOW, just WOW!

The enemy is within.

Too funny......the NLRB......unconstitutional.......the IRS......unconstitutional.......how about some understanding about how government works. Have you ever read a revenue ruling? This is a rule from God help Us........the executive branch.....you know the supra unconstitutional body who collects taxes.

How about a little help. The founding fathers specifically put in our constitution supra majority requirements. They never by design put the 60 vote senate rule in the constitution. It was a gentleman's agreement which the stats show ended when folks quit acting like gentlemen.

Now the President appoints folks to these executive boards. They develop rules. The NLRB or IRS have always generated rulings independent of a Congressional vote. In our system of checks and balance, they could be challenged by a court action arguing that the board was outside the intent of congress, or congress could act to change the law and give specific guidelines if they disagreed with a rule generated by the executive branch.

Stupid is hard to fix. Ignorance can be fixed, but when articles are written for the consumption of either stupid or ignorant people, rarely will we have comprehension of the issues. The ACA is a powerful piece of legislation which was passed which has executive power to carry out the congressional mandate. Nothing more or less....nothing revolutionary, or contrary to the taxing powers of Congress.

Right...it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the constant obstruction of the President's judicial nominees or other government appointees, as detailed in the other thread. Look at the stats for yourself, even though it's been the pattern since day one of the Obama administration...that and every effort possible to impugn his citizenship, loyalty to the Constitution, religion, leadership skills and political persuasion.

well one thing is we do agree on. You cant debate STUPID.

I mean right in front of you face, there it is. and your apologizing and making excuses.

and even further more, we have a president passing laws to get around congress and you applaud it LOL yep, that's the sign of STUPID.

and of course FT congress is trying to stop Obama and his policies as much as possible, they are not full blown communist yet, only a little bit.  

You people are bat shit crazy the way you worship Obama and his do anything to you apologies. hmmmmmm

I am not stupid and I do know how government works. I am afraid that somebody who does not understand, will think this bill is different than thirty other executive branch administration of laws which allow rule generation. You have probably never even heard of the Federal Register and what its function is.........I can try to help ignorance if you are willing to learn, but the idea in this article that the reason for the rule change is to allow an outlaw President to get his way is hysterical........people really need to spend some time reading and understand how government works before they attempt to criticize the same......there is plenty to talk about on problems and abuse, but I prefer to talk about real problems.

Shut up seaoat

Forming another independent government agency with no oversight and composed of political appointees is a good thing, check.

Or, being headed by Sebelius who has proven her competence, also a good thing, check.

Having either responsible for medical expenditure allotments and making decisions regarding who get what is also a good thing. check

Right, what could possibly go wrong?

Never has a political entity been so inappropriately named as “the progressives”. For they are systematically and routinely unable to foresee potential future ramifications of the programs they so adore today.

stormwatch89 wrote:Forming another independent government agency with no oversight and composed of political appointees is a good thing, check.

Or, being headed by Sebelius who has proven her competence, also a good thing, check.

Having either responsible for medical expenditure allotments and making decisions regarding who get what is also a good thing. check

Right, what could possibly go wrong?

Never has a political entity been so inappropriately named as “the progressives”. For they are systematically and routinely unable to foresee potential future ramifications of the programs they so adore today.

Check... lol.

Medicare........check

PkrBum wrote:

stormwatch89 wrote:Forming another independent government agency with no oversight and composed of political appointees is a good thing, check.

Or, being headed by Sebelius who has proven her competence, also a good thing, check.

Having either responsible for medical expenditure allotments and making decisions regarding who get what is also a good thing.  check

Right, what could possibly go wrong?

Never has a political entity been so inappropriately named as “the progressives”.  For they are systematically and routinely unable to foresee potential future ramifications of the programs they so adore today.  

Check... lol.

this motion has been seconded.

check +

2seaoat wrote:Medicare........check

Where will this money come from?  Please don't say the "RICH", they don't have anywhere NEAR this much money.



Current Debt . . . $17.2 TRILLION (No budget approved for 2013)

Unfunded Liabilities (money we have PROMISED, do not have, nor do we have it coming in)

Social Security. . . . $16.6 TRILLION (10,000 Baby Boomers RETIRE EVERY DAY)  (How many workers are entering the job market daily?)

Prescription Drugs .$22.0 TRILLION

Medicare. . . . . . . . $87.5 TRILLION

Total Unfunded Liabilities $126.2 TRILLION! 

Number of Households in 2010 = 112,611,029

Unfunded Liability Per Taxpayer  $1,101,203.00 

[/size]



http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html


 
PLUS ObamaCare and Untold TRILLIONS more in TAXES

Social Security is fine. A small actuarial modification on earning limits and it is solvent for a century. Medicare is facing a 30 year bubble of higher costs based on projected babyboom needs, but we are migrating to medicare for all and your projections are not worth the cyberspace they are written on because new funding sources will have the medicare fund balanced and solvent. Medicaid means little when in five years we migrate to medicare for all. Sorry the game is almost over for your team......people in America are going to have health care as a priority and corporate subsidy will be in a distant fiftieth place.

Healthcare cannot bankrupt the nation or there will not be a nation to guarantee said healthcare you speak about ....

Obama's plan does just
This and permanently eliminates the middle class.