PDA

View Full Version : Government by regulation. Shhh.



Eric Johnson
01-01-2011, 04:01 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123003047.html?wpisrc=nl_pmheadline

http://tinyurl.com/2eg35at

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, December 31, 2010

Most people don't remember Obamacare's notorious Section 1233, mandating government payments for end-of-life counseling. It aroused so much anxiety as a possible first slippery step on the road to state-mandated late-life rationing that the Senate never included it in the final health-care law.

Well, it's back - by administrative fiat. A month ago, Medicare issued a regulation providing for end-of-life counseling during annual "wellness" visits. It was all nicely buried amid the simultaneous release of hundreds of new Medicare rules.

- more -

mjh345
01-01-2011, 04:21 PM
I'm not at all opposed to "end of life counseling", and as a general rule don't buy into "slippery slope" scare tactics

M&K's Retrievers
01-01-2011, 05:34 PM
I'm not at all opposed to "end of life counseling", and as a general rule don't buy into "slippery slope" scare tactics

Wouldn't that depend on what the counseling advises?

mjh345
01-01-2011, 06:33 PM
Wouldn't that depend on what the counseling advises?

Not to me.

dnf777
01-01-2011, 06:54 PM
Wouldn't that depend on what the counseling advises?

I haven't seen anything that prescribes what must be discussed. The statute only provides for reimbursement to the physician, for what is often the longest and most involved discussion had with the family or patient.

Eric Johnson
01-01-2011, 08:36 PM
The point is not the so-called "death panels."

The point is that the Administration is using rule-making to create laws despite the actions of Congress against these laws.

Again, suppose the Fish and Wildlife Service procedes with a rule-making which provides that no hunting or field events can take place on any lands purchased with Pittman-Robinson Act funds. (BTW, this is not far-fetched. They already tried something like this in Illinois in the Green River WMA.)

Eric

dnf777
01-01-2011, 08:41 PM
The point is not the so-called "death panels."

The point is that the Administration is using rule-making to create laws despite the actions of Congress against these laws.

Again, suppose the Fish and Wildlife Service procedes with a rule-making which provides that no hunting or field events can take place on any lands purchased with Pittman-Robinson Act funds. (BTW, this is not far-fetched. They already tried something like this in Illinois in the Green River WMA.)

Eric

Thanks for the refocus.

Isn't it different that its being brought up by this method now, after not being included at all in the original legislation......as opposed to being in the legislation, and being voted down, then to be put through via this method?

Marvin S
01-01-2011, 09:37 PM
Thanks for the refocus.

Isn't it different that its being brought up by this method now, after not being included at all in the original legislation......as opposed to being in the legislation, and being voted down, then to be put through via this method?

Why most of us don't like BHO's brand of government :o !!!!!!!!! & why we think his defenders are a little short of a full deck. As one who is probably closer than any on this forum to making these choices I was going to present from my perspective, but will now let this play out 1st. I believe the "Death Panel" option worthy of an in depth discussion.

Eric Johnson
01-01-2011, 09:44 PM
There's a bit of a gray area. In the case of the Section 1233 of the healthcare legislation, it was removed from the bill because it was known to be unpopular. Thus, Congress didn't act on it so that technically, it's a new issue. OTOH, I don't believe that it's "new" for a minute.

Overall, the administrative rule-making authority ought not be used to invoke rules that are contrary to the legislative intent of Congress. If Congress has not expressed itself yet, that's a risk to us and/or the Administration. Once the public finds out what a couple of bureaucrats have done in their own name, there may or may not be consequences.

Eric

dnf777
01-01-2011, 09:50 PM
Thus, Congress didn't act on it so that technically, it's a new issue. OTOH, I don't believe that it's "new" for a minute.


Eric


I agree wholeheartedly. And there will be a political price for this.

However, we shouldn't be surprised at this tactic, and should expect it to become more and more popular as we have an ever increasingly polarized political field.

And I won't bring up his name, but in all fairness, the last guy took end-runs and executive maneuvering around Congress to new levels. This isn't anything new.

M&K's Retrievers
01-01-2011, 10:31 PM
I agree wholeheartedly. And there will be a political price for this.

However, we shouldn't be surprised at this tactic, and should expect it to become more and more popular as we have an ever increasingly polarized political field.

And I won't bring up his name, but in all fairness, the last guy took end-runs and executive maneuvering around Congress to new levels. This isn't anything new.

That doesn't make it right. Because of the net more folks are becoming aware of this and other tactics that should be done away with. These end runs need to be done away with regardless of who is in office- Bush or David Palmer.:rolleyes:

dnf777
01-01-2011, 10:35 PM
That doesn't make it right. Because of the net more folks are becoming aware of this and other tactics that should be done away with. These end runs need to be done away with regardless of who is in office- Bush or David Palmer.:rolleyes:

Agreed.

But I remember Pat Buchanan once saying that once a president grabs power, he never gives it back. He gives it to the next guy.