Is 'health reform' a grab for power over medicare etc by the executive branch?

and if so, if a president you didn't like was in power, would you like that?





" The deliberate setup for the White House power grab is built into the each of the health care bills and, if they fail, little-known twin bills called “MedPAC Reform of 2009” are waiting in the wings. The bills, S.B. 1110 and H.R. 2718, craftily amend the Social Security Act and transfer the Medicare guideline and rule setting processes, from the legislative branch to the executive branch. These bills offer cover to one another in case one doesn’t pass the House or Senate, respectively. Remember, Democrats need to gain executive branch authority by amending the Social Security Act over Medicare regulations and physician fee schedules to transform the health care system in a single-payer, socialized system.


More importantly, Medicare’s regulations and physician fee schedules are the keystone to developing payer systems and reimbursement models across the entire health care industry. And where Medicare goes, insurers follow.


To underscore the far-reaching power, a bulk of the states already reference or utilize the Medicare guidelines and fee schedules in determining policy, coverage, and payment, which impacts certain state-specific plans, including, but not limited to, self-funded plans, automobile insurance payers, and state workers’ compensation funds and plans – affecting even Big Labor. For the executive branch to have such authority over Medicare regulations with little oversight is alarming. This raises further issues of the powerful impact these federal mandates could potentially have on the states in stripping them of their own management of their respective insurance industries.


Specifically, the language in the Reid bill intentionally places unlimited power directly in the hands of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, including the ability to designate covered services, or rationing. The Pelosi bill creates a Health Choices Commission and its “commissioner” is empowered to make the same decisions. More alarming, both will have to take direction from the White House–and its unconfirmed czars–due to their executive branch affiliation. "|||No. The facts about reform are quite simple really.





FACT - Insurance companies in the USA admit to pushing up prices, buying politicians and not paying out claims when they should [1]


FACT - PER PERSON the USA spends more on healthcare than any other nation on the planet [2]


FACT - Obama debated his plans before the election for healthcare [3]


FACT - the chance of a child under five of dying in the USA is greater than industrialised nations with universal health coverage [4]


FACT - Obama was elected by the American people to bring in change [5]


FACT - Obama wants to stop insurance companies from screwing America [6]


FACT - The reforms Obama wants work in the Netherlands and Switzerland [7]





Let me know if my facts are wrong, but please provide proof.|||If you noticed, last night the Senate voted down the "public option" and replaced it with medicare, which was the goal all along.





However, I can't imagine the executive branch wanting to seize 2 govt. programs that are in imminent danger of insolvency. From a political perspective, that is suicide.





Obama (or any other President) would be smart to leave that clusterf-ck to Congress to deal with, especially considering that the power of the purse will reside with congress regardless. And if Congress changes to Republican control, it would make the job all that more difficult for the President to deal with.





Read the bills for yourself, I think your link missed something important.