I do hope that one of these individuals — or indeed other political commentators who have supported IPAB in recent weeks — can tell me how I should proceed when it comes to my foot. After all, I now realize that my surgeon could be recommending an operation just for the reimbursement check, because most medical professionals base their decision-making processes on whether they will obtain a $50,000 payday (as opposed to Obamacare’s “experts,” whose decisions will be based on the fact that “the social budget is limited — we have a limited resource pool”).
There is a catch, however: While I will defer my own opinion to those of the “experts,” I do expect that any individual who passes judgment on my case will assume full financial and legal liability for same. That may be a problem for some of IPAB’s defenders. After all, Section 3403 of the statute exempts the IPAB and its members from ANY legal liability associated with its decisions.
And therein lies the point of this proposal, and this story: If the IPAB’s defenders — and its so-called “experts” — aren’t willing to put their own money where their mouths are, then how good will this board of unaccountable bureaucrats be?
Chris Jacobs is a health policy analyst for the Senate Republican Policy Committee.