Yes, and that is what the Cato Institute was referring to because of this statement below.<quoted text>
Not surprisingly, both you and Cato are wrong.
The new health care panel, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates would save $28 billion from 2015 to 2019, is designed to slow the growth of Medicare spending. The board must come up with "detailed proposals to reduce per capita Medicare spending in years when spending is expected to exceed targeted levels," beginning in 2015, writes Washington and Lee University School of Law Professor Timothy S. Jost in a May article for the New England Journal of Medicine.
But the board cannot propose any " death panel-like rationing," as falsely claimed by Palin.(Yes, it was Palin who popularized the term "death panel" during the health care debate last year. At that time, she used the phrase in reference to another health care proposal although she was wrong then, too, as we wrote.)
The fact is, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act specifically states on page 490 that the advisory board "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums."
Now, read that last sentence slowly.
Even if they could ration health care, advisory panel members are not to be the "ultimate arbiters." Its true that the Health and Human Services secretary must implement those recommendations and Congress cannot change them unless it can come up with other ways to save an equivalent amount of money. As we have written before, the intent is to make it difficult for Congress to change the recommendations. Still, members of Congress can make changes, so they are the "ultimate arbiters." (Congress can even waive the requirement that it come up with equal savings by a vote of members in both houses, although that would require a three-fifths vote in the Senate, as the Congressional Research Service explained in a recent report.)
This essentially changes the wording in to be able to Ration care by calling it something else.
Don't think for one second that I didn't fact check it before I posted it. I had already read that articles in fact check but the source for fact check came from the CBO which is notoriously wrong on many issues! This is why I cited the Cato Institute which has a long history of non-biased reports and statistics. Perhaps you should use them as well.