Originally Posted by cabo35

I originally posted this in early December. Except for the tenacious believer, ijustluvit, the silence from the left was deafening. Maybe it was the approaching holidays....so....Obamacare champions....here's an opportunity to have another go at it. Here is the slightly re-edited version.

READ A BOOK
More importantly, the spinners should read the books, papers and public comments of their very own liberal architects of Obamacare. I wouldn't expect them to read anything that might offer balance and a more intellectually honest analysis of the issues in medical care.

Take for example Tom Daschle, Obama's first choice for Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Benevolently, lets say his candidacy ran into some legal issues and he dropped out. He wrote a book entitled, Critical:What We Can Do About the Health Crisis. Daschle models his Federal Health Board, some call it a "death panel", on Britain's NICE agency. You should really read up on that one. it warrants its own thread. Anyway, the would be architect of Obamacare spells out a policy that evaluates treatments for....drum roll please.....clinical and cost effectiveness. It's that "cost effectiveness" thingy that raises more questions then answers. If the spinners would just pick up the book written by one of theirs, perhaps we wouldn't get the cheap, talking point hip shots. Where's the bug spray?

Critiques, sometimes you have to hear the other side, say that indeed cost effectiveness comparisons would save taxpayer dollars.......at the expense of limiting patients access to medical treatments. Folks, this just scratches the surface. The real impact is in the "rationing" implications. Spinners.....read the book.

Then there's your.....I mean Obama's one of 39 CZARs, Cass Sunstein, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I think they stole the title from Moscow. Of course he's out of Chicago Law School. Spinners, you have just got to read this guy's papers....then come back and try to spin. His end of life/health care policies are evident throughout Obamacare. He holds that:

Human life varies in value.......really? I wonder if party or political affiliations will factor in the equation of deciding values? I hope the panel doesn't read TOTV or some people will.........?

He advocates that health benefit calculations will likely result in lower benefit calculations for elderly people.....you know, those pesky seniors who live in The Villages, and higher benefits for those who are younger and more productive. You really need to fully absorb this concept...re-read it if necessary. Honest.....that is what he believes.

Spin this....Sunstein believes and advocates for "presumed consent". Sounds harmless enough on the surface. It means that the government has a right to "presume" you have consented to have your organs transplanted. In other words, the government owns your organs and can use them as they see necessary unless you legally opt out. Can organs be taxed? They will be.

Sunstein is one of the architects of Obamacare and a cost/benefit advocate.

Then there is the other Emanuel and architect of Obamacare, also out of Chicago, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Ezekiel echoes Sunstein on the necessity to limit and ration health care options for seniors. He is an advocate of "liberal communitarianism". Spinners, you really need to research this one yourself.

Emanuel quite openly advocates healthcare rationing by age and disability. He must be a real hoot in nursing homes and cancer centers who work so hard to give extended quality life to those afflicted.

Of course any response I can offer to the spinners in this forum is substantially restricted. My intent clearly is to provoke those who like to respond to posters who possess inquiring minds with worn out party line snippets and sound bites that neither inform or contribute to an intellectual exchange of ideas. Where's the bug spray?

I've made an attempt, over a period of time, to read about Obamacare and its architects. I admit posting some of the more provocative aspects to annoy, arouse, excite and evoke responses from its intransigent supporters. I oppose rationing of healthcare in any form but realize there are compelling arguments to the contrary.

Maybe one or two true believers will enlighten this forum. I am sure there are practical arguments for health care rationing, but please, spare us the obvious party line that goes something like this, "but, we're already rationing." Tell us where you draw the line on the rationing that Obamacare architects advocate for. Who will get the new heart or organ transplant and who won't? Who will get the latest most expensive wonder drug treatment and who will not? Who will get the newest, most costly cancer treatment and who will not? Who gets to make these decisions? ijustluvit, I am sure there are a few redeeming benefits like the ones you described, IF, the system delivers as you suggest. What about the big picture that predicates the system on healthcare rationing based on cost/benefit analysis because that is the core of Obamacare from the lips of its creators to your ears. The "humanizing", feel good surveys and initiatives you cite are nice but first you have to get past the cost effectiveness formula to receive their benefit.