ijusluvit ...The principles and intentions of Obamacare are captured in the philosophy of its architects. I'm surprised you missed that in my post. One more time.......in their own words.

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.

Finding team Obama support for Obamcare, medical care rationing and the subsequent phase in over a period of years is not difficult. With a little objective research, in fact, it is a target rich environment. Take one more Obama nominee,,," in May of this year(2010), the president nominated Dr. Donald Berwick, a professor at Harvard Medical School, to head Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CMS covers over 100 million Americans and has a budget larger then the Defense Department. He is enhusiastically, openly candid in his support of Britain's socialistic National Health Service. In a 2008 speech to British physicians, our new health czar said: "I am romantic about National Health Service. I love it (because it is) 'generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just.'" Cato Institute.

That "just" National Health Care Service decides which care can be too costly for the government to pay. Its real-time decider of life-or-death outcomes is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Here is how "nicely" it works, described by Michael Tanner, senior fellow and health-care expert at the Cato Institute;

"It acts as a comparative-effectiveness tool for the National Health Care Service, comparing various treatments and determining whether the benefits the patients receives - SUCH AS PROLONGED LIFE - are cost-efficient for the government" (lifenews.com, May 27). "....

Unlike the president, Berwick tells it like it frighteningly is in a June 2009 interview for the magazine, Biotechnology Healthcare: Dr. Berwick "It's not a question of whether we will ration health care. It is whether we will ration with our eyes open." This from the lips of the nominated Obamacare health czar who was in love with national health care and the socialistic British Health Service (please someone start a thread on that beast).

"Recent reports suggest that the recently passed health-care bill will be far more expensive than originally projected. As it becomes apparent that Obamacare is unsustainable, the calls for controlling its costs through rationing will grow louder. With Donald Berwick running the government's health-care efforts, those voices have a ready ear" (dailycaller.com, May 27).

ijusluvit, the language you are looking for will come when"[I]the centralized planning of medical delivery is complete - with cost-containment boards controlling the standards of care and the extent of coverage for both the private and public sectors - insurance companies, HMOs and the government will be able to legally discriminate against the sickest, most disabled and most elderly in our country. In other words, those whose care is most expensive.[/I] Cato Institute.

Czar Berwick's served in an acting capacity briefly before his nominatiion was derailed by Republicans in spite of Obama's strong defense of Dr. Berwick.

Cabo says those who look only for the smoking gun may get clobbered in the back of the head with a Louisville Slugger.

Thanks for the exercise. Always a pleasure ijuslovit

So, as I understand what BTK is saying, it makes NO DIFFERENCE as to the correctness of the issue but only a WHAT IF it might be true.

Well, that is about the same as stating your belief that growing pineapples in the winter in Minnesota is ideal. Everyone knows that Minnesota is not the ideal place to grow pineapples in the winter but WHAT IF it were true?

Exact same logic that BTK used and just wanted to "hypothesize".

cobo,

I read all of the posts you wrote on this subject and I appreciate your warning us about how the government is going to deny us healthcare.

If I am incorrect however, that not a single word you quoted is from the law, would you please cite that actual law language I missed.

Originally Posted by buggyone

So, as I understand what BTK is saying, it makes NO DIFFERENCE as to the correctness of the issue but only a WHAT IF it might be true.

Well, that is about the same as stating your belief that growing pineapples in the winter in Minnesota is ideal. Everyone knows that Minnesota is not the ideal place to grow pineapples in the winter but WHAT IF it were true?

How I Became a Minnesota Pineapple Farmer

http://simplegoodandtasty.com/2011/0...neapple-farmer

great tactic called a red herring or lateral arabesque...meaning dodge, weave, restate, accuse, restate again, turn the crank and same old same old comes out the other end.....partisan slant no matter what...their belief = good....any other = bad, verbal onslaught...and at all times completely avoid the subject/issue!!

btk

Often the truth is so heinous, evil, and in-human, that upon hearing it we shake our heads and say..."it can't be true!"

Katz,
If you are referring to the bogus YouTube clip, it was proved to be untrue. It never happened.

BTK was only using it as a jumping off point to start a disjointed discussion as a WHAT IF IT WERE TRUE, then it would be terrible. BUT IT IS NOT TRUE. THERE WAS NO CONFERENCE WHERE THE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE. IT IS NOT REMOTELY TRUE.

Cabo,
That was actually very funny. I also have done that with pineapple tops and with lemons. I once grew a lemon tree from a seed and the tree lived about ten years and survived three moves.

I have a Myers lemon tree, a pink lemon tree, and a key lime tree in The Villages in my yard. All are doing great.

Originally Posted by billethkid

great tactic called a red herring or lateral arabesque...meaning dodge, weave, restate, accuse, restate again, turn the crank and same old same old comes out the other end.....partisan slant no matter what...their belief = good....any other = bad, verbal onslaught...and at all times completely avoid the subject/issue!!

btk

The lady doth protest too much, me thinks!

Buggyone~ I was referring to the near victory that was almost enjoyed by the Third Reich. The atrocities that occurred under that regime command were "poo poo"ed as too awful to be true, until it was almost too late...Check out the book "Bonhoeffer" by Eric Metaxis. It is an incredible biography that contains great history lessons, including the seduction of Germany and deception of the rest of the world, almost to the point of no return. Those who refuse to learn from history, are usually doomed to repeating it.

Originally Posted by buggyone

Cabo,
That was actually very funny. I also have done that with pineapple tops and with lemons. I once grew a lemon tree from a seed and the tree lived about ten years and survived three moves.

I have a Myers lemon tree, a pink lemon tree, and a key lime tree in The Villages in my yard. All are doing great.

Dear Mr. Buggy,

Please be informed that, as we speak, Snopes is working on verifying the above claims. Preliminary indications are that they could be true, or,
they could be false.

Originally Posted by DDoug

I have read some of the replies to original post and yes I sat and read the obamacare before it was voted into law and one thing folks dont want to admitt is you will be refused treatment after a certain age. One which if you are told you have cancer you will be give pain meds to make you comfy. Doesnt that make you feel warm all over. If it's your wife or mother you will look at it differently. It's time that people need to read some of this stuff and understand what the administation is trying to do to you . I get to talk to a lot Canadians and they always say the same thing. We don't know how good we had it till the full force of obamacare hits us. It's time to see what really is going on. Pull your heads out the sand, I could have said some thing else, and face facts. As the old saying goes read it and weep. And other thing Romney is going to do the same thing watch your back.

...and the difference between Medicare rationing your care and your insurance company dropping you because you've become too expensive is... What?

Originally Posted by djplong

...and the difference between Medicare rationing your care and your insurance company dropping you because you've become too expensive is... What?

Lets see.....my wife getting treatment for cancer versus driving without insurance......hmmmmmm

...and when the insurance company decides that your wife has cost too much?

...or when they decide that your treatment is NOT covered and suddenly you get stuck with the bill despite the initial go-ahead from them? (This happened to me in 1992)