Is This Part of How Obama Hopes to Reduce Medical Costs?

At the least, it gives you an insight into how Obama & his gang view the rest of us. & that view isn't one that respects us as human beings with any rights. They see themselves as the elite who will dictate how the rest of us live & die. It would be sad if this was the exception, not the rule. But with each new revelation it is clear that, should the Obama administration get its way we will soon be operating as a less than benevolent dictatorship with Obama & the Dems in charge.

In this case we see the view of Obama's regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein towards the dying. In his 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler wrote: "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

They went on to say: "Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend. In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life."

He views them as a mere commodity to be taken advantage of. The only worth they have is as a source of spare parts. But this isn't surprizing. Why should we expect those in the "culture of death" to respect this end of the life spectrum when they have no respect for life at the beginning?

He goes on to try & justify how it would be done as libertarianism. "A policy that can pass libertarian muster by our standards is called presumed consent.

Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate, and they could do so easily. We want to underline the word easily, because the harder it is to register your unwillingness to participate, the less libertarian the policy becomes."

Then he goes on to say: "Mandated choice could be implemented through a simple addition to the driver's license registration scheme used in many states. With mandated choice, renewal of your driver's license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences. Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes. The options might include 'yes, willing to donate' and 'no, unwilling to donate.'"

By saying that they have to make a choice, they are showing that what they want is anything but libertarianism. It is a government mandate that requires them to make a choice. & even worse, the default choice is that you will agree with what the government mandates.

if a person wants to be an organ donor that should be his or her freely made choice. & what he proposes is not a free choice. The government is blackmailing you into making a decision 1 way or another in order to get your license. OK, driving is not a right. But to tell a person that this totally unrelated thing is a requirement for getting it is definitely not libertarianism.

But the bottom line is still this, we are seeing another prime example of how the "culture of death" operates. They put no value on human beings made in the image & likeness of God that gives each person an inate value. As I said, they see each human being as being of value only in so far as they may be useful. & for the dying that is, as I said, a source for spare parts.

At this point I don't see anything in ObamaCare that would mandate this direction. But there is nothing to prevent it either. & if ObamaCare does pass & gives the government even more control than it should have, will this be far behind?

Source: Sunstein: Take organs from 'helpless patients'