ObamaCare Reviewed - another in our continuing series .

Without getting into any of the mechanics of the new tax/medical law, I want to demonstrate just how nonsensical is the writing of this law - no wonder no one read the thing before it was passed by the Democrats. Here is a portion of the law. As you read, imagine 2,700 pages of this gibberish and know that the panels described in the following are non-medical in their composition. Also, not one word of the following was written by a doctor or anyone in the medical profession. Understand that as one reads the larger tax law, the word "doctor" is hard to find. I am not sure the word appears in the document, certainly not in a majority sense and this is supposedly a medical bill. Clearly, this medical tax law should have, at least, been reviewed by medical personnel, but no, that did not happen.

From page 669 in the Obama Care Tax Law Concerning Medical Expending and Frugal Patient Care, found here: ObamaCare in PDF - an official explanation (hey,  its only a little over 900 pages;  enjoy ).  

My comments are [bracketed] . 

‘‘(c) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the Institute is to assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy-makers 

[no "doctors." Understand that the use of the word "doctor" would require a doctor. While "clinicians" allows for "doctors," such is not required. Obama intends to use nurses and health care providers INSTEAD of doctors]

in making informed health decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of evidence

[relevance as relates to the opinion of unqualified, not medical types concerning matters of cost control and compliance]

concerning the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, monitored, and managed through research and evidence synthesis that considers variations in patient subpopulations, and the dissemination of research findings with respect to the relative health outcomes, clinical effectiveness, and appropriateness of the medical treatments, services, and items described in subsection (a)(2)(B). 
‘‘(d) DUTIES.—
‘‘(1) IDENTIFYING RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND ESTABLISHING
RESEARCH PROJECT AGENDA.—

[at the top of the list, "priorities" include cost issues as the first consideration]

‘‘(A) IDENTIFYING RESEARCH PRIORITIES.—The Institute 
shall identify national priorities for research, taking into 
account factors of disease incidence, prevalence, and burden in the United States (with emphasis on chronic conditions), 

[again, "burden" has much more to do with cost than it does with "chronic conditions" ] 

gaps in evidence in terms of clinical outcomes, practice variations and health disparities in terms of delivery and outcomes of care, the potential for new evidence to improve patient health, well-being, and the quality of care, the effect on national expenditures associated with a health care treatment, strategy, or health conditions, as . . . . . . 

[What is critical, here, is that clinical outcomes and "disparities in terms of delivery and outcomes of care" have nothing to do with the patient's doctor . . . . . . nothing. And, in every case in this tax law, the doctor is omitted from the actual decision making process except as relates to the following circumstance:    in the doctor's private practice of medicine, he no longer is free to make diagnosis that is not prescribed by a non-medical board of supervisors nor is the patient allowed to spend his own money in addition to Centralized Government Approved Insurances.  That is now illegal,  under this tax law.]