Political Discussions
Grandma got run over by Obamacare...
Posted by anticsrocks • 8/11/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: end of life, ezekiel emanuel, health care, obama, rationing, reform, socialized medicine
ROFLMAO!!
Check this out.
amaze.fm/artist/Perry/grandma-got-run-over-by-obama-care/
User Comments
-
It's sad that these poor old ignorant people don't know what they are doing. They should be watching Bill Moyers Interview with Wendall Powell. This is the truth as everyone is D.C. knows, as do people who used to work for the health care industry. Doctors know it, legislators know it and so on. The consumer driven health care is the joke the insurance companies are playing on us. They want mandatory health coverage they just absolutely do not want competition from the government, something they fear the government will do cheaper and better, nor do they want regulation.
It's a long interview, and a longer video, and I know some of you are liable to read or view only sound bites as your attention span is limited, try to sift through it.
video.pbs.org/video/1201678913/search/HEALTCH%20INSURANCE
www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html-
cooper, I have talked, personally talked to over 50 different health professionals from different sized towns, and different hospitals, clinics, etc... None of them think that what El Presidente and the DNC are proposing is an answer to what needs to be done.
You want health care reform?
"6/7/2007--Introduced.
Comprehensive Health Coverage and Reform Enhancement Act of 2007 or the Comprehensive HealthCARE Act of 2007 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a tax credit and a deduction for qualified health insurance. Imposes a tax on any employer who fails to contribute to any health insurance provider elected by an employee in lieu of the employer's group health coverage.
Requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to revise government contribution amounts such that the amount of contribution does not change based on the health benefits plan in which the individual is enrolled.
Quality Health-Care Coalition Act of 2007 - Treats health care professionals negotiating with health plans as collective bargaining units for purposes of antitrust laws.
Amends the Public Health Service Act to apply the covered laws of the primary state to individual health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in the primary state and in any secondary state, but only if the coverage and issuer comply with certain conditions.
Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2007 - Sets forth provisions regulating lawsuits for health care liability claims concerning the provision of health care goods or services or any medical product affecting interstate commerce. Provides for administrative health care tribunals to resolve disputes concerning injuries allegedly caused by health care providers.
Allows medical care providers: (1) to expense the cost of health care information technology; and (2) a business tax credit for certain telecommunication charges.
Deems hospitals, emergency departments, physicians, and physicians groups that provide emergency care to be employees of the Public Health Service for purposes of any civil action that may arise due to items and services furnished.
Allows certain physicians a bad debt tax deduction for their costs in providing uncompensated care to emergency room patients.
Requires the Secretary to establish a Technical Advisory Group to review issues related to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)."
This is the summary for H.R. 2626. I suggest you read it cooper if you want to see what true health care reform is.
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2626
Tell you what cooper, you can talk down to me like that when you stop carrying ruin's (and El Presidente's for that matter), water for him.
I challenge you to a debate on any political topic. You choose and let's go. Put your money where your big mouth is and if you actually do, which I doubt you will, you will be surprised. You see, I am not one of those with 'limited attention spans' that you speak of; in fact, let's just leave ruin out of this, okay? -
www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02626:@@@X
"Latest Major Action: 6/18/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health." -
not addressing this, huh : [
-
Oh, sorry didn't see you there. I was too busy telling csi his picture had too much lipstick on...
I wish it would see the light of day, but it won't - I am speaking of H.R. 2626, not csi's avatar, btw. -
Just so that we're all clear, this is the 1000+ page legislation
www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=thomas+H.R.3200&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
LOC links tend to expire, so I just put in the google search. And no I haven't read it... will do right after I finish "War and Peace" -
My opposition to the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 or ObamaCare as its commonly referred to, is not political. My opposition to this Pelolsi-Reid frankenstien is purely based upon substanance. There are things that can be done to fix what is broken in our health care system without driving the national deficit into oblivion.
matthiaschronicles.tanaya.net/Archives/2009/09/04/1252101102.shtml
-
-
LMAO, classic.
I hope they get this one redone with someone that can actually sing and get a video out on Youtube..-
Nice avatar, btw.
-
-
More on the "kill grandma" lies—upon which such "humor" depends—this morning at NPR: www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111729363&ft=1&f=1001 -
i was reading H.R. 3200, and I found this bit...
"SEC. 114. NONDISCRIMINATION IN BENEFITS; PARITY IN MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE DISORDER BENEFITS.
(a) Nondiscrimination in Benefits- A qualified health benefits plan shall comply with standards established by the Commissioner to prohibit discrimination in health benefits or benefit structures for qualifying health benefits plans, building from sections 702 of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 2702 of the Public Health Service Act, and section 9802 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(b) Parity in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorder Benefits- To the extent such provisions are not superceded by or inconsistent with subtitle C, the provisions of section 2705 (other than subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), and (c)) of section 2705 of the Public Health Service Act shall apply to a qualified health benefits plan, regardless of whether it is offered in the individual or group market, in the same manner as such provisions apply to health insurance coverage offered in the large group market."
...and I was wondering; Where is the part about the exception for dementia? i just cant find it in there... o_0
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c1114CdREZ:e31668:-
You might be able to get an answer from whoever is handling health care legislation in your representative's office.
-
maybe I should just go to a "Town Hall" and shout her down
-
"A qualified health benefits plan shall comply with standards established by the Commissioner"
See, it all boils down to the parameters set by this "Commissioner." Who is this person? Why would he, one person have that much power to declare what the "standards" are? Why not your doctor?
You mean you have no problem with that, Agit8r? What if Obama makes old Zeke that Commissioner? You have read what his thoughts are on those "standards." -
Antics, I have said elsewhere that I would prefer a simpler plan that uses the existing medicare/FICA bureacracy for catastrophic care, and a plan to cover children's health insurance run through the states. I do not approve of mandatory purchaasing of private health insurance as has been proposed by members of both parties. I also find that there are numerous problems with having "commissioners" (Komisars, what have you) running various aspects of our lives. Here, I am simply shedding light on the bunk nature of euthanasia for those with dementia, etc. I think such things distract from the valid arguements of those who have criticisms for the methods of reform employed. The sheer sake of honesty notwithstanding
-
As usual Agit8r, when all the hyperbole is put aside you and I have very similar outlooks on a lot of topics. I have long said that if Obama wanted to give coverage to the uninsured, all he would have to do is expand Medicare to them.
I was only pointing out that the euthanasia/dementia issue would come from the "Commissioner" style bureaucracy.
-
-
Oh, here it is...
"SEC. 1431. DEMENTIA AND ABUSE PREVENTION TRAINING.
(a) Skilled Nursing Facilities- Section 1819(f)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-3(f)(2)(A)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting `(including, in the case of initial training and, if the Secretary determines appropriate, in the case of ongoing training, dementia management training and resident abuse prevention training)' after `curriculum'.
(b) Nursing Facilities- Section 1919(f)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r(f)(2)(A)(i)(I)) is amended by inserting `(including, in the case of initial training and, if the Secretary determines appropriate, in the case of ongoing training, dementia management training and resident abuse prevention training)' after `curriculum'.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act."
...oh wait, that's not it -
"...in the case of initial training and, if the Secretary determines appropriate..."
Once again, one person will have the power over hundreds if not thousands. What if El Presidente appoints Zeke?
-
-
If it's the same Bill I just read
it's is a bill from 2007, is sitting in sub committee dead, and it was sponsored by Senator Tom Rice of Georgia, a Republican, and Marilyn Musgrove also a Republican. If not please direct me to the correct one.
I too have spoken to many people, often former health care plan administrators, or physicians or nurses who have who have worked for insurance companies in other capacities. I've interned for a Republican Congressman and understand what goes on in the offices, how they get things done. I currently analyze statistics for a living and know how easily they can be manipulated, how their extrapolated results are never questioned and they are used by either side for their own end.
No one said the plan offered currently is the best one. People who read me know that I have criticized this administration, and this congress often. These boards are not really a great part of my life and spending time the time to debate on them, due to high troll volume is not time well spent.
I think it is worth some time to listen to the Powell interview, it points out some things that people in the industry know. Things your legislators know. Health insurance and the free market - especially an unregulated market not required to adhere to anti trust laws - and the new "consumer driven" health care the industry is pushing, none of it in the best interest of the people. The industry is scared because they know a government run health care program could work and they do not want the competition.
The industry does want mandatory coverage though and the 50 million more customers they hope to get from it.-
I'm wondering how mandatory coverage without a public option could even work. What if we can't afford what the companies are offering?
-
Mandatory coverage is not going to work, the insurance industry wants it though, as long as they have no competition.
What is possible is mandatory coverage for catastrophic illness, that would cost way less, and it is the catastrophic illness's that cause hospitals and doctors as well as state social service programs to loose money.
The whole point really is that the insurance industry has it's claws around the people, and has since the 80's (only it has increased a hundred fold over the last ten years, the practices are unethical, they give carrots and get karats, it is practicing in what is a coercive free market, not regulated and not liable to anti trust laws.
It is an industry that deals with life and death, ethically it should not be part of the free market system. However they have managed, through lobbying and threats and disinformation over 25 years, to become a huge GDP, and that is something that would be difficult for those passing laws to deal with. It would involve something much bigger than they are doing now, making the industry liable to anti trust laws and regulating them, and it would involve pissing off an industry which has no qualms about ruining careers. -
You're depressing me. I keep thinking there's a way to overcome this fundamental problem, but then there is our campaign finance system.
-
H.R. 3200 is sponsored by John Dingell
co-sponsors
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 7/14/2009 Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5] - 7/16/2009
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 7/17/2009 Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 7/14/2009
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 7/14/2009 Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 7/14/2009
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 7/14/2009 Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 7/14/2009 -
Comprehensive Health Coverage and Reform Enhancement Act of 2007 or the Comprehensive HealthCARE Act of 2007
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2626 -
HR2626 has had no major actions since 2007
HR3200 had last major action on the last of last month--that's the bill in question. -
Just for the sake of discussion, let's pretend that the figure of "50 million Americans" not insured is real. (Hell, 10 million or more are illegal aliens) But I digress. So if there are 50 million uninsured immediately brought into the health care system, but no increase in the numbers of health care providers, (doctors, nurses, lab techs, etc...) how could there not be waiting lists and rationing?
In a related thought - if this plan is not supposed to cover illegal aliens, then why did the Democrats vote down an amendment that said the new health care bill would not cover illegal aliens?
www.numbersusa.com/content/news/july-30-2009/house-committee-votes-against-... -
The possible upside (thin argument I agree) is that these 50 mil are getting health care but only after a treatable issue has become a major concern. If they received treatment earlier, they may actually require and receive less medical assistance. That is true in some cases but I find it hard to swallow for 50 mil.
-
-
Honestly why do you think the industry is now pushing for this plan? It is because it benefits them, it doesn't include a public option, and it could eventually mandate health coverage.
If people would just investigate, and get on the phone to their reps, instead of listening to the rhetoric. People should be screaming bloody murder about this plan and demanding a public option that would be directly competitive with the insurance industry, they should demand regulation and anti trust mandates for health insurance companies as well. I think in the case of life and death we should watch carefully the influence the industry might have on our own representatives, realize that the health care bill is a work in progress, that if it passes in any form familiar to what is out there now that we demand it be a work in progress.
It is frustrating. It can be done but that would mean people stop looking at stupid video like the one that started this post and really sit down and see what is behind it all, not go with the misinformation on both sides.-
If I only had a rep.
I actually started a thread on contacting one's rep (www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/talking-to-your-legislator), but it seems most would rather rant and grovel in misinformation and lies.
-
-
I was wondering why he referenced a bill from 2007 when he wanted everyone to read the current full bill at hand. I've read quite a bit of it, and been sent other parts by friend who want to go over certain parts of it ( honestly it is way to long) mainly because my summer grad school courses consist of "Ethics, Values, and Public Policy" and "Public Finance".
-
It can be confusing, cuz everyone from Ron Paul to Bernie Sanders has their own healthcare bill
-
-
The current US medical system is crap. That is the issue.-
And it saps at the economic health of the country, thereby affecting the rest of the world. It's downright irresponsible.
-
The current U.S. medical system is the best in the world. The financial part of it is where the reform needs to take place, but the actual medical system is very, very good.
-
It ranks 37th in the world. It might be the most expensive in the world but it is crap.
-
Anti, by what basis are you claiming that?
-
This is what I posted on another thread. I don't have the link to it, so I just copied and pasted.
Okay, where do I begin? The World Health Organization report is rigged due to its questionable methodology. One of the main indicators in their rankings is financial distribution. In other words, they assume that socialized medicine is "free" because there are no or very low premiums. This is bogus because it does not take into account that taxation is heavy in countries with socialized medicine.
"The WHO study has been criticized in a study published in Health Affairs for its methodology and lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States
However, from the WHO report -
"The United States dominates the biopharmaceutical field, accounting for three quarters of the world’s biotechnology revenues and spending in research and development. In addition, the U.S. produces more new pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and affiliated biotechnology than any other country, or the Western European nations combined."
The WHO also says -
"Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy."
Tell me, how many of you would like to go to Malta or Andorra or San Marino for treatment if you were diagnosed with cancer? Or with cardiac problems? Of any of a host of other possibly terminal conditions?
In the WHO report, the United States ranked first in "Responsiveness."
"Responsiveness: The nations with the most responsive health systems are the United States, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Canada, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden. The reason these are all advanced industrial nations is that a number of the elements of responsiveness depend strongly on the availability of resources. In addition, many of these countries were the first to begin addressing the responsiveness of their health systems to people's needs."
But what is "responsiveness" as defined by the WHO?
"Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider)."
Our autonomy and ability to choose our own doctors, patient dignity (how much dignity does a patient have that is left laying on a stretcher for hours, sometimes days at a time due to health rationing?), access to social support and quality of basic amenities are what put us at the top of the "Responsiveness" list. Funny how the WHO burys that part in its report.
So, if you break it down, the only thing the United States fails in is how much money is spent per capita on health care. But when you look at the rate of survivability of something that used to be almost certainly fatal and compare that to today's survivability rates, then you get a better picture of where that money goes. Something say, like cardiovascular problems, or heart disease.
"From 1995 to 2005 the death rate from coronary heart disease declined 34.3 percent."
www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4478
Pretty amazing, huh? I think it is money well spent.
But lets look a little deeper. Go back more than 10 or so years.
"Since 1970, death rates from cardiovascular diseases have fallen by almost 50 percent and death rates from stroke have fallen by
60 percent"
And from the same source:
"Cholesterol reducing drugs such as statins are being used by millions
of Americans to prevent heart disease and strokes, to decrease recurrence of heart attacks and to reduce the need for bypass surgery. Statins also improve survival of heart transplant patients.**
*SOURCE: THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (WWW.CDC.GOV)
**SOURCE: NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH {WWW.NIH.GOV/}
HOW RESEARCH SAVES MONEY:
The average life-span of Americans increased from 50 years in 1900 to 77 years in 2000. Steadily declining mortality rates from cardiovascular disease since the mid-1960s is a significant reason for longer, more productive lives.*
It is difficult to place a dollar value on human life, but economists
have estimated that years of productivity gained through the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular diseases contributed $1.5 trillion to the nation’s economy each year from 1970 to 1990.*
A NIH-sponsored study found that the bioengineered clot-busting drug called t-PA saves $4,400 for each patient in health care costs. The NIH predicts that $100 million a year could be saved if this drug is used more widely."
www.laskerfoundation.org/advocacy/pdf/factsheet2cardiovasc.pdf
So summing it up I would say that, yes the United States does have the most expensive health care in the world. But look at how many lives it has saved and look also at all the drugs and medical devices and techniques that we have pioneered. These have helped not only Americans, but people all over the world.
You have to be careful when you read the our health care system ranks 37th in the world. Before jumping to conclusions, one must read the report and dissect the methodologies used. That WHO report rewards countries with socialized medicine because the WHO has a bias towards that type of health care systems. -
OK lets leave the ranking system aside and just crunch some straight forward data.
Life expectancy is longer in the UK than in the US
Healthy life expectancy is longer in the UK than the US
Probability of dying under 5 is lower in the UK than the US
Probability of dying between the ages of 15 and 60 years is lower in the UK than the US
The US spends twice the percentage of GDP that the UK does on healthcare but can only achieve an inferior health car system.
www.who.int/countries/usa/en/
compared with
www.who.int/countries/gbr/en/
-
-
The state of the art of medicine is high ere but that care is not available to the majority. There are some parts of this country where doctors are in short supply as well. Usually places where the socioeconomic level is lower and they can't make the money.
Is it still true that doctors and medical procedures some of them unnecessary are the third leading cause of death in the US? Though we have some great state of the art facilities and some good doctors we also have bad doctors, ad some good doctors who have a vested interest in procedures - because they own part of the facility, either the lab, or the cardiovascular procedure facility, the radiology center, or the endoscopy center, and so on.
Besides health insurance evolving into a coercive industry over the last 20 years, with the help of all of our representatives, Doctors have vested themselves in owning the very facilities where they or others perform procedures. I think physicians have all the right in the world to own parts of companies, but not the facilites where they send people to get labs, or have procedures done. Let them make their money by investing in things outside of medicine, except for their practice itself - where they have already increased their profits by allotting, in some cases 15 minutes per patient, and making patient quotas.
The ethics of having financial interest in things like labs and radiology and surgery centers is questionable.
We should be looking at the insurance industry, the financial industries investment in the insurance industry, and the medical practitioners vested interests in some of this stuff.-
That is the crux of the matter. You can get state of the art medical facilities in any country in the world that has enough patients who are sufficiently wealthy to pay for them. The reason that the US is ranked 37th in the world is all about access.
Not sure about about how many deaths unnecessary procedures cause in the US but do know that there are a lot of unnecessary procedures carried out. This is mainly due to the extreme use of questionable screening tests.
A good example is cancer. Rarely mentioned in this debate is the fact that much of US medical care is decided by insurance risk assessors rather than doctors. They pretty much do this like they would any insurance. They want to catch cancer early which on the face of it seems like a good idea form the patients point of view. However the reason the insurance companies want to catch it early is to reduce the amount they pay out.
One certainty of life is that you will get cancer. But will the cancer kill you before you die of something else/ maybe the cancer will be benign. In the US cancer is over diagnosed and over treated.
In the UK practitioners are self employed. They can work for the NHS and get paid by it but also they can, at the same time, have private patients. -
Overdiagnosed and overtreated?
1. If "overtreated" is the reason for higher survivability... Then by all means i hope they overtreat the hell out of me if i ever get it.
And where do you get those facts from? Maybe it's UNDERDIAGNOSED in England?
I keep hearing stories from Sweden about people being sent home with "depression" "indigestion" and other diagnosis who die from cancer shortly after. -
National Cancer Institute www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/PLCOProstateResults
-
-
I keep hearing Sean Hannity talk about "government run" healthcare causing people to die sooner... very, very interesting...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy-
Maybe if he were running the government.
-
You watch Hannity? Hmmm, guilty pleasure?
-
I listen to Hannity on my drive home, to hear what's being said out there
-
-
SHOULD WE CALL IT 'REPUBLICAN-ENCOURAGED EUTHANASIA'??
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/health-care-reform-misinformatio...-
nonsense ruinous, Euthanasia ends naturally induced torture... and republicans are for torture
-
You wanna know what torture is? Trying to find anything credible in what ruin posts...
-
Hey.... I've noticed that you keep mentioning me repeatedly in your posts. I must be getting under your skin and I appreciate the shout outs.
Cheers! -
Former Governor Palin's death program in Alaska: gripernews.blogspot.com/2009/08/sarah-palin-facebook-troll.html
-
I guess I can't call Palingrad a petroleum-welfare-state anymore
-
Yeah ruin, I live to talk about you. /heavy sarcasm
You just mildly amuse me ruin, that's all. You are far too predictable to get any admiration from me. Now Agit8r on the other hand, you never know what he's going to say. THAT, I can admire. You? Meh.
-
-
@Ruinous
You'll still never fully fill that void left when satijournal stopped participating-
Maybe we'll see him again when the tennis season is past.
-
you think he'll need to get that sporting agression out on antics again?
-
ker-pow!
-
Ka-blam!
*pictures old Batman TV show* -
Yeah, he's a real heavy weight when it comes to intellectual discussions...
-
-
NHS is a top trending topic on Twitter. The UK loves the NHS and is spontaneously supporting it against uninformed and crass attacks in the US press.
-
Good.
-
Yeah, the cancer patients love the NHS and NICE.
"Thousands of kidney cancer patients are likely to lose out on life-prolonging drugs.
The NHS rationing body, NICE, has confirmed a ban on three out of four new treatments."
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1174592/Kidney-cancer-patients-denied-li...
You'll notice that this is a newspaper in the UK. And it goes on and on. Here are more links from the Daily Mail.
Patients abandoned by the NHS queue up in farmyard for dental treatment from travelling Hungarian dentists."
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052411/Patients-abandoned-NHS-queue-farmy...
Grandmother dies after NHS cancer treatment is withdrawn because she paid privately for life-extending drug."
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1016262/Grandmother-dies-NHS-cancer-trea...
"Postcode lottery 'denies free care to 3 in 4 elderly.'"
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-397224/Postcode-lottery-denies-free-care-3... -
There is also a small minority of people tweeting their disdain for the NHS. Having personal experience with working in the NHS, I can say I tweet in support.
Also on the front page of dailymail.co.uk right now...
"The NHS surgeons who saved 15 lives in record-breaking transplant op using just TWO donors"
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1206527/Pictured-The-people-lives-saved-...
Of course, if you google what auntie pop rocks quoted, it's obvious Ye Of Little Substance picked it off from a site like Free Republic. Way to go Ralph. You can regurgitate, but not analyze or interpret. Prior to today, I wonder how often dailymail.co.uk was part of your normal repertoire. My guess is, your browser history lacks any evidence that you've even visited any of the links you posted. Otherwise, we might have seen your own interpretations of each article instead of copy-pasted italicized text. -
Gee, I guess handy can't read. All those articles are from the Daily Mail. What do you expect from someone who thinks "ye of little substance" is an insult? Pfft.
-
All those articles from dailymail are quoted on several sites with a conservative slant. All I'm saying is that I doubt you got the links by being a regular dailymail reader, but rather got them off a conservative web site.
-
Oh. So Google is a conservative web site now? I read the dailymail enough to know that it tells the truth about the NHS and NICE.
*looks at watch* Hey!! Aren't you due in surgery??!! (*snicker*)
-
-
Here is the latest on "Death Panels"
prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/senate-bill-will-not-address-end...-
Pathetic how he's playing into the notion that death panels actually existed, which they didn't. As the journalist reports,
> The senator closed the meeting with a talking point that
> drew cheers, ‘We should not have a government plan that
> will pull the plug on grandma.’ He offered no commentary
> to whether or not the claim was true,
Disgusting pandering. I get it if he wants to win an election, but does he have to propagate these lies to do it? -
well he kind of makes it sound like even though that's not how it is intended, that such could be implemented at some point.
Who knows, Carl Rove could become president, he might be right -
www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/sarah-palin/
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/michele-bachmann/
I don't follow your logic. Aren't you just saying that because a lawbreaker could become president, we shouldn't support any laws that lawbreakers might violate? -
well, when you put it like that...
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
