WinePusher wrote:micatala wrote:I am confused as to how you do not see the difference between the following two ideas.
1) The government pays for end of life counseling for those who want it. This counseling is done by people of the patient's choice.
2) Government officials will review your end of life care and decide whether you will get that care or not.
I think anyone reading the bill understands the bill says 1).
1) is not equal to 2), not by any stretch of the imagination.
Health insurance providers have a say in what treatments a patient can get, for example, my healthcare provider won't cover me getting a flu shot, so I would have to pay for that out of my own pocket. You're simply wrong when you say that the patient gets to choose the end of life counselor.
Do insurers, both private and public, place restrictions on which providers you can choose? Yes, granted.
Still, getting to choose between
private health care providers (e.g. end of life counselors) A, B, C, D, E, . . . N is different than being told you MUST go to a
government panel for that care. Sorry, you are still throwing out red herrings and avoiding the fact that the bill does not have death panels, when a bunch of people said the bill did.
So, no, I am not "simply wrong." The choice may have parameters but patients would still have choice under the bill.
WinePusher wrote:And, you have not addressed the constitutional aspect of this.
Yet another red herring. What does this have to do with people lying about the bill, specifically lying about death panels?
Is it within the government power to regulate a person's healthcare? Is it within their power to force citizens to buy any type of product? Or is the constitution simply irrelevant?
More red herrings. However, I will address this.
First, the government has been regulating health care in one way or another for decades.
Second, we already force people to buy car insurance, for example, and we force people to buy certain features as part of the products they buy through product safety laws of all sorts. We prevent people from buying things to, but that is another matter.
Thirdly, the bill does not force people to buy insurance. People can decide not to buy insurance, but as a result, will pay higher taxes. You choose, insurance or taxes.
None of the regulations we have now have been deemed unconstitutional, so I am not sure what case you have for claiming the recent bill is unconsitutional. I think before I address the "constitutional issues" perhaps you can justify the claim that the bill is unconstitutional. The legal gurus I have heard on this have said the suits brought by the various attorneys general (all but one Republican) are not likely to get anywhere.
micatala wrote:People who refer to 1) as "death panels" and make statements that "Obama wants to kill grandma" or "will deny grandma care" are lying, plain and simple.
I suggest you look at the British and Canadian model of healthcare and determine whether you think that this high quality or low quality care. Those hyperboles are representative of the rationing and bad care that will be the result of this bill.
I think I now have a whole years supply of red herrings at my disposal.
Firstly, our system is not like the British or Canadian models, and the most recent bill does not change that.
Secondly, bringing up these systems is irrelevant to the fact that people have lied about the bill, including the death panels.
Thirdly, we already have rationing, albeit by private insurers instead of the government. You yourself have already acknowledged as much by noting you cannot get a flu shot without paying it out of pocket.
You still have done nothing to address the whole point of this argument, namely that lies were told about the health care bill, specifically the so-called "death panels"
micatala wrote:I would say, howver, Glenn Beck's question "is there a single American" who wishes harm on the President or member's of congress can clearly be answered 'yes." His question is really ridiculous and a clear play to emotion. One can certainly document plots against Obama, including among white racist militias, which have, by the way, multiplied since 2008.
WinePusher wrote:Funny how the left is crying about violence when they were the ones who blew up buildings in the sixties, and did the same things to George Bush.
micatala wrote:More Red Herrings. I think I'll stock up on tartar sauce at this rate.
I'll take this to mean that you cannot address the hypocracy of your side of the political spectrum. The violence that you're talking about comes from liberals.
You take it wrong then.
I am not obligated to address every single red herring you throw out. The fact that I do not does not mean your unjustified implications based on what I did not say have any merit.
WinePusher wrote:No, actually you think they make false statements beause they take positions that you disagree with. What you think is false does not constitute falsehoods for other people, just because you say something is false does not make it false.
micatala wrote:I am sorry, this is baloney. I am not claiming they are false statements simply because I don't like them or don't agree with them or for any other ideological reason. They are demonstrably and unequivocally false on their face. Death panels are demonstrably and unequivocally not part of Obama's health care bill. Period.
Some of your posts seem equivalent to media matters, where you watch Fox and try to glean out any error you can find. I saw no complaints from you about MSNBC until I pointed it out, nor do you condemn Liberal blogs such as the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos for their lies about the Tea Party and the Iraqi War. You seem to only care abot Conservatives who lie, while you give liberals a free pass.
Still more red herrings. Just because I do not address other errors or dishonesty, even if that were the case, does not negate the fact that I am pointing out documented errors and lies on the part of FOX, nor that I have an ideological reason for doing so.
The fact that Liberals are so obssessed with Fox and must inject Fox into every single debate is because they can't fathom the idea of another media outlet espousing viewpoints different from theirs. Seriously, I don't agree with the liberal lies and dogma MSNBC spouts off, but I don't obsess about them, set up institutions to scan their every movement and wage war on them as the White House did.
You continue with your unjustified diatribe concerning both my ideology and my motivation.
I never restricted this thread to topics or organizations on any kind of ideological basis. I reject the "obsessive" label as a meaningless ad hominem attempt at spin.
Winepusher wrote:
WinePusher wrote:Where and When do O'Reilly, Hannity and Beck claim to be journalists?
micatala wrote:They work for an organization that claims to be a "fair and balanced" news organization. The organization's motto is "we report, you decide." The presence of Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly on FOX is at odds with these slogans. O'Reilly's own show is arguably at odds with his own "No Spin Zone" slogan, although I'll grant that is a subjective issue.
Yea, CNN used to have a comedian on there, I guess taht makes CNN equivalent to Comedy Central. You need to distinguish between an Op-Ed show and a hardcore news show, Fox has both and never claims that their Op-Ed shows are fair and balanced. MSNBC has NO serious news shows, they can't even cover an election with real journalists.
I'll agree one should distinguish between shows.
Is O'Reilly an Op Ed show? Does he not claim to be fair and balance? Doesn't he label his show the "No Spin Zone?"
I'll allow my comments on FOX overall are somewhat subjective. I make them based on the overall effect and mission of the network. I agree some of the shows and hosts are capable of being fairly neutral and I would consider them real journalists. I would count Chris Wallace and Bret Baer among these.
And the point is well-taken that CNN has had some shows that are not really news, or that have a slant. In addition to the comedian you mention, there was Lou Dobbs.
Still, on the whole CNN has much more journalistic integrity across its whole line up than FOX does.
MSNBC is a different kettle of fish, and I have plainly acknowledged that multiple times. Still, I am waiting to see if there is anywhere near the evidence of falsehoods and inaccuracy on MSNBC as there is on FOX. We have one small example so far, and that evidently was
corrected almost immediately by MSNBC itself without anyone drawing attention to it.
There are those on FOX who refuse to correct or acknowledge their mistakes, even after others point them out, and they often continue to make the same false accusations even after corrected.
Examples of this include the death panels rhetoric and, another you brought up, forcing people to buy health care and that people might get thrown in jail for not buying health care. I saw one example of this live courtesy of O'Reilly himself.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
