celticlord
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,344
- Reaction score
- 3,794
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.[/FONT]
My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
Nice summary of Dear Leader's lies in tonight's press conference.
factcheck.org actually is one of the most non-partisan and best sources out there.
Nice summary of Dear Leader's lies in tonight's press conference.
Fact checking the so-called "Fact-Checkers"
Associated Press reporter Calvin Woodward has a history of straining to catch Barack Obama in factual errors. But today's review of last night's Obama press conference may have hit a new low in absurdity.
FAIR Blog Calvin Woodward
So you are quoting the same people that have said that Obama's birth certificate is legal and he is a natural born citizen?
So does that mean you FINALLY believe Obama is a natural born citizen?
Quite true, except I do have a point of disagreement with their assessment of Iraq's costs. They figure current to date expenditure of $684 billion, yet there is something quite significant that they ignored; the continuing cost of coverage for disabled veterans. With this and other expenditures the expected cost will be $3-5trillion conservatively. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz did a moderate estimate of $3 trillion total cost.
Also, they argue costs using 2006 OECD data, which is strange since the 2008 data is widely available.
Now that is just classic! HAHA
Well, if an Illinois senator bears more responsibility for the federal budget than the president, than why is Woodward wasting his time covering what President Obama has to say about the budget? Shouldn't he be interviewing Roland Burris instead?
Fact checking the so-called "Fact-Checkers"
Associated Press reporter Calvin Woodward has a history of straining to catch Barack Obama in factual errors. But today's review of last night's Obama press conference may have hit a new low in absurdity.
FAIR Blog Calvin Woodward
In the piece, headlined "Fact Check: Obama Disowns Deficit He Helped Shape," Woodward takes issue with Obama's statement: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me." Woodward's criticism: "It actually was him--and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years--who shaped a budget so out of balance.... Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator."
Well, if an Illinois senator bears more responsibility for the federal budget than the president, than why is Woodward wasting his time covering what President Obama has to say about the budget? Shouldn't he be interviewing Roland Burris instead?
I think that's some of the worst logic I've ever encountered. Just....wow.
i know, facts hurt. HAHA
You really need to engage brain before finger tips--I have never argued he wasn't.So does that mean you FINALLY believe Obama is a natural born citizen?
It means you have a right to live as you choose. It does not mean you have a right to expect me to pay for you living as you choose.Its kinda ironic that your signature contains a phrase from the declaration of Independence, namely that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, one of which is the right to LIFE.....and yet, you don't believe that basic healthcare is a right.
What do you think the inalienable right to life means? (let me guess....you think it just means a definition adopted by anti-abortion groups, right?)
It means you have the right to all the healthcare you can afford. It means you have no right to the healthcare you cannot afford.
So why are you objecting to the public option again? Certainly more Americans will be able to afford it as it is projected to be 30-40% cheaper than current private rates.
So why are you objecting to the public option again? Certainly more Americans will be able to afford it as it is projected to be 30-40% cheaper than current private rates.
So why are you objecting to the public option again? Certainly more Americans will be able to afford it as it is projected to be 30-40% cheaper than current private rates.
Projections that fly in the face of reality--TennCare and Commonwealth Care (two state attempts at UHC) saw individual healthcare costs rise as a result of the programs.So why are you objecting to the public option again? Certainly more Americans will be able to afford it as it is projected to be 30-40% cheaper than current private rates.
If the only thing that is changing is the government not profiting, then how can it possibly be 30-40% cheaper?
1) Link?
2) Where do you think those savings are coming from? Have you completely ignored the discussion about new taxes?
Projections that fly in the face of reality--TennCare and Commonwealth Care (two state attempts at UHC) saw individual healthcare costs rise as a result of the programs.
Additionally, anything funded by tax dollars is not "cheaper", merely better at hiding the costs. A public option has Congress standing at the ready to cut a check to cover any losses the public option might incur--a luxury private insurance companies do not get.
Cost less? Not likely. Certainly not 30-40% less.
That isnt the only thing changing. Far from it.
It means you have a right to live as you choose. It does not mean you have a right to expect me to pay for you living as you choose.
It means you have the right to all the healthcare you can afford. It means you have no right to the healthcare you cannot afford.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?