Sharron Angle Receives Government Health Care

[pbrauer]

Politico's Morning Score today:

RALSTON ESCALATES – ‘PATHOLOGICAL’? That’s a heavy word to drop on a Senate candidate and the Las Vegas Sun’s Jon Ralston just about went there in a Tuesday post, taking Sharron Angle to task for denying she ever favored privatizing services like the VA. “All I said, is the VA could do a better job for our veterans,” she said at an event Saturday, even though last May she told a radio host that the VA and Medicare shouldn’t cover expensive prescriptions “if you’re working towards a privatized system.” Cue Ralston, the most influential political journalist in the state: “I am beginning to wonder about this seemingly pathological habit Angle has of saying she never said something when it is on tape and so easily retrieved. Does she really not remember, or does she think this is a ‘Mission Impossible’ world where all tapes self-destruct after five seconds?” Angle: I never said I wanted to privatize the VA -- but, of course, she did - Politics: Ralston's Flash - Las Vegas Sun

POLITICO's Morning Score - POLITICO.com (you need to click on the Read the whole post link near the bottom)

 

[katiegrrl0]

This is just grasping at straws. Even if she was on Medicaid it wouldn't mean squat. She wants to repeal that piece of garbage that is going to bankrupt the country, period.

In case you hadn't noticed you are already bankrupt. hahahahahahahahaha

 

[RightinNYC]

:lol: Your are correct about the 100%, but not the ultimate souce of the words, which came from Politico's Morning Score report yesterday. Every word. :mrgreen:

...

Politico had a story that was relatively straightforward. MM then took that story and supported it with a whole bunch of spin. Your OP included only the spin.

 

[pbrauer]

...

Politico had a story that was relatively straightforward. MM then took that story and supported it with a whole bunch of spin. Your OP included only the spin.

Again, you are wrong. My OP quoted what MM quoted from Politico's Morning Score. Your blind hatred of Media Matters is getting in your way. Check it out, admit you're wrong!!!!!!!!!

http://www.politico.com/morningscore/0910/morningscore178.html Be sure to click on READ THE WHOLE POST near the bottom. :mrgreen:

 

[hazlnut]

She has said that she doesn't think it's the government's responsibility to do X.
Her husband's employer offers insurance through a plan that does some version of X.

Is this plan a perfect reflection of a plan she would theoretically design? No, probably not. Does that make her a hypocrite? Of course not.

As far as I can tell, she's not capable of designing a reform plan or understanding the complexities of the issue.

All we have to go on is her hyper-partisan rhetoric.

So... She's a hypocrite.

 

[RightinNYC]

Again, you are wrong. My OP quoted what MM quoted from Politico's Morning Score. Your blind hatred of Media Matters is getting in your way. Check it out, admit you're wrong!!!!!!!!!

POLITICO's Morning Score - POLITICO.com Be sure to click on READ THE WHOLE POST near the bottom. :mrgreen:

..... I'm well aware of how quotes work and of the fact that the MM article you linked to included a quote from politico. The point that I've made 3 times now is that your OP and the spin contained in it did not come from politico, but from MM.

Here is the entirety of the text in your OP:

Sharron Angle (R-NV) is running for the U.S. Senate with a far-right agenda that can be adequately summed up as "drown the government in the bathtub." Angle's views on health care are no exception, as she supports repealing the Affordable Care Act and opposes the regulation of insurance companies. Recently, Angle has come under fire for mocking the idea that insurers should be required to cover treatment for autism. However, despite her anti-government rhetoric, it turns out that Angle actually benefits from government health care. As Politico's "Morning Score" reports:

Show me where any of this text is found on politico's website.

 

[RightinNYC]

As far as I can tell, she's not capable of designing a reform plan or understanding the complexities of the issue.

All we have to go on is her hyper-partisan rhetoric.

So... She's a hypocrite.

Unless "hypocrite" has been redefined as "a partisan individual who isn't very smart," none of this makes any sense. Aren't you one of the people who complains about how people redefine "socialism" to mean "liberal things that I think are bad"?

 

[hazlnut]

Unless "hypocrite" has been redefined as "a partisan individual who isn't very smart," none of this makes any sense.

Are you arguing that lack of intelligence is an excuse for hypocrisy? -- 'She knows not what she says.' That's a stretch. She knows the general details of her husband's insurance. Are you saying she never thought about who actually pays the other 70% of the cost?

Aren't you one of the people who complains about how people redefine "socialism" to mean "liberal things that I think are bad"?

Your point?

 

[RightinNYC]

Are you arguing that lack of intelligence is an excuse for hypocrisy? -- 'She knows not what she says.' That's a stretch. She knows the general details of her husband's insurance. Are you saying she never thought about who actually pays the other 70% of the cost?

I'm saying that you don't understand what the word "hypocrite" means. A hypocrite is someone who holds themselves out as believing something that they do not actually believe. She says that she does not believe that it's the government's responsibility to do X. Nothing in her actions indicates that she actually believes that it is the government's responsibility to do X.

Again, she argues that government plans should do A, B, C, D, E, and F. The insurance that her husband was offered does A, B, C, D, E, and G. She uses that insurance. That does not mean that she doesn't prefer F to G, or that she's being a hypocrite by using it.

Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of criticizing a wealthy democrat for arguing in favor of higher taxes on the rich, but not voluntarily paying more himself.

Your point?

My point is that you complain about people redefining terms to criticize Obama, but turn around and do the exact same thing to criticize Angle.

 

[pbrauer]

..... I'm well aware of how quotes work and of the fact that the MM article you linked to included a quote from politico. The point that I've made 3 times now is that your OP and the spin contained in it did not come from politico, but from MM.

Here is the entirety of the text in your OP:



Show me where any of this text is found on politico's website.

:3oops::3oops:
I guess I had a brain fart; you're correct, and I was wrong. Sorry.

It doesn't change the fact that while Sharron Angle attacks government sponsored health programs, she is getting benefit from one.

 

[Renae]

I'm saying that they don't know what they're talking about and you don't appear to either.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you bother Right? PB and Hazlnut take MM as holy writ, you waste your time responding to this crap.

 

[RightinNYC]

:3oops::3oops:
I guess I had a brain fart; you're correct, and I was wrong. Sorry.

It doesn't change the fact that while Sharron Angle attacks government sponsored health programs, she is getting benefit from one.

Sort of like how wealthy Democrats attack tax cuts for the rich while benefitting from them.

(Note: This does not mean that Angle or said democrats are hypocrites, as that's not what hypocrisy is.)

 

[hazlnut]

I'm saying that you don't understand what the word "hypocrite" means. A hypocrite is someone who holds themselves out as believing something that they do not actually believe.

Like Sharron Angle... yes.

She says that she does not believe that it's the government's responsibility to do X. Nothing in her actions indicates that she actually believes that it is the government's responsibility to do X.

X = make sure insurance companies cover certain things like colon cancer.

Actions = She voted in the state Assembly against mandating that insurance companies cover colon cancer screenings.

Actions = asinine statements like: "Take off the mandates for coverage in the state of Nevada and all over the United States," Angle said. "But here you know what I'm talking about. You're paying for things you don't even need. They just passed the latest one, is everything that they want to throw at us now is covered under autism," she said, using her fingers to make quotes in the air while she said the word ‘autism.' "So that's a mandate that you have to pay for. How about maternity leave, I'm not going to have any more babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance. So those are the things we want to get rid of."

Reality = Husband has high-quality tax-payer funded plan.

What part don't you understand?

Again, she argues that government plans should do A, B, C, D, E, and F. The insurance that her husband was offered does A, B, C, D, E, and G. She uses that insurance. That does not mean that she doesn't prefer F to G, or that she's being a hypocrite by using it.

Parsing? That's all you got. You're defending her with a technicality?

Does her husband's plan cover colon cancer?

Your argument is the intellectual equivalent of criticizing a wealthy democrat for arguing in favor of higher taxes on the rich, but not voluntarily paying more himself.

Your argument is the most pathetic form of parsing and spinning. X, Y, and Z...

My point is that you complain about people redefining terms to criticize Obama, but turn around and do the exact same thing to criticize Angle.

Hypocrite = complaining about government funded health care while your husband get it.

 

[RightinNYC]

Like Sharron Angle... yes.

X = make sure insurance companies cover certain things like colon cancer.

Actions = She voted in the state Assembly against mandating that insurance companies cover colon cancer screenings.

Actions = asinine statements like: "Take off the mandates for coverage in the state of Nevada and all over the United States," Angle said. "But here you know what I'm talking about. You're paying for things you don't even need. They just passed the latest one, is everything that they want to throw at us now is covered under autism," she said, using her fingers to make quotes in the air while she said the word ‘autism.' "So that's a mandate that you have to pay for. How about maternity leave, I'm not going to have any more babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance. So those are the things we want to get rid of."

Reality = Husband has high-quality tax-payer funded plan.

What part don't you understand?

I don't understand how you're having so much trouble in understanding what a hypocrite is. Nothing about her actions in the state assembly indicate that she actually believes that insurance companies should be forced to cover things like colon cancer. In fact, her actions are in perfect concurrence with her stated beliefs. That's the opposite of hypocrisy.

Parsing? That's all you got. You're defending her with a technicality?

No, I'm defending her with my recollection of 8th grade English class.

Does her husband's plan cover colon cancer?

Entirely irrelevant.

Hypocrite = complaining about government funded health care while your husband get it.

Wrong, but I'm done trying to explain this to you.

 

[ptif219]

I am not taking anything out of context, they are receiving what could be considered the PUBLIC OPTION! He no longer works for the government, yet he is able to bypass the exorbitant premiums offered by the private profit making insurance carriers and buy coverage from the govenment. If she is against government health care insurance, then why doesn't she drop it and buy from a private concern?

Hypocrite!!!

No they are recieving insurance from an employer as Obama demands

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Calling this government health care is like calling a federal employee's salary welfare

 

[pbrauer]

No they are recieving insurance from an employer as Obama demands

That's silly. Her husband no longer works for the federal government and they were receiveing benefits before Obama became president.

 

[pbrauer]

I don't understand how you're having so much trouble in understanding what a hypocrite is. Nothing about her actions in the state assembly indicate that she actually believes that insurance companies should be forced to cover things like colon cancer. In fact, her actions are in perfect concurrence with her stated beliefs. That's the opposite of hypocrisy.



No, I'm defending her with my recollection of 8th grade English class.



Entirely irrelevant.

Wrong, but I'm done trying to explain this to you.

Actually, the question is very relevant as it has to do with the quality of the health care the Angle's are receiving from the government.

 

[washunut]

That's silly. Her husband no longer works for the federal government and they were receiveing benefits before Obama became president.

How pathetic is this whole thread. Going back and forth about this trivial point. Just proves both how desperate dems are and how the MSM will go to any lengths to keep their "pet" senators like Reid afloat.

 

[Deuce]

How pathetic is this whole thread. Going back and forth about this trivial point. Just proves both how desperate dems are and how the MSM will go to any lengths to keep their "pet" senators like Reid afloat.

Has the "mainstream media" actually been reporting on this?

Anyway, Reid is going to keep his seat because Angle is a nutcase and will fail all on her own.

 

[washunut]

Has the "mainstream media" actually been reporting on this?

Anyway, Reid is going to keep his seat because Angle is a nutcase and will fail all on her own.

It may be that she deserves to lose, that is fine. This was on MSNBC a little while ago.

 

[pbrauer]

How pathetic is this whole thread. Going back and forth about this trivial point. Just proves both how desperate dems are and how the MSM will go to any lengths to keep their "pet" senators like Reid afloat.

Had Sue Lowden won the primary, she probably would have beaten Reid handily, Sharron "Second Amendment Remedies" Angle was the Tea Party choice.

 

[washunut]

Had Sue Lowden won the primary, she probably would have beaten Reid handily, Sharron "Second Amendment Remedies" Angle was the Tea Party choice.

I have previously stated that the tea party is the democrats best friend.

 

[ptif219]

That's silly. Her husband no longer works for the federal government and they were receiveing benefits before Obama became president.

So your complaint must be with the government not Sharon and her husband.

 

[cpwill]

She has said that she doesn't think it's the government's responsibility to do X.
Her husband's employer offers insurance through a plan that does some version of X.

Is this plan a perfect reflection of a plan she would theoretically design? No, probably not. Does that make her a hypocrite? Of course not.
...
Again, I really can't understand the logic of your argument. She argues that government plans should do A, B, C, D, E, and F. The insurance that her husband was offered does A, B, C, D, E, and G. She uses that insurance. That does not mean that she doesn't prefer F to G, or that she's being a hypocrite by using it.

It most certainly does.

interesting logic. of course this means that you yourself, if you support a public option, are a hypocrite if you get anything else. so. wha kind of insurance do you have?