What a liar this Douglas lady is.

[ccbatson]

Another in the not to be believed audacity file....High level Obama advisor, Linda Douglas, being given the mic by the liberal media, is practically chanting the lie that Obama is not, nor has he ever been in favor of or pursuing a single payer healthcare system. She claims that sound bites and clips from Obama himself are being cobbled together to paint an inaccurate picture of his position.

She must be referring to the video of Obama in 2003 at a speech given to the ACLU where he explains in gory detail for 2 minutes how this is exactly what he is a proponent for, and how it is to be accomplished.

These radical libs either have no shame, or they [[like Bill Mahr) believe people other then themselves to be very stupid. A rude awakening is coming for them.

[Lorax]

Another in the not to be believed audacity file....High level Obama advisor, Linda Douglas, being given the mic by the liberal media, is practically chanting the lie that Obama is not, nor has he ever been in favor of or pursuing a single payer healthcare system. She claims that sound bites and clips from Obama himself are being cobbled together to paint an inaccurate picture of his position.

She must be referring to the video of Obama in 2003 at a speech given to the ACLU where he explains in gory detail for 2 minutes how this is exactly what he is a proponent for, and how it is to be accomplished.

These radical libs either have no shame, or they [[like Bill Mahr) believe people other then themselves to be very stupid. A rude awakening is coming for them.

Why don't you prove it?

[ccbatson]

Go to Hannity's site to see the video of Obama, and check out CNN today to watch Douglas lie about it.

See how easy that is Lorax?

[Lorax]

Go to Hannity's site to see the video of Obama, and check out CNN today to watch Douglas lie about it.

See how easy that is Lorax?

You really need to read the link on the Bush Crime Family I posted in the other thread. I know you haven't. But you'd learn all you need to know about your heroes, the fascist House of Tush.

Asking anyone to watch or believe anything coming from Insannity, is, well, insane. The man is retarded, and an abject lying sack of crap. I've been watching CNN all day, and no mention of your fantasy video.

[Papasito]

You really need to read the link on the Bush Crime Family I posted in the other thread. I know you haven't. But you'd learn all you need to know about your heroes, the fascist House of Tush.

Bush sucks, so does Obama.
Quit defending Obama, his administration is just as corrupt as any other given Washington scumbag.
Simply slapping the opposition to whom one follows while casting a blind eye to the filth in one's own backyard makes no one better than anyone else.

If I am a Republican and my Republican leaders stink, I'm not going to pretend that they don't. If I am a Democrat and my leaders are corrupt, I'm not going to make excuses and cast them a blind eye.

Until both parties reject the trash that is forced down our throats, all sides are to blame for this country going to hell.

[Lorax]

Bush sucks, so does Obama.
Quit defending Obama, his administration is just as corrupt as any other given Washington scumbag.
Simply slapping the opposition to whom one follows while casting a blind eye to the filth in one's own backyard makes no one better than anyone else.

If I am a Republican and my Republican leaders stink, I'm not going to pretend that they don't. If I am a Democrat and my leaders are corrupt, I'm not going to make excuses and cast them a blind eye.

Until both parties reject the trash that is forced down our throats, all sides are to blame for this country going to hell.

Sorry, but it's so convenient go lay EQUAL blame on both sides of a discussion, and this is rarely the case.

The Reich is by far the most insidious, twisted, backward orgainzation of sycophantic thugs in modern political history.

Bush was a figurehead president, led by the nose by the likes of Dick Cheney, the RNC, and the wealthy fascist special interests.

For the record, as I have stated in numerous posts, which you haven't read, obviously, I in no way rubber stamp the decisions, agenda, or policies of Barack Obama.

I voted for him, but unlike the Rethuglican congress of the Tush Administration, which nearly 100% of the time voted in lockstep with this thug, I will not blindly follow or concede to any agenda that hasn't been thoroughly vetted.

I am disappointed that single payer health is not on the agenda, and with the prospects of a public option waning, which is the least I would accept, there will be no measurable health care reform without it. Will whatver passes be a gateway to single payer, or a public option in the future? Perhaps, and perhaps 1/2 a loaf is better than none.

What frustrates me most is how paralyzed America has become in making bold, decisive decisions with regard to it's domestic policy agenda. The flea circus of lobbyists dangling from the fur of congress is such a distraction from accomplishing anything meaningful, that we constantly get the status quo rather than real change.

Obama was suppose to be the flea powder, I'm having my doubt as to his effectiveness.

[Detroitej72]

It always amazes me how blind conservatives can be when they listen to the right wing media. Those radical talking heads who are forced upon the masses on AM radio continuesly lie and distort fact with soundbits and retoric and their sheep like Bats continue to drink the kool aid and not research the truth for themselves.

[mjs]

Obama was suppose to be the flea powder. I'm having my doubts as to his effectiveness.

The problem you are having is that you refuse to categorize the fleas by their actions rather than their support of socialism. In your mind, a Republican can never do anything good and a Democrat can never do anything bad.

Start with a bill or series of bills you dislike and see how congressmen voted on it. Then to really understand it, look at what special interests pushed for it and see who they gave the most money to. You just might be suprised.

And here's the fact of HR 3200 that both sides are making assumptions on. There is a provision where a government agency will compare the cost of procedures to its results to advise the White House on what procedures should be approved and which will be denied. They will get their data from standard and mandatory procedure reports by all hospitals and doctors and Congress only has the option to deny all the recommendations or accept all the recommendations. This no pick and choose clause will some day make for a very interesting Supreme Court case regarding balance of power.

A reasonable person can believe that this will lead the agency to recommend denying seniors certain high cost procedures, but approve the same for younger people which some spin docotors are colorfully describing as death squads or euthanasia. A reasonable person can also believe that there will be procedures that some Doctors swear by, but the agency will say can't be justified on a cost basis thus the colorful description of beuracrats restricting your doctor. I am one of the people who believe the provision will lead to this because its necessary to control costs and get the most number of days of life for our health insurance dollar.

However, I actually like this provision because it takes tough decisions that must be made and decides them on data rather than emotions. I doubt liberals will like it because it acknowledges that we can't save everyone at all costs which is their current fit with HMOs. Doctors may not end up happy with it because they are rightfully trained to save all their patients at all costs. Doctors and bean counters will always be at odds regardless of what system is in place which is why I don't understand conservative opposition. This is nothing more than another way of using financial data to decide to accept or deny a procedure. As for the more liberal politicians, its the usual problem, they are incapable of comprehending that in the real world, resources are always limited.

When reality does hit this provision and create the inevitable result, the Dems will just claim that wasn't their intent and its Republican politics, and then people like Lorax will blame the Republicans for using the provision to cut inevitably rising costs and people like Batson will blame the Democrats for having passed morally required universal health care in the first place and the blame game will continue as usual and no one will be held accountable.

[ccbatson]

I saw Douglas on CNN at about 1:30pm today, I am sure they will run her propaganda again soon.

I did read the link, and that is what prompted me to inform you that you need to re-examine the premise...because it is wrong. If a premise is wrong, no matter how eloquent the arguments that follow, the conclusion is wrong.

It happens that this is the very same flaw and criticism of Hartmann's book "screwed"...flawed core premises.

THe video of Obama can be found elsewhere if you like, not just linked on Hannity's site.

BTW, have you decided which book to read in keeping with your end of the bargain/wager with me?

[jams]

If a premise is wrong, no matter how eloquent the arguments that follow, the conclusion is wrong.

You've proved that many times, even without eloquence.

[rb336]

Bats, here is a challenge for you, one you will, no doubt, fail

find me ONE instance of Obama stating that he wants to replace the travesty we have now with a far more efficient, far more just, far more humane single-payer system. He hasn't. He has stated that, starting from scratch, single payer would need to be looked at, but he has also, very clearly, stated that switching to such a system would not be possible or desireable

[ccbatson]

Wrong...I already told you about the speech he made o the ACLU in 2003. Google it, it is on youtube, Hannity and Levin link to it....look at it first, then you might have a chance of extricating your foot from your mouth.

[rb336]

Wrong...I already told you about the speech he made o the ACLU in 2003. Google it, it is on youtube, Hannity and Levin link to it....look at it first, then you might have a chance of extricating your foot from your mouth.

gee, I google "obama" 2003 and "speech to the ACLU" and several variations and nothing of the sort turns up

also got this:

No results found for "barack obama's speech to the american civil liberties union".

I guess you must simply be mistaken.

oh, maybe, just maybe its non-existence is proof of some broad left-wing conspiracy

or perhaps, as usual, truth simply has a liberal bias

I'd believe Hannity only after I would believe limbaugh or Lou Dobbs

[gazhekwe]

I got this today from Congressman Levin:
Setting the Record Straight on Health Care

There has been a lot of misinformation about what is in the health care reform proposals being considered by Congress. The discussion over how to improve our health care system is too important to be decided based on false statements and scare tactics. I want you to have accurate information.
FALSE CLAIM: The health care reform proposal promotes euthanasia, and requires seniors to participate in end of life meetings with government agents.

FACT: There has been a lot of awful misinformation about this issue. Under current law, hospitals are required to inform patients of their rights under state laws to develop a living will or advance directive regarding their medical care. If you wish to speak with your doctor about living wills and advance directives and the treatment options that may be part of having them, the health care reform proposal simply allows Medicare to pay for that appointment. This would be purely voluntary, and patients do not need to have this consultation with their doctor if they do not wish to do so. The AARP strongly supports the provision, saying, “This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed. To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion—especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.”

FALSE CLAIM: The proposal provides health insurance for illegal immigrants.

FACT: The proposal explicitly prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving any Federal dollars to subsidize health insurance. The legislative language reads: “Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.”

FALSE CLAIM: The proposal is socialized medicine or a “government takeover” of health care.

FACT: The health care reform proposal is not socialized medicine or a government takeover of health care. Socialized medicine is a system in which the hospitals are owned by the government and doctors are employees of the government. In contrast, the proposal maintains the current employer-based insurance system. Most Americans will continue to receive insurance through private insurers, from private hospitals, and from doctors in private practice. Some people have argued that the public health insurance plan is a government takeover of health care. This claim is simply false. People who do not get insurance through their employer will simply have the choice of signing up for a private insurance plan as they can now, or the new public health insurance plan. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that only about 3% of Americans will choose to be covered by the public plan.

FALSE CLAIM: Medicare benefits will be cut under reform.

FACT: Medicare benefits will not be cut in any way under reform. If you have Medicare, you will continue to have the same coverage and choose your doctor as you do today. The proposal does save money in Medicare by reducing increases in payments for hospitals, but hospitals have agreed that these reductions are reasonable. The reform proposal actually makes important improvements to Medicare benefits. It eliminates all co-payments for preventive care such as cancer screenings. The proposal phases out the “doughnut hole” coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug program.

FALSE CLAIM: Members of Congress will be exempted from reform and receive gold-plated health coverage.

FACT: It is a common misconception that Members of Congress have special gold-plated health insurance plans. In fact, I pay the same amount and have the same health insurance options as all other federal government employees. I am currently covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield. Members of Congress will be treated exactly the same as everyone else under reform. If we choose to keep our employer-sponsored insurance, we can do that, or we can go to the Health Insurance Exchange and choose to buy a private plan or the public health insurance plan there, just like everyone else.

FALSE CLAIM: The health care reform proposal would lead to rationing of care.

FACT: There is nothing in the proposal that would lead to rationing of care. The proposal does provide funding for research to compare the effectiveness different treatments for a given disease. Doctors will not be required to use the findings. This research, far from rationing care, will lead to better care for patients by giving doctors more information different treatments. The insurance market reforms in the proposal will reduce rationing of care that happens today. Insurance companies will no longer be able to retroactively cancel enrollees’ insurance policy when they become sick or refuse to cover important medical services based on pre-existing conditions.

FALSE CLAIM: The health care reform proposal mandates coverage of abortion.

FACT: The proposal does not require abortion to be covered by any insurance plan, including the new public health insurance option.


You may also be interested in the following websites that are in place to respond to inaccurate claims.

The White House – Reality Check
The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org
The St. Petersburg Times PolitiFact project

You may review a two page summary of the proposal here and the full legislative bill here. To see how the health care reform proposal would impact you, click here.

[ccbatson]

So easy to debunk [[Levin always is)

1. Technically it doesn't directly promote euthansia, it provides a mandatory counseling session to "discuss the issue"....right.

2. Not for illegal immigrants....make em legal [[amnesty) and the point is moot.

3. Single payer...government payer...government controls the means of production THAT IS SOCIALISM DEFINED.

4. Sort of...Medicare will be cut BEFORE the reform in an effort to partially pay for it. 500 billion in cuts are proposed already.

5. Waxman, Boxer, Rangle have all admitted that members of congress will not be using the proposed universal health care system...they will continue to have the current program [[the gold plated one) that you and I pay for.

6. Too easy...already in the bill and in the proposed 500 billion in cuts.

7. It may not "mandate" coverage of abortion, but it allows it.

Would Levin survive politically in any state other than socialist Michigan?

[Stosh]

1. Technically it doesn't directly promote euthansia, it provides a mandatory counseling session to "discuss the issue"....right.

So easy to debunk [[CCBatson always is)

Typical. Obviously you've never had to have this discussion with anyone, or a family member. You'd obviously be the type that would keep the patient on life support indefinitely, despite any wishes they may have had to the contrary. This is needed.

2. Not for illegal immigrants....make em legal [[amnesty) and the point is moot.

Of course, that would have been the previous administration's policy.

3. Single payer...government payer...government controls the means of production THAT IS SOCIALISM DEFINED.

As long as there's a means to pay for this, I suggest you go to Mexico while there's still time, they might make you a better offer. Or somewhere else with a warmer climate.

4. Sort of...Medicare will be cut BEFORE the reform in an effort to partially pay for it. 500 billion in cuts are proposed already.

There needs to be reforms in the system to avoid the cost overruns inherent in it. No one said the system has been perfect. Fixing it is needed now. Quit being obstructionist.

5. Waxman, Boxer, Rangle have all admitted that members of congress will not be using the proposed universal health care system...they will continue to have the current program [[the gold plated one) that you and I pay for.

That's too bad, they should, as should every single Michigan state House and Senate member.

6. Too easy...already in the bill and in the proposed 500 billion in cuts.

Please prove this assertion with a verifiable link to an official source. I'm too lazy to look it up, mainly because if you say it's so, it usually isn't.

7. It may not "mandate" coverage of abortion, but it allows it.

See my answer to # 6. You consistently distort information here, it's just as easy for you to provide a textual link to the bill itself,. confirming this. For a supposedly intelligent person,you sure seem to be taking the lazy road on most issues. Of course, if you did that, you wouldn't make your quota would you?

[gazhekwe]

Don't you ever read anything, CC? You cannot debunk what you have not read.

1. The discussion is not mandatory. This is right in Levin's piece:
This would be purely voluntary, and patients do not need to have this consultation with their doctor if they do not wish to do so.

2. One person cannot make them legal, it has to be a majority decision approved by the House and Senate and signed by the president. After that, there would be no issue, as you admit, point moot.

3. HOw is this mandating single payer? Again, from the Levin piece:
People who do not get insurance through their employer will simply have the choice of signing up for a private insurance plan as they can now, or the new public health insurance plan.

I am not going to bother to point out the other misses in your "debunk".

[Omaha]

Let’s be real; the MacGuffie memo exists. Thank goodness it is real. It is a strategy piece for insuring a health care debate based on the merits doesn’t happen. It’s working.

And if he is lucky, that guy MacGuffie came from a long line of memo writers. He is a hell of an organizer of chaos. He makes his forefather, the guy who wrote the MacGuffie Reader, look like the loser he was.

[ccbatson]

I have had the discussion many times in my personal life and professionally as a Physician. THAT IS THE POINT, family and trusted Physician advisors are the only appropriate participants without any ulterior motives...NOT THE GOVERNMENT in any way, shape, manner, or form.

[rb336]

I have had the discussion many times in my personal life and professionally as a Physician. THAT IS THE POINT, family and trusted Physician advisors are the only appropriate participants without any ulterior motives...NOT THE GOVERNMENT in any way, shape, manner, or form.

oh no, you got shown up again so out come the caps. give it up bats, your ignorance is pouring out in buckets. your complete and utter abandonment of your mind to the right-wing fear mongers has made you a joke.

guess what? the government IS NOT AND WILL NOT BE INVOLVED IN ANY WAY EXCEPT TO COVER THE DISCUSSIONS THROUGH MEDICARE

[gazhekwe]

CC, save yourself looking any more silly and read this, from Levin's statement.

FACT: There has been a lot of awful misinformation about this issue. Under current law, hospitals are required to inform patients of their rights under state laws to develop a living will or advance directive regarding their medical care. If you wish to speak with your doctor about living wills and advance directives and the treatment options that may be part of having them, the health care reform proposal simply allows Medicare to pay for that appointment. This would be purely voluntary, and patients do not need to have this consultation with their doctor if they do not wish to do so.

[ccbatson]

Yes, that is correct...you must inform them that they have that right...The rest is, as it should be, up to the patient/family/Physician.

[Detroit Stylin]

lol.....looks like cc got owned.....lol

[oladub]

Obama said that if he were starting from scratch, he would prefer a single payer system.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck...sistent_in.php

Also, "in 2003 Obama told a crowd of AFL-CIO members: "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care coverage." "

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090812072831.aspx

[ghettopalmetto]

Obama said that if he were starting from scratch, he would prefer a single payer system.

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck...sistent_in.php

Also, "in 2003 Obama told a crowd of AFL-CIO members: "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care coverage." "

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090812072831.aspx

And while that may be correct, that doesn't mean a government-run health-care system is proposed in any of the bills under consideration.

After this health care issue is put into effect, I think we need a SERIOUS overhaul of our educational system, one that introduces "using your fucking brain" as a learning method.