11
   

A Toast to the Remarkable Nancy Pelosi

 
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 04:28 pm
@georgeob1,
Well, he never said it would continue to be available. If it can't be offered by a private company at a profit, it doesn't mean it was outlawed. That's all he meant to say. Just like the 500 billion we are going to save from Medicare without increasing the deficit or cutting benefits. If no doctors accept Medicare patients, that's their doing, not the president's.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 04:32 pm
@georgeob1,
You probably hadn't noticed, but private insurance premiums continues to escalate while more Americans find themselves unable to afford those increases; they drop their insurance, and go without. That last count of Americans not having health insurance topped 50 million - and counting. Higher cost with less people covered. Is that the trend you support?

What part of "If you like your current health insurance, you can keep it" covers the increasing costs above the inflation rate - and more employers are increasing the employees share of the premium?

I'm not as worried about the insurance companies going out of business as I am more Americans going without health insurance.

That's where we differ in our philosophy about health insurance.
BillW
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 04:39 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
What a maroon. What a fruit basket turn over.


Is that a purple red or a blue red? Actually, I'm an OU fan - so, I appreciate that. And, make sure it has bananas, mangos, lychees, rambutans and mangosteens. Please no betel nut or durian.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 04:44 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You are not addressing the question. I agree our perspectives on the health care legislation may be different, but that has nothing to do with the frequency of lies uttered by Democrats & Republicans. It appears you merely believe lies that support your prejudices are better (or more justifiable) than lies that support mine. That's OK with me if you do: just don't ask me to pretent they aren't lies.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 04:50 pm
@georgeob1,
I already made my point clear by saying that the degree of lies that impacts the American people has more importance than the numbers. Who keeps count of the total numbers? I'm sure most, if not all, politicians lie.

I posted this on the previous page of this thread:
Quote:
That would depend on what is said and why they say it, and the impact it has on our society.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 04:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
OK. How do you measure or estimate, "the degree of lies that impacts the American people" ? Do you believe there is any discernable difference between the parties in this area?

I'm not sure what the phrase really means - if indeed it means anything at all. What is the "degree" of a lie? I suppose you may be referring to its consequences. However a serious whopper told by an inept but malevolant politician may not be believed and therefore have little public effect. The politician in this case may be entirely guilty of lying and evil intent in doing so, but, only because of his incompetence in doing it have no adverse effect.

It seems to me that you are just throwing up a smokescreen to evade the question.

cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 05:06 pm
@georgeob1,
We have proof that the conservatives used terms such as death panels and government takeover of health care. The GOP rhetoric about "death taxes" misinformed all Americans.

From these repeated lies, most Americans believe that ObamaCare has a provision for death panels. There is nothing in ObamaCare that even hints at the government takeover of health care in the US.

Do I really need to explain "death taxes" to you, and why most Americans believed that Obama raised their taxes?

Where else would Americans get the wrong impression from ObamaCare and increased taxes? Liberals? I just need to see proof of this.

Quote:
President Obama's tax cuts benefitted more than 95 percent of Americans.

The average American is receiving a refund of nearly $3,000—up more than 10 percent over last year—thanks to the Obama tax cuts for 95 percent of Americans [The White House]. Tax reductions that benefit working families include the Making Work Pay tax cut ($400 for individuals, $800 for couples) and changes in the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit that made more people eligible to take those deductions.

Families in the bottom 20 percent of income (up to $19,792 in 2009) received an average tax cut of $604 under the 2009 tax cuts [Citizens for Tax Justice]. The 2001 and 2006 tax cuts under President Bush resulted in an average tax cut for the bottom 20 percent of income earners of just $22 [Tax Policy Center]. The next 20 percent of earners (making up to $38,000 in 2009) got an average tax cut of $628 under the 2009 tax cut. The same group only got an average reduction of $360 under the Bush tax cuts.
BillW
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 05:14 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Just the use of "ObamaCare" was an attempt to mislead, and now it is slowly turning the corner and the NeoCons will soon wish they had never lied it. At the very minimum, they lead by deception. Just look at their start - "missing pages" wasn't a mistake, on and on and on. It has just been one week, for god's sake.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 05:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You are as guilty here of distortions as you accuse Republicans. The income tax and the Social Security tax are different things. The latter was described by the government, when it was passed, as an insurance program that would provide benefits to the insured proportional to the taxes they paid - with some added boosts for the disabled and indigent.

Both parties use self-serving distinctions when they talk about taxes. When Republicans speak they generally note the % of income taxed collected in the top brackets. When Democrats speak they generally include social security taxes and ignore the rebates (negative income taxes) paid under the various credits for low income people. Both parties usually say only "taxes" in their rhetoric, but both also use self-serving distinctions in doing so.

If you don't think Obamacare is a government takeover of the health care industry, then I think you should explain the distinction.

The term "death panels" does indeed refer to explicitly stated government goals to reduce end of life health care costs. These truly are a significant element of total cost, and one that is faced by individuals, families and insurance companies today - even without the new law. I believe the issue here is that many folks don't weant the government intruding in this area of their lives. Obama himself made this an issue during his campaign speeches.

An estate tax is indeed paid upon the death of the owner of said estate. Calling it a "death tax" is true - though certainly done using a self-serving choice of words.

You say the public has the wrong impression about Obamacare and taxes, but the obvious fact is that you are implicitly implying that those who interpret things differently than you in the areas noted above are necessarily wrong. That is obviously not true. You do not have an exclusive hold on the truth of these matters.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2011 06:22 pm
@georgeob1,
I doubt very much that I made any distinctions about how taxes were broken down.

You need to provide me with the statement I personally made that are distortions? Unless you address them as I make them, it's impossible for me to know what you are talking about.

I never said anything about both parties not using self-serving distortions or distinctions. What I said was the both party are guilty of lies.

What distinction is there to make about ObamaCare and government takeover? Can you provide the legislation that states that?

You also misinterpret end of life counseling by a doctor vs cutting off care. Where in the ObamaCare legislation does it say the government will control health care to cease care?

If my interpretation of ObamaCare is wrong, then you need to provide the sections of the legislation that refutes what I say.



0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 06:19 pm
I like Pelosi. When Obama came into office he planned to kick off a new round of unconstitutional gun bans. Pelosi wasted no time telling Obama to get his grubby paws off our Constitutional rights.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2011 06:57 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
If you don't think Obamacare is a government takeover of the health care industry, then I think you should explain the distinction.


Is this a serious question?

The government neither owns nor operates every or ANY major element of the private Health Care industry in America. They regulate that industry, but not to any greater degree than any other Western country does. In fact, they are regulated to a lesser degree than any other country.

'Takeover' apparently means different things to different people. To me it means something far different than you.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 10:47:17