A Toast to the Remarkable Nancy Pelosi

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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