Results 73 to 79 of 79
-
08-14-2012, 05:20 PM #73Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Posts
- 856
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
I honestly don't know how you would define quality of healthcare. I would certainly make the case that the US has the highest number of intensely specialized doctors. So I certainly can't say the quality is poor.
By the same token though, we pay almost 5000$ more per capita on healthcare than the average for developed countries. Considering the average is around 2400, that's pretty significant. Also, we're 38th on Average Life Expectancy in the world, falling behind Cuba and Canada to name a few.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News...ty-Varies.aspx
According to this study, we spend more, but don't necessarily receive better quality healthcare at the same time.
-
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
-
08-14-2012, 05:33 PM #75Regular 1st Stringer
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Posts
- 856
-
08-14-2012, 05:34 PM #76Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
Your list is filled with non-lies, gripes about semantics, and completely incomparable minutiae, nothing more. Wow indeed.
Price caps, mandatory minumum coverages, penalties for non-compliance is not "based on the free market," even if private companies remain in the industry. The bill is 2000+ pages, and it is filled with thousands of examples where the federal government inserts its tentacles into the "private market."
While "death panels" is an inflammatory phrase, the IPAB absolutely is granted the authority to dictate the terms of medical decisions that heretofore were left up to the doctor and patient. If you want to see how an unelected government bureaucracy that is tasked with reducing health care spending eventually starts to behave, just look at Great Britain where old people, and now fat people and smokers, are denied procedures due to the Board's calculations about the efficient use of funds (combined with the control-hungry nannystatists desire to save people from themselves by limiting their freedoms). Or look at the Netherlands where such boards combine cost-effectiveness and (supposed) compassion to allow and encourage euthanasia.
As for the "reducing" the deficit, please stop, only complete hacks are still trying to claim that with a straight face. The CBO is forced to score what it is told in terms of assumptions. The ACA (original score) collected taxes for 10 years while paying out for 6 years; it double counted $700B in Medicare revenue in both Medicare's ledger and the ACA's; it assumed the politically toxic and perennially-avoided 'doc fix' would finally get fixed; it assumed 'savings' from nebulous removal of waste in the system; it assumed millions of people would be moved into Medicaid (which was never true and is especially false now that SCOTUS shot down the coercion aspect of the law); it assumed everyone would buy health insurance (which never was true considering the low penalty amount and is especially false considering SCOTUS made the choice merely one of paying a tax and not breaking the law). And obviously, the common sense notion that every single major entitlement program except Medicare Part D has ballooned in costs by orders of magnitude more than the CBO's projections.
This is utterly debunked gibberish. That you don't realize it does not surprise me. This is a case of pure 100% liberal deception intended to fool the fools. It credits FY 2009 spending to Bush and starts Obama's spending clock at FY 2010, despite the fact that the last quarter of FY2009 comes under Obama. In this last quarter Obama spent a shade less than $1 trillion on his Stimulus boondoggle and cash-for-clunkers and auto-bailouts (read: payouts to his constituents). So what you are left with is an aberration of spending for FY 2009 (Stimulus combined with TARP combined with auto-bailouts) that is the untenable baseline from which Obama still increases spending. Only the thouroughly ignorant or disingenuous would make the claim you made.
No idea what you are talking about here, but Fox news and MSNBC and NBC, etc (i.e. everyone) has been caught selectively editing video, audio, transcripts. The editing of the assault-weapon carrier (to not show he was a black man) at the anti-Obama rally in order to run with the absurd, evidence-free theme that the Tea Party is racist was the most egregious I have seen. But I don't doubt your example occurred on Fox, it happens everywhere.
You fail to realize that while both sides seem to be saying the opposite (are being hypocritical), the Left blamed Bush first. This is a total whiff in terms of your overall argument.
Minutiae. Plus Obama disavowed it for the very political reasons why the "claim" was made.
No clue what you are talking about, but if it was Hannity or O'Reilly or some other opinion-giver (like Maddow, Schultz, Olbermann) rather than Bret Baier making that claim as impartial news reporting, then I would say you haven't found anything here.
This is nonsense. All I have seen is Huckabee, in the context of the Romney-should-release-his-tax-returns issue fabricated by the Left, give tongue-in-cheek advice to Romney about asking for Obama's college transcripts and admission records. I saw no "pushing" of any "idea," and once again you seem to miss that this was an attempt to highlight the hypocrisy of Left (same as the gas prices issue).
There is no mischaracterization here other than yours about the issue. Obama/Holder did not merely say they would not defend DOMA (and they had been sabotaging the defense up to that point anyway); they cited the reason for their official change of tune which was that they considered the law unconstitutional. Claiming that people should swallow the assertion that the Obama administration would continue to enforce an unconstitutional law is inane. It is logically incoherent, and the reason for such incoherence was obvious and simple: politics. Obama/Holder did not want to face the full political heat of stating they would no longer enforce the law, they wanted political credit for refusing to defend the law, and they wanted eventual court rulings (assuming the undefended law fell) as cover for not enforcing the law in the future. Nothing here, in terms of your theme.
No clue what you are talking about, but sounds like another quibbling over minutiae. Let me guess a Fox News channel talk show host paraphrased Obama leading people to conclude Obama said what we all know he believes?
I am sure you could go on and on as your bar is extremely low to non-existent (except for the first couple points which were not clear lies) and is not even in the same ballpark as what we are talking about here. For starters, the lies being discussed here are coming from Obama's campaign (and obviously parroted by the sycophantic media), not just from moonbats like Maddow, so your weak evidence of Hannity, etc, bias is a non sequitur. Also, the lies being discussed here are lies about major policies and their effects (leading to people dying, etc), in other words serious issues, not such absurd nonsense as Christmas tree taxes.
Bottomline is, your efforts at "but your side does it also," did not bear any fruit.Last edited by Haloti92; 08-14-2012 at 05:51 PM.
-
08-14-2012, 05:46 PM #77Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
-
08-14-2012, 06:14 PM #78Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
Life expectancy and infant mortality rankings are based almost entirely on a) how each country keeps score, and b) the relative lifestyles of each country's inhabitants. If you want to compare better-controlled (for these factors) results check life-expectancies after ailment-diagnosis; these results still are not immune to the extraneous factors but they are affected a lot less by them.
And obviously, even the idea that "maximizing" these metrics is the ultimate goal is completely debatable. If it limited everyone's freedoms to do so, would it be worth it? If it made 90% of the population's care somewhat worse in quality while incredibly raising the bottom 10%'s care just to raise the overall average (rather than tried to fix the 10%'s issues separately), would it be worth it?Last edited by Haloti92; 08-14-2012 at 06:46 PM.
-
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
The death panels are listed in Section 333 which I listed during the
Town Hall debates. It's why all the old people were protesting and
why they favor Ryan now.
Bookmarks