PDA

View Full Version : Liars - don't ya just love 'em?



David G
04-22-2010, 11:08 AM
More distortions and lies about the recent health care legislation:

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/more-malarkey-about-health-care/

Summary

We’ve seldom seen a piece of legislation so widely misrepresented, and misunderstood, as the new health care law. We stopped counting the number of articles and items we turned out on the subject after the total reached 100.
Some of that is understandable. The debate went on for more than a year, while the different House and Senate bills changed their shape constantly. The final law was the product of an awkward two-step legislative dance that first enacted the Senate’s version, then quickly amended it with a reconciliation "fix." No wonder people are confused.
And even now the misrepresentations continue. The new law is no longer a moving target, but some opponents persist in making false or exaggerated claims about it. Our inboxes are filled with messages asking about assertions that the new law:


Requires patients to be implanted with microchips. (No, it doesn’t.)
Cuts benefits for military families and retirees. (No. The TRICARE program isn’t affected.)
Exempts Muslims from the requirement to obtain coverage. (Not specifically. It does have a religious exemption, but that is intended for Old Order Amish.)
Allows insurance companies to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Insurance companies have agreed not to exploit a loophole that might have allowed this.)
Will require 16,500 armed IRS agents to enforce. (No. Criminal penalties are waived.)
Gives President Obama a Nazi-like "private army." (No. It provides a reserve corps of doctors and other health workers for emergencies.)
"Exempts" House and Senate members. (No. Their coverage may not be as good as before, in fact.)
Covers erectile-dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. (Just as it was before the new law, those no longer in jail can buy any insurance plan they choose.)
Provides federal funding for abortions. (Not directly. But neither side in the abortion debate is happy with the law.)

Dave Gray
04-22-2010, 11:16 AM
Fear, propaganda, and disinformation. Reminds me of a certain time in history in a country across the big water. Or here in the USofA after WWII.

BrianW
04-22-2010, 11:23 AM
Thought they passed that one already? ;)

David G
04-22-2010, 11:32 AM
Brian,

Yes they did, and as the Factcheck folks mention, "... even now the misrepresentations continue." Liars and slimebags positioning themselves for the inevitable modifications that will be proposed, among other motivations.

As they also mention, it's not too surprising that there's a certain amount of confusion over this bill, which is large, complex, took a lot of time to develop and took various forms along the way. Many of these canards, however, go way beyond that - and persist despite being debunked.

delecta
04-22-2010, 11:43 AM
I don't care about any of that, I just want to know where I can sign up for Obamacare ....NOW.

Kinda like his stash, he doesn't have one and I'm not getting Obamacare anytime soon.

But I love the fact that I have to give my hard earned money to an insurance company <thought they were evil?> or pay a fine.

The health care bill is pitiful and I can quote any number or left and right wing web sites to confirm that.

Anyone that thinks it's a good idea is silly.

huisjen
04-22-2010, 01:17 PM
(Insurance companies have agreed not to exploit a loophole that might have allowed this.)

I'd feel better if someone closed the loophole.

Dan

ripley699
04-22-2010, 02:45 PM
The first 3 are mostly or completely correct. The rest are mostly a lie . Period..You can mince words all you want but it still boils down to government paying for abortions.period

Take the last one. This plan does provide for government paid abortions,,use all the fancy words you want ...It is still a lie

ripley699
04-22-2010, 03:04 PM
Norman ,are you saying that abortions will not be covered under this new health plan?

The answer is : Yes they will be covered
no they won't be covered

Pick one

Ian McColgin
04-22-2010, 03:08 PM
ripley699 - you say the plan calls for government paid abortions yet like others who make that charge, you cannot find the language.

Maybe it's those death panels that'll do it.

Ian McColgin
04-22-2010, 03:33 PM
Just in case ripley699 cares about factual arguement:

The new law will make health insurance available to nearly all citizens at an affordable rate. Among those whose insurance is in part subsidized, the insurance the government helps them buy may not include abortion services.

Most private insurance programs cover abortion services and they will still compete in the insurance market. The new law requires that they now separate the full cost of abortion coverage from other services. Abortion coverage requires a separate fee.

Those who claim that the program “amounts” to a federal subsidy on base their theory on the fact that right now people who cannot afford insurance cannot therefore afford insurance for abortions. If with federal help they can afford insurance and if they can then use some of their own money for abortion coverage, so the theory goes, that’s the “federal subsidy.”

There is, by the way, no change in the annually renewable Hyde Amendment that for over three decades has prevented funding of abortions to poor people on Medicaid and people with federal plans like the military.

Anti-abortionists don’t like three things about the law:

It does not make the Hyde Amendment eternal;

It makes privately funded abortion coverage more affordable by freeing health care dollars otherwise spent out-of-pocket by people the current health care system excludes from insurance coverage; and

It does not outlaw all abortions.

That’s fine, but it’s also still false to say the new law provides federal funding for abortions.

ripley699
04-22-2010, 04:54 PM
Lets pretend that you are not stupid.
You want me to make a long winded arguement to make my case.
I don't have to .All I need is for you to answer my question. but you don't have the courage to do so . You ,like Ian ,simply want to mince words in a vain attempt to get your opinion taken for truth. That won't happen if you answer my question ,will it?
And so you continue with the verbal dysentary .

I repeat: Are you saying that abortions won't be covered under this new health plan? The same plan that was voted on when Obama PROMISED there would be no abortion covered by the U.S. taxpayers...Oh,that one ,,,the one where he OUTRIGHT LIED ? oh that one ?
ANSWER THE QUESTION

Keith Wilson
04-22-2010, 05:05 PM
I think it would be an excellent thing if abortions were covered. Unfortunately, the Hyde amendment is still the law.

ripley699
04-22-2010, 05:21 PM
""Last I heard, the new law prohibits publicly funded abortions, and prohibits insurance companies who are getting subsidies from offering abortion as part of their coverage.""

Well,when you actually read up on the subject and know what you are talking about then please get back to me.Until then ,I will leave it this way:
The new helth care bill does offer government funding for abortions. The president promised it would not and it DOES. He is lieing once again .

Keith, whether you or I want the government to pay for abortions is not the issue.The issue is that the government WILL pay for abortions.The real problem here is that there are many people who do not want their tax money to help pay for people to kill babies. That is not something that should be argued.I believe that if an American does not want to help pay to kill babies then they should have the right to not pay for it. The United States government should not be in the business of killing babies.

woodrat
04-22-2010, 06:34 PM
The new helth care bill does offer government funding for abortions. The president promised it would not and it DOES. He is lieing once again .


again, no reference of any kind here other than your assertion. I'm willing to believe that you might be right, but only when you show me the language in the bill that proves it.



The real problem here is that there are many people who do not want their tax money to help pay for people to kill babies. That is not something that should be argued.I believe that if an American does not want to help pay to kill babies then they should have the right to not pay for it. The United States government should not be in the business of killing babies.
There's an awful lot of stuff that the federal govt engages in that I don't agree with, but last I checked, I didn't get to provide a checklist of things that are not OK with me to spend tax money on whenever I pay taxes. Where on earth did the religious right get the idea that if they disagree with something that the govt does, then they don't have to pay taxes that might be used for that? Where does this right exist, other than to vote in people as representatives that will push for legislation that pleases you?

S/V Laura Ellen
04-22-2010, 06:37 PM
Bilge rule: if you make the assertion, it's YOUR job to prove it to be true.

I thought that the only rule in the bilge was to not pi$$ off Scot.

ripley699
04-22-2010, 07:09 PM
Norman,I am still waiting for your answer:

Yes or NO...what is it?

Ian McColgin
04-22-2010, 08:10 PM
ripley699 need wait no longer. The answer he refuses to understand is in my post #12.

Garret
04-22-2010, 08:18 PM
Norman,I am still waiting for your answer:

Yes or NO...what is it?

I too am interested. Norm has said no it doesn't. Ian has also said it doesn't.

So - are you gonna show us where it says that the gov't will pay for abortions? Until you do, we'll simply have to believe you are incapable of doing so.

In the interest of fairness, I have to say I actually watched the news coverage of the vote, read up on this & already know the answer. However, there's no substitute for finding out for yourself. And - no, "Glen Beck told me it does" is not an acceptable answer....

It's put up or shut up time.

ripley699
04-22-2010, 08:21 PM
ripley699 need wait no longer. The answer he refuses to understand is in my post #12.

The proof is in the pudding.
The truth is that anyone who wants an abortion from now on ,and can't or won't pay for it will still recieve it at no cost to themselves. They must pay for it by using a seperate insurance policy. The government won't pay for the abortion directly.they will simply pay the premium on the insurance poilcy for the indidiual who wants to kill their unborn baby.
This is exactly the same as not having the courage to vote on the health care legislation,so they wanted to "DEEM IT PASSED " without voting on it...This way the government pays for the insurance poilcy that pays for the abortion but doesn't pay it directly ...No spine ,,just more weasle moves ,,,scum!

Ian McColgin
04-22-2010, 08:35 PM
Stop making things up ripley699. The government does not pay the premium on abortion coverage. As I think you actually know full well.

ripley699
04-22-2010, 08:36 PM
You are wrong.
I am right

Garret
04-22-2010, 08:37 PM
Stop making things up ripley699. The government does not pay the premium on abortion coverage. As I think you actually know full well.

He's just living up to the title of the thread Ian....

David G
04-22-2010, 08:41 PM
You are wrong.
I am right

Well then... who could argue with such a detailed analysis of the law? Certainly leaves no doubt in my mind.

Do you disagree with the interpretation in post #12? (Certainly sounds like it) If so - why? What data leads you to a different interpretation? What language in the new law supports your assertion?

ripley699
04-22-2010, 08:48 PM
He's just living up to the title of the thread Ian....
Garret,if you have nothing better to offer than " see ,i told you so!" Then stay out of the way...

The “law of the land” that bans public funding of abortion, known as the Hyde amendment, would not apply to the health care legislation.

There are three different provisions in the Senate/Obama plan to provide public funding of abortion.

Pelosi and Obama have long said that language like Ben Nelson’s amendment to pay for abortions with money collected from individual premiums rather than federal subsidies effectively bans public funding of abortion. Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats dismiss this amendment as a bookkeeping scheme.

And the bill indisputably provides direct federal funding of abortions

Ian McColgin
04-22-2010, 08:51 PM
"If a qualified plan provides [abortion] coverage...the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to [health reform's government-funding mechanisms] for purposes of paying for such services."

From page 2072 of the health care measure as passed and in the record.

There are a lot of versions around with varying pagination and I agree it’s easier to make things up rather than read them.

Garret
04-22-2010, 08:55 PM
Garret,if you have nothing better to offer than " see ,i told you so!" Then stay out of the way...

The “law of the land” that bans public funding of abortion, known as the Hyde amendment, would not apply to the health care legislation.

There are three different provisions in the Senate/Obama plan to provide public funding of abortion.

Pelosi and Obama have long said that language like Ben Nelson’s amendment to pay for abortions with money collected from individual premiums rather than federal subsidies effectively bans public funding of abortion. Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats dismiss this amendment as a bookkeeping scheme.

And the bill indisputably provides direct federal funding of abortions

This from the one who said "You're wrong, I'm right"??? Got it. ;)

OK, we're getting closer. What are the 3 provisions? I'm not saying I don't believe they're there - just that I haven't seen them. Show me/us the money!

Ian McColgin
04-23-2010, 08:11 AM
The problem ripley is having is at least two-fold. Early - prior to passage - versions of the bill gave people with subsidies equal access to the same basic insurance packages as people without subsidies and that did include plans that offered abortion coverage. That possibility was written out of the bill as passed but let's not quibble over reality. The other problem the right has is that rightwing spokesmen and "news" sourses have been exposed claiming to quote from one or another version of the bill before passage (and this has not happened since passage so maybe they learned) but the quotes were complete fabrications, exposed by the simple expedient of looking it up.

That's why they find it easier to argue that "the state will be paying" without actually citing the text.

Garret
04-23-2010, 10:01 PM
I think we can dismiss our friend Ripley as being one of the folks the title refers to.



Careful Norm, he get pretty upset with me for saying much the same thing :D

Captain Blight
04-24-2010, 11:18 AM
Keith, whether you or I want the government to pay for abortions is not the issue.I'm actually okay with federal funds being used to fund abortions, in at least certain cases. So, yes, it very much is the issue.
The issue is that the government WILL pay for abortions.Prove it. Go ahead, I triple-dog dare ya: Prove It.
The real problem here is that there are many people who do not want their tax money to help pay for people to kill babies.Then I guess that means we should cancel our contracts with Halliburton and Blackwater, hmm?
That is not something that should be argued.And why not? Because YOU say so? Try again.
I believe that if an American does not want to help pay to kill babies then they should have the right to not pay for it. The United States government should not be in the business of killing babies.Well, the US Government has a long and rich tradition of doing exactly that. But console yourself: Maybe some of them were really bad people and deserved to die.