Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly, I didn't check it out at all. All I did was post EXACTLY what was written on the page. They were the ones that questioned it's legitimacy, and that's why they wrote "As with others, I ask that visitors provide any information they have to prove or disprove the author or the content. My hope is that people will see the “content” and pay less attention to the author of the e-mail. I don’t feel that it matters to any great length who wrote it, what matters is, whether or not the information is factual."
But after reading what snopes and politifact says (which BTW, I definately don't trust to begin with), they say that some of it is "false", but they also say some is true or partially true. And also, they give they're own spin on what each one means. So ........................................
So, take it as you will!!!
Why on earth would you pass on something that its own distributors admit is garbage?
what dont you believe about the snopes or politifact refutations, and why? And why do you right wingers call unpleasant facts "spin"?
But anything posted by YOU, we should somehow respect?
get real. if you can refute the ACTUAL line items, then do so, Obamabot.
Its apparent that you have not taken the time to read the bill or research anything that was posted for accuracy, but instead responded too and go by someone else interpretation. That has been the problem with this back and forth in a nutshell.
Then to top it off, instead of discussing the email as well as the factual information as an adult, you decided to resort to childish name calling. No wondering those IDIOTS in Washington aren't getting anything done.
Honestly, I didn't check it out at all. All I did was post EXACTLY what was written on the page. They were the ones that questioned it's legitimacy, and that's why they wrote "As with others, I ask that visitors provide any information they have to prove or disprove the author or the content. My hope is that people will see the “content†and pay less attention to the author of the e-mail. I don’t feel that it matters to any great length who wrote it, what matters is, whether or not the information is factual."
But after reading what snopes and politifact says (which BTW, I definately don't trust to begin with), they say that some of it is "false", but they also say some is true or partially true. And also, they give they're own spin on what each one means. So ........................................
So, take it as you will!!!
Why would you post something without checking to see if it was true?
How can you not "trust" politifact when they debunk it with the actual written legislation? You "trust" a chain email more than actual thought out research?
I am not a big fan of Factcheck seeing as Obama had ties to Annenberg Public Policy Center and would love to find something a little more removed from our President in order to see these points refuted.
The rationing under nationalized healthcare will be different. Currently, one can still choose to pay out of pocket for proceedures not covered under insurance. Under nationalized haelthcare the government determines what treatment it will allow doctors/hospitals to give.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
