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.
I claimed it was technically true, but if your going to provide care for all citizens using the argument that the more you cover the cheaper the care is, then why would you not expand this to illegals who also receive free care? Ignoring this fact is not making a very good argument for liberals based upon "moral high ground".. This is about seperating fact from reality, morals do not come into play with truth or a lie..
Ann Coulter? You go to Ann Coulter for your "facts"?
It appears that you get all of your so-called "information" from the FOX "News" channel.
Yeah, no thanks.
Actually, I think I prefer the people who get their news from Fox (not Ann Coulter who is not balanced in any way, and who is making money from being not balanced) than the people who are evidently getting their news from e-mails and blogs. Fox at least has an obligation to address the headlines of the day.
Liberal lie.. Illegal aliens will not have care under the new national insurance plan...
While technically true, the fact is, illegal aliens will still be treated at a hospital because its illegal not to treat people. When these people still get treated, the bills for these procedures will just be passed onto the government in higher bills for the insured..
translation, nothing changes..
It is illegal to not treat people for life threatening emergencies. Period. It is legal to refuse to treat for anything else.
Attempting to justify lies based upon morality would indeed lead me to question your morals...
And yet you haven't made a case for any lies on the part of liberals. You have only raised an issue of mathematics and how the various numbers have been crunched. But still you dig in you heels to call it lies. And you think this position has any integrity?
The problem with this is that with such an issue, the numbers are complex. The projections are suspect, whether they are the conservative projections or the liberal projections. Predicting outcomes is never assured.
The debate should be about methodology, and the quality of the numbers being used. But instead, some people who are paid to be controversial, introduce morality into the debate by calling people liars. Even while conceding that "technically" no one lied, that the nature of prediction will always have a degree of uncertainty. And by calling the opposition liars, you have assumed a moral highground to which you have no right, because while a person's adherence to the truth or not is a moral question, attacking the quality of someone's projections is not a moral question, it's a statistical debate. Coulter understand that reader interest is promoted by moral debate, and that reader interest is undermined by statistical debate. So, as someone who has financial interest in promoting readership, she chooses the less valid path. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
And yet you haven't made a case for any lies on the part of liberals. You have only raised an issue of mathematics and how the various numbers have been crunched. But still you dig in you heels to call it lies. And you think this position has any integrity?
The problem with this is that with such an issue, the numbers are complex. The projections are suspect, whether they are the conservative projections or the liberal projections. Predicting outcomes is never assured.
The debate should be about methodology, and the quality of the numbers being used. But instead, some people who are paid to be controversial, introduce morality into the debate by calling people liars. Even while conceding that "technically" no one lied, that the nature of prediction will always have a degree of uncertainty. And by calling the opposition liars, you have assumed a moral highground to which you have no right, because while a person's adherence to the truth or not is a moral question, attacking the quality of someone's projections is not a moral question, it's a statistical debate. Coulter understand that reader interest is promoted by moral debate, and that reader interest is undermined by statistical debate. So, as someone who has financial interest in promoting readership, she chooses the less valid path. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
It is indeed a lie if you try to justify that 40M people do not have insurance and need it, and then create a plan that does not give 40M people coverage because you used that number as justification for creation of such a plan. Its a lie and dishonest if you claim that the illegal aliens are not going to be included in the national health care plan, as if they will be denied coverage or as if the american taxpayers wont be picking up their tab because of course we will be. Its also a lie to claim that the federal government has the authority and responsibility to create such a plan, and its a lie to claim that lives will be saved by breaking the constitution and creating such a plan, and its a lie to pretend that people are dying because there is no plan. LIES LIES LIES.. they dont end..
It is indeed a lie if you try to justify that 40M people do not have insurance and need it, and then create a plan that does not give 40M people coverage because you used that number as justification for creation of such a plan. Its a lie and dishonest if you claim that the illegal aliens are not going to be included in the national health care plan, as if they will be denied coverage or as if the american taxpayers wont be picking up their tab because of course we will be. Its also a lie to claim that the federal government has the authority and responsibility to create such a plan, and its a lie to claim that lives will be saved by breaking the constitution and creating such a plan, and its a lie to pretend that people are dying because there is no plan. LIES LIES LIES.. they dont end..
Spin away.
When you say that it is a lie that illegals will not be covered by this healthplan, you are saying that, in fact, they will be covered. And the implication is that they will be able to avail themselves of services they currently do not have access to. Since that implication is false, that makes it a lie. Ann Coulter depends on that implication hitting home with much of her audience. It is that implication that feeds the outrage over the imminent socialism. And depending on a false implication is inherently dishonest.
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.
