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 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.
How about reading the article where they go line by line with research and tell you exactly how it's not in the bill?
Politifact not good?
Snopes not good?
Are they all controlled by Obama?
They go line by line with fact, not opinion. Try reading it before judging it. If you don't believe Factcheck, open up the bill and go to the line mentioned. You'll see for yourself.
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.
I'm not a fan of the current bills.
The problem most people have is even if they want to pay out of their pocket the cost could very well bankrupt them.
As soon as the OP opened I recognized it as an email my brother had forwarded to me way back in June of last year! True, there were a few things added, but it's still the exact same garbage as my brother was trying to get me to believe almost a year ago. And garbage is exactly what it is.
But anything posted by YOU, we should somehow respect?
get real. if you can refute the ACTUAL line items, then do so, Obamabot.
I'm getting tired of saying this, but once again, it applies...
Just because someone supports the President, and says so, does NOT make he or she an Obamabot, a sheep, etc...just as your disagreement with him and his policies does not qualify you to be labeled a 'wingnut'...
I myself support him, but I CAN and DO question some of his policies...so do a lot of his other supporters, contrary to what you may have been led to believe...no one is going to willingly follow someone off a cliff with asking why---that's just human nature...
All I'm sayin' here is---disagree without labels...that goes for BOTH sides
How about reading the article where they go line by line with research and tell you exactly how it's not in the bill?
Politifact not good?
Snopes not good?
Are they all controlled by Obama?
They go line by line with fact, not opinion. Try reading it before judging it. If you don't believe Factcheck, open up the bill and go to the line mentioned. You'll see for yourself.
No issue with Snopes and I did not state that they are all controlled by Obama. Your words, not mine.
If you recall my post, the gist was wanting something neutral, with no ties.
Think about it before you insult me. I am trying to learn the truth, and instead of welcoming it, and possibly seeing things from your side, you slam me. Not exactly what Dale Carnegie had suggested in How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Honestly, some of the political bureaucratese in the bill can get numbing. I never claimed to be a lawyer! But as a citizen who could be negatively affected by this, I have a right to know what to expect.
Do you prefer a well-informed populace, or a group of ill-informed people?
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.
Why would he when he has reliable pundits, commentators and hundreds of MBs of email to tell him what he wants.
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?
Generally speaking, "thought out" research doesn't contribute to the agenda.
They've been taught to fear and resent accuracy sites. They dont dare look.
So instead of posting alternate sites and helping enlighten people to that which you've already been, you would sooner knock them?
Would you not have questioned the accuracy/leanings of a site to which Bush once had ties?
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.
News Flash, For The Uninitiated...
