• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?

celticlord

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
6,344
Reaction score
3,794
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric.[/FONT]

Nice summary of Dear Leader's lies in tonight's press conference.
 
Fact checking the so-called "Fact-Checkers"
Associated Press reporter Calvin Woodward has a history of straining to catch Barack Obama in factual errors. But today's review of last night's Obama press conference may have hit a new low in absurdity.


FAIR Blog Calvin Woodward
 
Last edited:
Here is the least biased fact-checking source that I've found to date.

-NC
 
My Way News - FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?



Nice summary of Dear Leader's lies in tonight's press conference.


Its kinda ironic that your signature contains a phrase from the declaration of Independence, namely that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, one of which is the right to LIFE.....and yet, you don't believe that basic healthcare is a right.

What do you think the inalienable right to life means? (let me guess....you think it just means a definition adopted by anti-abortion groups, right?)
 
Last edited:
factcheck.org actually is one of the most non-partisan and best sources out there.

Quite true, except I do have a point of disagreement with their assessment of Iraq's costs. They figure current to date expenditure of $684 billion, yet there is something quite significant that they ignored; the continuing cost of coverage for disabled veterans. With this and other expenditures the expected cost will be $3-5trillion conservatively. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz did a moderate estimate of $3 trillion total cost.

Also, they argue costs using 2006 OECD data, which is strange since the 2008 data is widely available.

Link to Times of London article on the costs
 
Last edited:
Nice summary of Dear Leader's lies in tonight's press conference.

So you are quoting the same people that have said that Obama's birth certificate is legal and he is a natural born citizen?

So does that mean you FINALLY believe Obama is a natural born citizen?
 
Fact checking the so-called "Fact-Checkers"
Associated Press reporter Calvin Woodward has a history of straining to catch Barack Obama in factual errors. But today's review of last night's Obama press conference may have hit a new low in absurdity.


FAIR Blog Calvin Woodward

Now that is just classic! HAHA
 
So you are quoting the same people that have said that Obama's birth certificate is legal and he is a natural born citizen?

So does that mean you FINALLY believe Obama is a natural born citizen?

Its what you call a "Cafeteria Conservative"
 
Quite true, except I do have a point of disagreement with their assessment of Iraq's costs. They figure current to date expenditure of $684 billion, yet there is something quite significant that they ignored; the continuing cost of coverage for disabled veterans. With this and other expenditures the expected cost will be $3-5trillion conservatively. Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz did a moderate estimate of $3 trillion total cost.

Also, they argue costs using 2006 OECD data, which is strange since the 2008 data is widely available.

EXACTLY! :clap:
 
Now that is just classic! HAHA

People still use the AP? God they are so full of $*@&.

Well, if an Illinois senator bears more responsibility for the federal budget than the president, than why is Woodward wasting his time covering what President Obama has to say about the budget? Shouldn't he be interviewing Roland Burris instead?

I think anyone with two brain cells knows the answer to this.
 
Fact checking the so-called "Fact-Checkers"
Associated Press reporter Calvin Woodward has a history of straining to catch Barack Obama in factual errors. But today's review of last night's Obama press conference may have hit a new low in absurdity.


FAIR Blog Calvin Woodward

In the piece, headlined "Fact Check: Obama Disowns Deficit He Helped Shape," Woodward takes issue with Obama's statement: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me." Woodward's criticism: "It actually was him--and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years--who shaped a budget so out of balance.... Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator."

Well, if an Illinois senator bears more responsibility for the federal budget than the president, than why is Woodward wasting his time covering what President Obama has to say about the budget? Shouldn't he be interviewing Roland Burris instead?

I think that's some of the worst logic I've ever encountered. Just....wow.
 
So does that mean you FINALLY believe Obama is a natural born citizen?
You really need to engage brain before finger tips--I have never argued he wasn't.

Take two seconds to pull your foot out of your mouth before replying.
 
Its kinda ironic that your signature contains a phrase from the declaration of Independence, namely that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, one of which is the right to LIFE.....and yet, you don't believe that basic healthcare is a right.

What do you think the inalienable right to life means? (let me guess....you think it just means a definition adopted by anti-abortion groups, right?)
It means you have a right to live as you choose. It does not mean you have a right to expect me to pay for you living as you choose.

It means you have the right to all the healthcare you can afford. It means you have no right to the healthcare you cannot afford.
 
It means you have the right to all the healthcare you can afford. It means you have no right to the healthcare you cannot afford.

So why are you objecting to the public option again? Certainly more Americans will be able to afford it as it is projected to be 30-40% cheaper than current private rates.
 
So why are you objecting to the public option again? Certainly more Americans will be able to afford it as it is projected to be 30-40% cheaper than current private rates.

With a drop in service as well.

Just ask some of your veteran friends about the VA.

Welcome to government run medicine.

I will say the VA has made some improvements over the years.
 
So why are you objecting to the public option again? Certainly more Americans will be able to afford it as it is projected to be 30-40% cheaper than current private rates.

If the only thing that is changing is the government not profiting, then how can it possibly be 30-40% cheaper?
 
So why are you objecting to the public option again? Certainly more Americans will be able to afford it as it is projected to be 30-40% cheaper than current private rates.

1) Link?
2) Where do you think those savings are coming from? Have you completely ignored the discussion about new taxes?
 
So why are you objecting to the public option again? Certainly more Americans will be able to afford it as it is projected to be 30-40% cheaper than current private rates.
Projections that fly in the face of reality--TennCare and Commonwealth Care (two state attempts at UHC) saw individual healthcare costs rise as a result of the programs.

Additionally, anything funded by tax dollars is not "cheaper", merely better at hiding the costs. A public option has Congress standing at the ready to cut a check to cover any losses the public option might incur--a luxury private insurance companies do not get.

Cost less? Not likely. Certainly not 30-40% less.
 
If the only thing that is changing is the government not profiting, then how can it possibly be 30-40% cheaper?

That isnt the only thing changing. Far from it.

1) Link?
2) Where do you think those savings are coming from? Have you completely ignored the discussion about new taxes?

View Appearance | C-SPAN Congressional Chronicle, Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.

Cant find the other link with Kline atm ill keep looking for you though. When i say cheaper i am speaking of the cost of the plan to the end consumer not the cost overall.

Projections that fly in the face of reality--TennCare and Commonwealth Care (two state attempts at UHC) saw individual healthcare costs rise as a result of the programs.

Additionally, anything funded by tax dollars is not "cheaper", merely better at hiding the costs. A public option has Congress standing at the ready to cut a check to cover any losses the public option might incur--a luxury private insurance companies do not get.

Cost less? Not likely. Certainly not 30-40% less.

Actually once again you are WRONG. What is the amount that will be subsidized by the feds for the public option? Ill wait.
 
That isnt the only thing changing. Far from it.

Your right but not in a good way.

They are increasing access and not capping prices on what doctors, hospitals etc charge. The net effect can only be higher prices.

So many people don't understand that it is impossible to offer unlimited medical care to everyone. You can't do it at all.
There are not enough hospital beds, doctors, nurses everything to cover such a plan.
 
I believe people would be really shocked if Der Fuhrer in Chief Obama were to tell the truth a second time. So far the only thing he didn't lie about was needing you Liberals help to wreck the country. When he clearly said, "Mar 15, 2008 ... "My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it".
He claims he inherited the deficit Bush caused when TARP passed but the lying bum pushed it's passage. If this plan passes your insurance not will change it will go away and thousands will die as a direct result of the Obama Careless Death Plan. He's an anti American pro Islamic Socialist.
His plans are sounding more and more like Geramany in the 30s and 40s.
 
It means you have a right to live as you choose. It does not mean you have a right to expect me to pay for you living as you choose.

It means you have the right to all the healthcare you can afford. It means you have no right to the healthcare you cannot afford.

So you only have as much of a right to life as you can afford? Doesn't sound inalienable to me.
 
Back
Top Bottom