Post it again or direct me to it please.
I have seen a few quoted texts, and they said nothing of the sort. Not even close. This has been explained repeatedly. There is a process for deciding what MINIMUM coverage an insurer may put in its policy to sell it on the exchange. No maximums. No control of healthcare decisions by the government - it's still a private decision between doctor and patient, with only a private insurer to interfere, like now. There is no loss of choice of doctor either.
It's just not there.
You are obtuse and dishonest. I am not playing your game any longer. Argue the points made or just shove off. I don't care which but I am not backtracking the conversation every page just because you cannot or will not keep up.
I can't prove a negative. You can easily prove a positive. Simply show me where it was quoted directly. Link to the message. Very easy. Maybe I simply missed it. If so, I'll apologize and respond to it, as I'm eager to.
You called me a liar. I take that seriously. I say YOU are the liar. If not, simply show me the message and I'll apologize.
I don't want your apology. The apology of a liar is probably disingenuous anyway. It means even less than your word to me now.
Alright, found the link and the forum post.
First, Mister, you gotta understand one thing. No one is going to let you bait them, intentionally or unintentionally, into a fair use violation. Posting page 25 through page 42 of the Bill that Jallman keeps talking about in MULTIPLE posts to you would be a Fair Use violation. Jallman followed the rules, posted the beginning paragraph of the portion he was talking about, gave you specific pages, and told you to read the rest yourself. Continuing to ask to "paste the exact words" is useless. Jallman's taken ever effort, in numerous threads, to point you directly to where he's talking about while also remaining in the rules. Posting 20 pages of text from a bill is a Fair Use Violation and would get him points.
Second, I've gone in and read the section and I can see how it can be interrpited either way. It does set up a review board that oversee's insurance issues, setting minimums, and making determinations on what kind of treatment should be available. I can easily see how someone can see this role expanding and being similar to rationing, which could be considered a "death panel" in one of the ways they were typically talked about. At the same time I can see the way someone could read it as simply applying to insurance companies.
That said, the "Death Panel" thing generally came up between two different things. One was a committee overseeing health care choices and being able to deny treatment or deny coverage or deny the types of insurance that are available, the other was something to do with the mandatory end of life care that has since been removed to my understanding.
Either way, yes the rhetoric is incredibly stupid to use. That said, I stand by my notion that someone could potentially answer yes to that kind of question on a poll under the belief that they're meaning "death panels" in spirit of what it was talking about rather than litterally "This bill creates something called a 'death panel' that decides if someone should or shouldn't die". Trying to trump up "how many people think there are death panels" in the bill is a useless argument, and frankly one that could be equally countered by "How many people think they will get free health coverage automatically now that the bills passed".
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.