• 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!

Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional(edited)

ptif219 said:
Yes he did.You are trying to spin and justify but Obama would not have authorized the pace maker
Click to expand...

Let's look at a reading of what was that is a factual representation and without the comprehension problems you have:

Obama continued, “And all we're suggesting — and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve.”

Looking at the full transcript, it’s clear that Obama voluntarily brought up the example of having to choose between a surgery and a pill. But he did so as a hypothetical example of difficult decisions about medical treatment for older patients. He was not advocating, much less requiring, bureaucrats to make a potentially life-ending decision for a centenarian.

“I don’t want bureaucracies making those decisions,” Obama said.

One can be skeptical about whether Obama’s promises to keep the government out of doctor-patient decisionmaking will hold if health care legislation becomes a reality. But Lungren goes beyond that to distort what the president actually said. We rate Lungren’s claim False.

PolitiFact | Lungren says Obama would have government require a centenarian to get a pill, not a pacemaker
 
"i don't want bureaucrats making these decisions"

exactly, even obtuse obama aint dumb enough to go where the brits have gone---single payer

but his HEALTH CARE CZAR still likes it

oh well

maybe that's why weiner wants a WAIVER

for NEW YORK
 
Amazed said:
No, you never answered anything Boo...what happens when ANY one of the things specified in the Law itself happens...c'mon...you can do it.
Click to expand...

Very little happens. No freedoms are lost. You have been answered. You read in inaccurately, and can't even, it appears, articulate how you read it.


It claims that the law creates "longer waits in doctors’ offices" and that "your right to keep your own doctor may be taken away." The group says those claims are about a Medicare payment program that the law calls for establishing. But it points to an opinion piece that doesn’t make those claims at all. The author tells us it’s "bogus" to cite his article as support for the ad.
■The ad falsely calls the health care law "government-run health care." The truth is that — while the legislation will expand regulation of the insurance industry — it builds on our current private health care system and expands business for private insurers.

Pataki’s Bogus Health Care Claims | FactCheck.org

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200 | FactCheck.org
 
26 truths about obamacare

half a tril cuts to medicare while expanding it which is already broke, a quarter tril burden on states with no backing who are already broke, three quarters of a tril in new taxes on americans who are already broke, the criminalization of americans who breath without insurance who used to be free, the double counting of a quarter tril by accountants who aren't even dept chairs themselfs, the quarter tril doc fix which still can't keep medics from vamoosing, the devastating increase in er traffic and costs, the waiving of more than a thousand friends-of-weiner...

but, hey, at least it's not SINGLE PAYER
 
Boo Radley said:
Factually, he did not. You are having a comprehension problem.
Click to expand...

Wrong he did not agree the mother should have gotten the pace maker but explained why people shouldn't get things and take a pain pill and wait to die. He is showing his support for death panels
 
Boo Radley said:
Let's look at a reading of what was that is a factual representation and without the comprehension problems you have:

Obama continued, “And all we're suggesting — and we're not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves. But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decisions, and that — that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care, that's something we can achieve.”

Looking at the full transcript, it’s clear that Obama voluntarily brought up the example of having to choose between a surgery and a pill. But he did so as a hypothetical example of difficult decisions about medical treatment for older patients. He was not advocating, much less requiring, bureaucrats to make a potentially life-ending decision for a centenarian.

“I don’t want bureaucracies making those decisions,” Obama said.

One can be skeptical about whether Obama’s promises to keep the government out of doctor-patient decisionmaking will hold if health care legislation becomes a reality. But Lungren goes beyond that to distort what the president actually said. We rate Lungren’s claim False.

PolitiFact | Lungren says Obama would have government require a centenarian to get a pill, not a pacemaker
Click to expand...

Obama no where condones the mother getting a pace maker he would have agreed with the first doctor that she should not have gotten a pace maker. You can not defend this Obama wants doctors to have death panels
 
ptif219 said:
Wrong he did not agree the mother should have gotten the pace maker but explained why people shouldn't get things and take a pain pill and wait to die. He is showing his support for death panels
Click to expand...

Nor did he obect to her getting a pacemaker. What he did was speak to care that did not work, did not improve or extend life. He spoke to effective care that might be less costly and do better. When you misrepresent what is being said, as you do with this video, that is being dishonest. No where is adeath panel being discussed, promoted, suggested or even talked about.
 
ptif219 said:
Obama no where condones the mother getting a pace maker he would have agreed with the first doctor that she should not have gotten a pace maker. You can not defend this Obama wants doctors to have death panels
Click to expand...

He says nothing of the kind. You're making a leap and rading into it what you want to be there and not what is there.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nor did he obect to her getting a pacemaker. What he did was speak to care that did not work, did not improve or extend life. He spoke to effective care that might be less costly and do better. When you misrepresent what is being said, as you do with this video, that is being dishonest. No where is adeath panel being discussed, promoted, suggested or even talked about.
Click to expand...

So he as always avoided to say what he agreed with, to say he supports death panels without addressing the fact of what he was presented with. Obama avoided the subject by making a circle that supported death panels without appearing to
 
and WEINER still wants a WAIVER

for NEW YORK
 
(smile) You are dismissed Boo.
When ANY one of the changes occurs the plan reverts to the Admins coverages....when that happens Boo the noose tightens around around the necks of the "private" insurers......you just don't know who you are dealing with....or what the Bill says.

I own you.

Boo Radley said:
Very little happens. No freedoms are lost. You have been answered. You read in inaccurately, and can't even, it appears, articulate how you read it.


It claims that the law creates "longer waits in doctors’ offices" and that "your right to keep your own doctor may be taken away." The group says those claims are about a Medicare payment program that the law calls for establishing. But it points to an opinion piece that doesn’t make those claims at all. The author tells us it’s "bogus" to cite his article as support for the ad.
■The ad falsely calls the health care law "government-run health care." The truth is that — while the legislation will expand regulation of the insurance industry — it builds on our current private health care system and expands business for private insurers.

Pataki’s Bogus Health Care Claims | FactCheck.org

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200

Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200 | FactCheck.org
Click to expand...
 
Amazed said:
(smile) You are dismissed Boo.
When ANY one of the changes occurs the plan reverts to the Admins coverages....when that happens Boo the noose tightens around around the necks of the "private" insurers......you just don't know who you are dealing with....or what the Bill says.

I own you.
Click to expand...

Self professions of victory are usually made by the loser. The fact is you have offered nothing. :2wave:
 
LOL!

says the dept chair hisself who LINKS to the white house
 
Boo Radley said:
It does nothing of the kind. You have to be dishonest or stupid to believe that. :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, you have to be. His comments ignore the mother and try to show we must not spend money on old people just give them a pain pill and wait for them to die because of the Obamacare death panels.
 
ptif219 said:
No, you have to be. His comments ignore the mother and try to show we must not spend money on old people just give them a pain pill and wait for them to die because of the Obamacare death panels.
Click to expand...

He properly sought to address the issue. He does nothing you claim. That's the bottom line.
 
bottom line---the BRITISH BROADCASTING CORP says single payer is "devastating" and "cruel"

why did barack hussein pick an OPEN PROPONENT of health care RATIONING to be his CZAR?
 
Boo Radley said:
He properly sought to address the issue. He does nothing you claim. That's the bottom line.
Click to expand...

Yes he does. He avoids the subject of the mother and shows that old people in Obama's opinion should be given pain pills and left to die because the money spent would not extend their life enough. He ignores the fact the mother got 5 good years of quality life.

You mean he avoided the issue with his useless rant
 
Last edited:
ptif219 said:
Yes he does. He avoids the subject of the mother and shows that old people in Obama's opinion should be given pain pills and left to die because the money spent would not extend their life enough. He ignores the fact the mother got 5 good years of quality life.

You mean he avoided the issue with his useless rant
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. You simply misread, or diliberately try to make it somehting it isn't. I can help if you have problems with comprehension, but dishonesty is something you must face on your own. No honest, capable person believes what you're trying to pass off.

He did not avoid the issue, he spoke to it. No one has suggested affective, needed, procedures should eb withheld. He speaks to ineffective and not needed procedures. Only an idiot believes anything that cna be thrown out there is effective and needed.
 
Amazed said:
The fact is I've posted the Law and it says exactly that...the fact is you have no idea what you are talking about :)
Click to expand...

Posting it does nto mean you understand it. That's why I pointed out it doesn't reduce freedom. You have given no idication you understand what you posted. And apaprently you doubt yourself so much as to not even try to suggest what you think it means. :2wave: :coffepap
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom