Note my comment
“He tries to soften it towards the end of the story but does not succeed”
We obviously disagree here. I don’t trust factcheck. It’s not a reliable site.
There is nothing to "soften" because the fact is "end of life planning" has nothing to do with death panels Richard, that is the point. It isn't a matter of your perspective vs. mine, it is a matter of fact vs. fiction. The articles I gave you explained why, but for some strange reason you think the Right wing blogosphere is more trustworthy than the nonpartisan factcheck.org. The funny thing here is that you just linked us to a site that actually relies on factcheck.org for its information, but you don't trust factcheck!
Nice dodge about Stupak. The question is not about breitbart but is the video correct. I see no evidence that it is not.
Your video link was broken so I could never see it. But you're citing Stupak from 2009 when there seemed to be a miscommunication over two different plans. Stupak wasn't aware of what Obama's plan entailed obviously, but he eventually got the point. This is the same Stupak who said this past July that:
"The President’s Executive Order makes clear that federal funds may not be used for abortion under the Affordable Care Act – including the pre-existing condition insurance pools currently being implemented in Pennsylvania and states across the country," the Michigan congressman claims.
"In accordance with the Executive Order, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has directed states that federal funds provided under health care reform may not be used to fund abortion," he said.
Gee, Richard, it seems that abortion funding wasn't included in Obama's after all, huh? And all that business from the year before - which the Right Wing blog grasps onto for dear life - turns out to have been a misunderstanding after all. So, how can Obama be lying about it? As to the confusion from November 2009, Obama clarified in an interview that same month:
Obama said that he wanted to adjust the language so that "neither side feels that it's being betrayed." He continued, "I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test -- that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices" (Newmyer/Dennis, Roll Call, 11/10). He added that "we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions." He noted that he has previously said that "if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, it's not going to change." Obama also said, "There needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo," adding, "And that's the goal."
So much for that one...
Let’s look at some of Obama’s comments on healthcare:
Yes, and what a better place to use than a rabid Right Wing blog which starts off with an ignorant statement like:"we are moving toward socialism with ObamaCare"! I'm sure you have full confidence in its obechtivity.
Would you trust this man?
Trust him with what? I agree that the health industry wastes time and money by doing unnecessary procedures that are more expensive. Obama is on the right track here, although he could have provided better examples than the ones he did. Notice that while he said $30-50,000 for amputations, the AMA says that although the procedure itself doesn't cost that much:
It is possible that the total bill, hospital stay, rehabilitation, prosthesis, etc. may approach the larger amount mentioned.
So Obama's figure rings plausible even to the AMA. This quibble is silly. It is like me saying it costs $1,300 to have a root canal procedure, and then someone argue the actual drilling only costs $300. But the final bill is what matters. And concerning his comments about tonsillectomies, the AMA responded:
In the case of tonsillectomies, a patient is referred to a surgeon after medication therapy has proven to be ineffective. Actually, the medical profession itself recognized questions about utilization and appropriateness of tonsillectomies and took action by developing clinical guidelines, which has resulted in a sharp decline in the rate of tonsillectomies.
So while they do not like the way Obama insinuated some doctors were doing this for financial gain, they essentially make his point by pointing out that it is a problem. So much so that they had to address it. And from personal experience, I had an ex-girlfriend who was told she had to have this done when she was younger, even though she rarely got sick. She was told that if she didn't have it done, then she'd get sick all the time. But like I said before, if you want valid examples of doctors overcharging or overtreating patients for financial gain, then I can provide plenty.You guys like to claim for profit health care is the way to go to be efficient, but For-Profit Hospitals Most Likely to Overtreat Dementia Patients, or how about For-profit Dialysis Centres May Be Over-Treating Anemia and how about circumcisions?
The International Coalition for Genital Integrity's Medicaid Project surveyed all US states in 1999, and was able to account for 181,292 circumcisions costing a total of $20,255,217. According to HCIA-Sachs, Medicaid funded a total of 310,403 circumcisions, implying a total cost to the US taxpayer approaching $35,000,000.... where Medicaid paid more than $US60, circumcision was nearly twice as likely as where it paid less than $US50"
But I could go on all day with examples like these. Obama is to be commended for raising an issue that no one else wants to address because the Health Care lobby owns most politicians. He is hitting at the hard truths that cause our health care costs to sky rocket. Like with everything else in a capitalistic society, it is due to monopoly and greed.
James Taranto doesn’t totally agree with me, but he cites the key point that severe rationing is the only way you can avoid busting the budget with Obamacare
The same WSJ columnist who writes idiotic like "Stealth Socialism" and pieces that defend FOX News for "living up to its motto of Fair and Balanced"? You think these guys are trustworthy when they're working for a Rupert Murdoch owned publication? Of course this nimrod is going to throw out the usual talking points that misrepresent Obama's Health Care proposal. This is why we need to verify the facts via nonpartisan resources like factchect or politicfact. You haven't proved anything with this link. All you did was share another opinion by one of Murdoch's employees. This is what I'd expect from Droopy, not you.
