New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

[CptJesus]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201...s-nonpa/189206

Its pretty widely accepted as nonpartisan.

As to the Fox News comments, Sting said they were unsubstantiated. I simply backed my point up.

Silver Spoon Comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=OXEdtyZtW6I

Death Panels:
I assume you're talking about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, whose purpose, and I quote is to:

"By Jan 1, 2015, and at least every other year thereafter, the IPAB will submit recommendations to slow the growth in national health care expenditures while preserving or enhancing quality of care."

How is that a death panel?

Gas Prices:

Do you remember gas prices dropping like a month ago? Do you know what caused that?

DOMA:
http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201102240002

Also, as far as projection, I've clearly read everything that people have to say, so how am I projecting?

[CptJesus]

Here's fox on Gas Prices back in 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=UzEnKdBAb_o

Here's fox news today
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ztc8UxvSSTo

[HoustonRaven]

Your response to the Brookings Institute being liberal is an article from Media Matters?

You do know they are liberal too, right?

Ok, I think I see what's going on here. I was just like you once. I thought that everything that came down from AEI, Cato, Media Research Center, etc was the end all of the debate and that it was "facts".

You need to read past the headlines and understand where these groups come from and get their funding.

It would be like me linking to to the American Enterprise Institute, saying these were the facts about the Ryan plan. That's their take on it, not facts. Just like it's the opinion of the TPC, not fact.

[CptJesus]

Your response to the Brookings Institute being liberal is an article from Media Matters?

You do know they are liberal too, right?

You do know what sourcing is right? Did you read the page at all?

[HoustonRaven]

You do know what sourcing is right? Did you read the page at all?

Read my edit.

[NCRAVEN]

Death Panels:
I assume you're talking about the Independent Payment Advisory Board, whose purpose, and I quote is to:

"By Jan 1, 2015, and at least every other year thereafter, the IPAB will submit recommendations to slow the growth in national health care expenditures while preserving or enhancing quality of care."

How is that a death panel?

How do you propose they slow the growth?

[CptJesus]

How do you propose they slow the growth?

I have no idea, and it's not my job. But let me put down some cool stuff from the Advisory board's mandate:

According to official records, the proposals made by IPAB should not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or increase Medicare beneficiary premiums, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (deductibles, coinsurance, or co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.

[NCRAVEN]

I have no idea, and it's not my job. But let me put down some cool stuff from the Advisory board's mandate:

According to official records, the proposals made by IPAB should not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or increase Medicare beneficiary premiums, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (deductibles, coinsurance, or co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.

I think you need to read up on the IPAB a little more.

BTW - Why is it the Left/Dem's etc. always tell us the way to improve education is to spend more, but the way to improve the healthcare system is to cut cost? How do you do both?

[CptJesus]

I think you need to read up on the IPAB a little more.

BTW - Why is it the Left/Dem's etc. always tell us the way to improve education is to spend more, but the way to improve the healthcare system is to cut cost? How do you do both?

Mainly because the public education system is fairly awful in this country, with lack of skilled teachers and resources. Can you really argue that healthcare costs aren't ridiculously high? That our system in its current form is working?

After all, we spend more per capita on healthcare than just about any other developed nation.

[NCRAVEN]

Mainly because the public education system is fairly awful in this country, with lack of skilled teachers and resources. Can you really argue that healthcare costs aren't ridiculously high? That our system in its current form is working?

I didn't say that cost aren't high. I asked how you cut cost and also improve healthcare

After all, we spend more per capita on healthcare than just about any other developed nation.

Is there another country that has better healthcare than we do?

[CptJesus]

I didn't say that cost aren't high. I asked how you cut cost and also improve healthcare


Is there another country that has better healthcare than we do?

Healthcare costs are as high as they are for a number of reasons. You want to lower healthcare costs? Start with Tort Reform. Too much of healthcare is about covering your ass these days. Malpractice drives up costs.

Also, the question of "better" healthcare is intensely subjective. How would you quantify or qualify "better"?

[NCRAVEN]

Healthcare costs are as high as they are for a number of reasons. You want to lower healthcare costs? Start with Tort Reform. Too much of healthcare is about covering your ass these days. Malpractice drives up costs.

Agreed. But I would not empower an unelected board of bureaucrats that "should not" propose rationing care, but ultimately can and years down the road (as I understand it) Congress has no control over the panel.

Also, the question of "better" healthcare is intensely subjective. How would you quantify or qualify "better"?

There would be several ways, almost too many so I'll ask you if you think there is a country that has better quality healthcare than we do.

[CptJesus]

Agreed. But I would not empower an unelected board of bureaucrats that "should not" propose rationing care, but ultimately can and years down the road (as I understand it) Congress has no control over the panel.



There would be several ways, almost too many so I'll ask you if you think there is a country that has better quality healthcare than we do.

I honestly don't know how you would define quality of healthcare. I would certainly make the case that the US has the highest number of intensely specialized doctors. So I certainly can't say the quality is poor.

By the same token though, we pay almost 5000$ more per capita on healthcare than the average for developed countries. Considering the average is around 2400, that's pretty significant. Also, we're 38th on Average Life Expectancy in the world, falling behind Cuba and Canada to name a few.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News...ty-Varies.aspx

According to this study, we spend more, but don't necessarily receive better quality healthcare at the same time.

[NCRAVEN]

I honestly don't know how you would define quality of healthcare. I would certainly make the case that the US has the highest number of intensely specialized doctors. So I certainly can't say the quality is poor.

By the same token though, we pay almost 5000$ more per capita on healthcare than the average for developed countries. Considering the average is around 2400, that's pretty significant. Also, we're 38th on Average Life Expectancy in the world, falling behind Cuba and Canada to name a few.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News...ty-Varies.aspx

According to this study, we spend more, but don't necessarily receive better quality healthcare at the same time.

I don't have time to read that now, but most studies similar to those aren't just talking about natural death. They take into account murders, car wrecks, deaths from war, natural disasters etc. So if that study does too... it's flawed, but I'll read it later.

[CptJesus]

I don't have time to read that now, but most studies similar to those aren't just talking about natural death. They take into account murders, car wrecks, deaths from war, natural disasters etc. So if that study does too... it's flawed, but I'll read it later.

This study is talking about overall quality of the services rendered compared to price of the goods. The average lifespan thing is just a small point.

[Haloti92]

Wow. Let me get started

Your list is filled with non-lies, gripes about semantics, and completely incomparable minutiae, nothing more. Wow indeed.

Let's start with "Government Takeover of Healthcare," aka Obamacare. This was the talking point of Fox News for the past couple years, and is completely untrue, since healthcare is by and large still being provided by private bodies. In fact, most of the stuff in Obamacare is based on the free market. An exchange is set up where private companies compete to insure people are aren't insured (wow, competition!). The government isn't taking over hospitals.

Price caps, mandatory minumum coverages, penalties for non-compliance is not "based on the free market," even if private companies remain in the industry. The bill is 2000+ pages, and it is filled with thousands of examples where the federal government inserts its tentacles into the "private market."

While we're on Obamacare, how about Death Panels, the biggest bullshit claim ever. Or how Obamacare will increase federal spending, when in reality, it ends up reducing the federal deficit in the long run while simultaneously providing healthcare to more people. Nice

While "death panels" is an inflammatory phrase, the IPAB absolutely is granted the authority to dictate the terms of medical decisions that heretofore were left up to the doctor and patient. If you want to see how an unelected government bureaucracy that is tasked with reducing health care spending eventually starts to behave, just look at Great Britain where old people, and now fat people and smokers, are denied procedures due to the Board's calculations about the efficient use of funds (combined with the control-hungry nannystatists desire to save people from themselves by limiting their freedoms). Or look at the Netherlands where such boards combine cost-effectiveness and (supposed) compassion to allow and encourage euthanasia.

As for the "reducing" the deficit, please stop, only complete hacks are still trying to claim that with a straight face. The CBO is forced to score what it is told in terms of assumptions. The ACA (original score) collected taxes for 10 years while paying out for 6 years; it double counted $700B in Medicare revenue in both Medicare's ledger and the ACA's; it assumed the politically toxic and perennially-avoided 'doc fix' would finally get fixed; it assumed 'savings' from nebulous removal of waste in the system; it assumed millions of people would be moved into Medicaid (which was never true and is especially false now that SCOTUS shot down the coercion aspect of the law); it assumed everyone would buy health insurance (which never was true considering the low penalty amount and is especially false considering SCOTUS made the choice merely one of paying a tax and not breaking the law). And obviously, the common sense notion that every single major entitlement program except Medicare Part D has ballooned in costs by orders of magnitude more than the CBO's projections.

How about Fox News telling everyone Obama is a big spender, when the reality is that federal spending has increased at the lowest rate in 60 or so years. Totally the same thing.

This is utterly debunked gibberish. That you don't realize it does not surprise me. This is a case of pure 100% liberal deception intended to fool the fools. It credits FY 2009 spending to Bush and starts Obama's spending clock at FY 2010, despite the fact that the last quarter of FY2009 comes under Obama. In this last quarter Obama spent a shade less than $1 trillion on his Stimulus boondoggle and cash-for-clunkers and auto-bailouts (read: payouts to his constituents). So what you are left with is an aberration of spending for FY 2009 (Stimulus combined with TARP combined with auto-bailouts) that is the untenable baseline from which Obama still increases spending. Only the thouroughly ignorant or disingenuous would make the claim you made.

How about editing video footage to make it look like Michele Bachman's protest about health care had more people by splicing in shots of Glenn Beck's rally. Or selectively editing speeches by Obama to protray a completely misleading idea.

No idea what you are talking about here, but Fox news and MSNBC and NBC, etc (i.e. everyone) has been caught selectively editing video, audio, transcripts. The editing of the assault-weapon carrier (to not show he was a black man) at the anti-Obama rally in order to run with the absurd, evidence-free theme that the Tea Party is racist was the most egregious I have seen. But I don't doubt your example occurred on Fox, it happens everywhere.

How about gas prices, where rising gas prices werent Bush's fault, but they were TOTALLY Obama's fault.

You fail to realize that while both sides seem to be saying the opposite (are being hypocritical), the Left blamed Bush first. This is a total whiff in terms of your overall argument.

How about the "Christmas Tree Tax" levied by Obama? Oh wait, that was considered before Obama came into office. Not to mention, the fee is set by the Christmas Tree industry, not by Obama, and the money goes back to the industry to help market themselves. Huh.

Minutiae. Plus Obama disavowed it for the very political reasons why the "claim" was made.

How about Fox telling everyone that the median drop in net worth is clearly Obama's fault based on a study that covered 2007-2010 (huh, wasn't Bush in office in 2007 and 2008? He couldn't have anything to do with it though).

No clue what you are talking about, but if it was Hannity or O'Reilly or some other opinion-giver (like Maddow, Schultz, Olbermann) rather than Bret Baier making that claim as impartial news reporting, then I would say you haven't found anything here.

Then there's Mike Huckabee pushing the idea that Obama was taking federal money as a foreign student, and that he was raised in Kenya (Or Indonesia depending on the day we're listening).

This is nonsense. All I have seen is Huckabee, in the context of the Romney-should-release-his-tax-returns issue fabricated by the Left, give tongue-in-cheek advice to Romney about asking for Obama's college transcripts and admission records. I saw no "pushing" of any "idea," and once again you seem to miss that this was an attempt to highlight the hypocrisy of Left (same as the gas prices issue).

Then there's Fox News mischaracterizing Obama's statements about The Defense of Marriage Act. He said he wouldn't defend its constitutionality, but somehow that translates to not enforcing DOMA. Interesting.

There is no mischaracterization here other than yours about the issue. Obama/Holder did not merely say they would not defend DOMA (and they had been sabotaging the defense up to that point anyway); they cited the reason for their official change of tune which was that they considered the law unconstitutional. Claiming that people should swallow the assertion that the Obama administration would continue to enforce an unconstitutional law is inane. It is logically incoherent, and the reason for such incoherence was obvious and simple: politics. Obama/Holder did not want to face the full political heat of stating they would no longer enforce the law, they wanted political credit for refusing to defend the law, and they wanted eventual court rulings (assuming the undefended law fell) as cover for not enforcing the law in the future. Nothing here, in terms of your theme.

Then there's another Obama misquote: "Unlike some people, I wasn't born with a Silver Spoon in my mouth." Totally an attack on Mitt, grab your pitchforks! Oh wait...
the actual quote was “Somebody gave me an education. I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle wasn’t. But somebody gave us a chance — just like these folks up here are looking for a chance.”

No clue what you are talking about, but sounds like another quibbling over minutiae. Let me guess a Fox News channel talk show host paraphrased Obama leading people to conclude Obama said what we all know he believes?

I could go on and on, but its not like you'll believe anything I say anyways. After all, you all stop reading after the first point you disagree with.

I am sure you could go on and on as your bar is extremely low to non-existent (except for the first couple points which were not clear lies) and is not even in the same ballpark as what we are talking about here. For starters, the lies being discussed here are coming from Obama's campaign (and obviously parroted by the sycophantic media), not just from moonbats like Maddow, so your weak evidence of Hannity, etc, bias is a non sequitur. Also, the lies being discussed here are lies about major policies and their effects (leading to people dying, etc), in other words serious issues, not such absurd nonsense as Christmas tree taxes.

Bottomline is, your efforts at "but your side does it also," did not bear any fruit.

[HoustonRaven]

I honestly don't know how you would define quality of healthcare. I would certainly make the case that the US has the highest number of intensely specialized doctors. So I certainly can't say the quality is poor.

By the same token though, we pay almost 5000$ more per capita on healthcare than the average for developed countries. Considering the average is around 2400, that's pretty significant. Also, we're 38th on Average Life Expectancy in the world, falling behind Cuba and Canada to name a few.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News...ty-Varies.aspx

According to this study, we spend more, but don't necessarily receive better quality healthcare at the same time.

The leader of this organization is Carter's ex HHS Secretary, Dr. Karen Davis. What else did you expect the study to say. He's been in the tank for an individual mandate and single payer system for decades. I imagine she's the same.

[Haloti92]

Life expectancy and infant mortality rankings are based almost entirely on a) how each country keeps score, and b) the relative lifestyles of each country's inhabitants. If you want to compare better-controlled (for these factors) results check life-expectancies after ailment-diagnosis; these results still are not immune to the extraneous factors but they are affected a lot less by them.

And obviously, even the idea that "maximizing" these metrics is the ultimate goal is completely debatable. If it limited everyone's freedoms to do so, would it be worth it? If it made 90% of the population's care somewhat worse in quality while incredibly raising the bottom 10%'s care just to raise the overall average (rather than tried to fix the 10%'s issues separately), would it be worth it?

[AirFlacco]

The death panels are listed in Section 333 which I listed during the
Town Hall debates. It's why all the old people were protesting and
why they favor Ryan now.