[ETWolverine]

Well there's a red herring argument eh ET? You want me to show you a new word there that was made up specifically for this campaign? You fail at trying to paint someone into a corner with spurious requests. Quit being so nazi and admit that the talking points such as:
- Government will have direct access to your bank accounts
- YOUR HEALTH CARE WILL BE RATIONED!
- No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “administrative of judicial review” against a government monopoly.
- Cancer patients and their treatment are open to rationing!
- Government tells doctors what/how much they can own.
- Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
and others have appeared here and all over the web.

And each of those talking points come DIRECTLY FROM THE BILL ITSELF. We have demonstrated that over and over again. Been there, done that, already beat you at that argument.

Now, you made a specific statement: that the terms used by Liberty Counsel's website ORIGINATED with them, and have never existed BEFORE they were put on that website. And you used that as a PROOF that we are all getting our "talking points" from one source... Liberty Counsel's website.

I'm saying, prove it by showing us which terminology on that website is NEW to this health care debate, and must therefore prove that we are all getting our talking points from that single source.

Or retract your statement.

Elliot

[N0help4u]

And also why, when we debate about the healthcare bill, doesn't somebody that is for the bill ever give a link to the actual bill?
The links that we provide as what the actual bill is suppose to say are 'boo-ed' as right wing propaganda yet I don't see any links from the left on anything from the actual bill.

[NeedKarma]

7 seconds of googling: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...0714/aahca.pdf

[speechlesstx]

and also why, when we debate about the healthcare bill, doesn't somebody that is for the bill ever give a link to the actual bill?
The links that we provide as what the actual bill is suppose to say are 'boo-ed' as right wing propaganda yet I don't see any links from the left on anything from the actual bill.

Facts are inconvenient things to them. But hey, NK can Google.

[NeedKarma]

Facts are inconvenient things to them. But hey, NK can Google.

Oh the irony...

[speechlesstx]

Oh the irony ...

Still working that pathetic "lying SOB" angle?

[ETWolverine]

7 seconds of googling: http://energycommerce.house.gov/Pres...0714/aahca.pdf

If you can find it, then how come you have never once pointed to what the bill actually says in order to defend your statements?

NoHelp4U's question is a good one.

[ETWolverine]

Ever wonder where all those left-wingers get their erroneous talking points from?


Right here:

http://www.humanevents.com/downloads...Recessplan.pdf

Look at the wording compared to statements made by the media and by supporters of the bill.

'nuff said.

Elliot

[NeedKarma]

If you can find it, then how come you have never once pointed to what the bill actually says in order to defend your statements?

You mean like I did here?: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1919024

[ETWolverine]

You mean like I did here?: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post1919024

Yep... for the first time, you posted one today.

After a month of debating.

Can you find another one where you posted something from the bill itself? Or are you going to rest on the fact that you managed to do it ONCE?

[NeedKarma]

Once is more than you!

[speechlesstx]

Ever wonder where all those left-wingers get their erroneous talking points from?


Right here:

http://www.humanevents.com/downloads...Recessplan.pdf

Look at the wording compared to statements made by the media and by supporters of the bill.

'nuff said.

Here's another place they get their talking points from.

[ETWolverine]

Once is more than you!

Really?

Something I don't understand about the Health Care Debate - Page 14

Something I don't understand about the Health Care Debate - Page 8

Something I don't understand about the Health Care Debate - Page 8

That's three times to your one. At a minimum.

[excon]

Hello:

I don't know where they get their talking points. I don't care... But, they get 'em from SOMEWHERE... Cause they're all the same...

I say that, because they ALL say that end of life counselling means the government wants to kill you...

Now, it doesn't say that at all. It doesn't even come CLOSE to saying that... But, ALL the righty's say it does... That actually COULDN'T be, unless they have the same source...

So, it's simple logic... Which is lost on our righty friends.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello:

I dunno where they get their talking points. I don't care... But, they get 'em from SOMEWHERE.... Cause they're all the same...

I say that, because they ALL say that end of life counselling means the government wants to kill you....

Now, it doesn't say that at all. It doesn't even come CLOSE to saying that... But, ALL the righty's say it does.... That actually COULDN'T be, unless they have the same source...

So, it's simple logic... Which is lost on our righty friends.

Ex, I haven't said "end of life counselling means the government wants to kill you." I have used simple logic based on what the bill says, and as I noted yesterday, 2 WaPo columnists in the past week have conceded we have a point.

[excon]

2 WaPo columnists in the past week have conceded we have a point

Hello again, Steve:

You can line up as many dingbats from anywhere you like. You DON'T have a point. It's totally made up to scare people. The words don't say what YOU say they say... That's just so. If your LOGIC tells you something else, refer to my last post...

excon

[tomder55]

because they ALL say that end of life counselling means the government wants to kill you

No ;that's what you say we say.

But I'll tell you where some of my "talking points "come from .

How about what Charles Lane of the Washington Compost editorial board says about Section 1233 :

Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.

washingtonpost.com

Is Lane channeling Liberty University talking points too ?

Is Eugene Robinson carrying water for the Right wingers when he writes

.......the nut jobs and carpetbaggers are outnumbered by confused and concerned Americans who seem genuinely convinced they're not being told the whole truth about health-care reform.

And they have a point.


“ ...reform is being sold not just as a moral obligation but also as a way to control rising health-care costs. That should have been a separate discussion. It is not illogical for skeptics to suspect that if millions of people are going to be newly covered by health insurance, either costs are going to skyrocket or services are going to be curtailed.

The unvarnished truth is that services are ultimately going to have to be curtailed regardless of what happens with reform. We perform more expensive tests, questionable surgeries and high-tech diagnostic scans than we can afford. We spend unsustainable amounts of money on patients during the final year of life.

Yes, it's true that doctors order some questionable procedures defensively, to keep from getting sued. But it's a cop-out to blame the doctors or the tort lawyers. We're the ones who demand these tests, scans and surgeries. And why not? If a technology exists that can prolong life or improve its quality, even for a few weeks or months, why shouldn't we want it?

That's the reason people are so frightened and enraged about the proposed measure that would allow Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling. If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.
.”

??

Maybe I get my talking points from the NY State Democrat Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee who wrote to Waxman the following :

Dear Congressman Waxman:

As Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, I am deeply concerned that a provision that targets senior citizens in Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 may preempt New York State rules and practices. This proposed federal health care legislation's impact upon the elderly citizens of New York State needs to be sensitive to what may be considered a “state's rights” issue, which may be best dealt with at the state level, and not imposed by Washington.

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives. Each life must be cherished and regarded with reverence. This pending legislation does not necessarily provide for that guideline, and needs to be carefully reviewed with a full and open public debate.

It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen who resides in New York State or anywhere in the United States of America should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign.

I respectfully request that you advise me if and when there may be Congressional hearings on this matter, that you provide me with an opportunity to testify at such hearings, and suggest others who may also be qualified to testify.

Respectfully,
Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz

Letter to Congressman Henry Waxman re Section 1233 of HR 3200 | New York State Senate

This is a nice propaganda campaign by the Dems to try to deflect honest concerns about the bill to the ravings of ideologues . But it is BS and it doesn't lend itself to a true honest debate of the plan.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

You can line up as many dingbats from anywhere you like. You DON'T have a point. It's totally made up to scare people. The words don't say what YOU say they say... That's just so. If your LOGIC tells you something else, refer to my last post...

Excon

Then tell me ex, what do I say the words say? You seem to think you know what I've said better than I do.

Oh, and I don't consider them dingbats...

Charles M. Lane is an editorial writer for The Post, specializing in economic policy, trade, energy and globalization.

Lane joined The Post in 2000, first as an editorial writer and then as a Supreme Court reporter. He rejoined the editorial board in 2007. He served as editor and senior editor of The New Republic from 1993 to 1999 and was a foreign correspondent for Newsweek from 1987 to 1993. He contributed to the book “Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know,” edited by Roy Gutmann and David Rieff and in 1992 was awarded a Citation for Excellence from the Overseas Press Club.

Lane is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Columnist & Associate Editor | Eugene Robinson is an Associate Editor and twice-weekly columnist for The Washington Post. His column appears on Tuesdays and Fridays.

In a 25-year career at The Post, Robinson has been city hall reporter, city editor, foreign correspondent in Buenos Aires and London, foreign editor, and assistant managing editor in charge of the paper’s award-winning Style section. In 2005, he started writing a column for the Op-Ed page. He is the author of "Coal to Cream: A Black Man’s Journey Beyond Color to an Affirmation of Race" (1999) and "Last Dance in Havana" (2004).

Robinson is a member of the National Association of Black Journalists and has received numerous journalism awards.

[excon]

Then tell me ex, what do I say the words say? You seem to think you know what I've said better than I do.

Hello again, Steve:

When I speak of "you", I speak euphemistically of the right wing "you". Diverting the argument to say that YOU didn't say those words, is a diversion I'd rather not take...

Personally Steve, YOU are my favorite right winger... You, the euphemistic right wingers, STILL can't read.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

When I speak of "you", I speak euphemistically of the right wing "you". Diverting the argument to say that YOU didn't say those words, is a diversion I'd rather not take...

Personally Steve, YOU are my favorite right winger... You, the euphemistic right wingers, STILL can't read.

excon

Euphemistically or whatever, I don't see that as what "we've" been saying here. And I'm pretty sure you have a suspicion of government that in another time would lead you to see what we're seeing. You'll get there...