O'hillary Care, Or Titanic II?

Clicking in to Memeorandum right now gives one a sense that it might be what it would have been like to watch the Titanic lurch up toward the sky from one end one last time before the huge mass slipped quietly down under the sea and disappeared completely. It's hard to imagine a round of Sunday talking point shows righting the ship somehow.

The Snowe, as in Olympis, is falling, leaving Democrats exposed and alone. We know that's a place they don't like to be, whether on a vote for a major legislative initiative, or the shady backroom operations of the Democrat's political machine.

Democrat Jay Rockefeller is warning of large middle class tax increases. He isn't bringing it up because he has issues with being able to afford them, assuming he ever had to. The New York Times reports fire coming from both sides at any plan, and you have to wonder how many hull shots Obama's misguided crafting of health care reform legislation can take before meeting a watery grave. The water would be provided by the tears of Left Wing progressive activists who had been dreaming of usurping a major piece of the American economy by bringing health care in America, ultimately, under full state control.

If only Leonardo DiCaprio were here to watch Obama in the dual role of both Kate Winslet and Hillary Clinton climbing up on the rail and taking a header into the deep blue. If only Celine were hear to sing a song, I tell you, it would almost bring a tear to my eye.

Boo Hoo ... boo hoo. Is it health care reform goodbye?

Could be.

Tune in Sunday for the dog and pony show.

Comments

[john]

Red State is saying that Bob Bennett is open to a deal:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/09/16/it-is-time-to-go-to-defcon-1-bob-bennett-is-about-to-screw-america/

[Bob]

"Boo Hoo ... boo hoo. Is it health care reform goodbye?"

To anyone out there who's about to suffer irreparable harm to their health, or die, or become bankrupt because The United States has been unwilling to take care of tens of millions of its citizens the way other major countries do, Dan Riehl and his wingnut friends give you the finger.

[x11b1p]

Bob here is a thought, why don't you go sit at your local emergency room and tell the admitting nure that the next person that walks in unisured and needing basic medical attention that you will pay for it and to call you once a month to do so. Its not like Im asking you to enlist in the infantry and get a front line bunker position in Afghanistan.

[Bob]

" . . . tell the admitting nure that the next person that walks in unisured and needing basic medical attention that you will pay for it . . ."

Sure thing, x11b1p, if you agree to parachute into Pakistan to single-handedly put an end to Osama bin Laden, while also being on call to personally deal with my neighborhood's skunk problem every night. Also, you can be in charge of parking meter collections. Oh, and while you're at it please personally fix the potholes in my neighborhood.

But thanks, anyway, for proving that wing nuts are not serious about the healthcare crisis, and that they have nothing but callous disdain and angry rhetoric to offer in trying to solve any of our country's current issues.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Actually, Bob, x11b1p did offer a solution -- if you're so concerned about the uninsured, you pay for it.

But of course, you refused. And that's the whole point here; you want health care, but you don't want to pay for it. You are a moocher. Instead of reaching in your pocket and paying for this other person's health care, you go outside and scream about how "heartless" other people are.

Jay Rockefeller has a net worth of $200 million dollars. Impose a 50% asset tax on him, take that $100 million, and go start your own "public plan". After all, you libbies claim that it can pay for itself based on premiums, right? Shouldn't be any problem.

Why won't you pay directly for other peoples' health care, Bob? Why do you insist on imposing taxes? Is it because you, like Charles Rangel, don't pay them? Is that why you're so free to spend money -- because you and your fellow Obama liberals never pay for it?

[Ad rem]

Wow....looks like Harry Reid just put himself on one of the lifeboats....

Via Drudge....."Reid: Health care bill won't work for Nevada...."

Must be more that an little worried about his reelection.

[Captain Joe]

New Breitbart video tonite at 9 PM EST
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33581

[anon]

What crisis are you talking about Bob?

Are you talking about the monetary crisis wherein Medicare and Medicaid are not financially sustainable without a serious overhaul--either cutting benefits, raising taxes or further cutting reimbursements? That is a real and serious crisis that must eventually be dealt with one way or the other, the current plan(s) do nothing to address this crisis.

Or are you talking about the now 30 million people who don't have health insurance, who no one apparently knows how many of those people ALREADY qualify for Medicaid or state insurance but aren't subscribed, how many choose not to have health care, and how many REALLY cannot afford health care? This is largely a manufactured crisis since no one knows how many of the 'tens of millions' of uninsured people are at risk, and the country has been ticking along very well for over 200 years without universal health care.

The problem with liberals is that they can't be honest, they claim to want to solve the first, real crisis, but they only care about the second faux crisis. They want "free" health care for all and they simply refuse to admit that everyone cannot get "all" the health care they want without bankrupting the country.

The European systems are starting to show cracks because they have the same demographic problem that we do....an aging population...with the younger cohort not being large enough to make the current systems viable in the long term. Several EU countries are now running their health care systems in the red...and that is the single payer system that you yearn for.

What you advocate for is not sustainable, yet you don't care, all you care about is feeling good and noble because your heart is in the right place and you "care"

PS...nobody is dying in this country for lack of health care since all emergency rooms are legally bound to provide care to anyone who asks, even illegals, that is just emotional rhetoric with no basis in fact.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"What you advocate for is not sustainable, yet you don't care, all you care about is feeling good and noble because your heart is in the right place and you "care""

Actually, Anon, Bob DOESN'T "care". That was made obvious when his response to x11b1p's challenge to reach into his own pocket and pay for someone else's health care was to scream and resist.

His primary goal is to mooch and to take money from other people.

[anon]

Well, that's how most liberals are....they want YOU to pay for THEIR pet projects/people/causes....yet are always happy to exempt themselves from the effects of their misguided policies.

At this point, I don't care if health care reform passes because within a decade it will spell either the end of the Democratic Party as we know it or the end of American competitiveness.

Massachusetts...the 'blueprint' for universal care, touted by the NYTimes as a fine example of how 'do-able' it is now has the HIGHEST INSURANCE PREMIUMS in the nation.

That is what the country has to look foward to under Obama's plan.

[x11b1p]

"Sure thing, x11b1p, if you agree to parachute into Pakistan to single-handedly put an end to Osama bin Laden, while also being on call to personally deal with my neighborhood's skunk problem every night. Also, you can be in charge of parking meter collections. Oh, and while you're at it please personally fix the potholes in my neighborhood".

Yes to jumping into Pakistan, imagine if I single handedly caught OBL, and trust me Bob (this will hurt your feelings) I would make OBL talk. There would be no liberal love fest going on and he would pray for water boarding. I suspect any American would love to be the one to catch OBL (you excluded and possibly Pelosi and Obama). Yes I can deal with your skunk problem, sure i can collect money from parking meters, or fill in your neighbor's pot holes, I am not afraid of manual labor. Now if you are trying to demean me b/c I served this country and you feel that all airborne infantry men are stupid and the best they can do is fill pot holes and look for skunks, and collect money from parking meters, well that just shows everyone reading this 2 things: 1) what you think about the men and women serving and doing something you can't and 2) that you stereotype. (if you want to further this discussion about my job skills let Dan know and he can email me the specifics, I can demonstrate to you the finer points of the airborne infantry) That being said, you still did not really respond and ND40 hits the nail on the head, you are a leach, and you can’t defend anything you say with fact, just like Obama! Oh and you are probably a racist because based on what you said, I doubt many black or brown people live near you.

[North Dallas Thirty]

That is what the country has to look foward to under Obama's plan.

Yup; criminal illegal immigrants get free health care under the plan so that their family members don't have to pay a dime for them.

Like Barack Obama's Auntie Zeituni.

[Evil Red Scandi]

John beat me to it (and with a link), but the thought that not even one Republican will be bought off is ... overly optimistic. They'll make this bill bipartisan even if it costs them billions of dollars in pork to do so.

[Bob]

"Or are you talking about the now 30 million people who don't have health insurance . . ."

Even if I were to accept the 30 million figure, is that supposed to be a triflingly small number in your book, or what? Isn't that almost the population of our most populous state, California?

But go ahead and quibble with that number. The consequences on the other end of the equation are still the same:

Over 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

Over 20,000 Americans per year die from the effects of not having health insurance:
http://www.iom.edu/?id=17632

9/11 was supposed to be a crisis, and far fewer people died than those who die every year from not having health insurance. In the face of all of those deaths and all of those bankruptcies, you announce, "What crisis are you talking about Bob?" I bet United Health is thrilled to have oblivious people like you diddling away while Rome burns.

In any case, if other countries can manage the balance between effective care and controlling costs while having overall better health than our country, then that proves it's do-able.

[anon]

The new number came from President Obama in his latest speech he cited 'more than 30 million'...not 45 million...now, my take on that is that those other 15 million are illegal aliens that he decided to omit from the new number.

Oh, and the study you linked to says that over 70% of the people who went bankrupt ALREADY HAD INSURANCE.

So, again, Bob, I don't see what universal health care would have to do with people going bankrupt who have health care in the first place. Do you even read the stuff that you cite?

I don't believe that 20,000 people a year die from not having helath insurance and if you had any capacity for actual logic you would see that it simply doesn't make sense, in the same way it doesn't make sense to believe that 300,000 people a year die "from smoking"....smoking/not having insurance is one among many, many variables...and I can guarantee you that if every person in this country has health care and quits smoking we are not going to see 300,000 or 20,000 fewer people dying every year, not this year, or next year or in 30 years, because those statements are inappropriate and illogical deductions.

Like I said, Bob, the "other" countries are finding that they can no longer pay for their health care now that demographics are catching up with them, so they too will have to make some hard choices...and those choices aren't going to include everybody getting as much health care as they want from whatever doctor and hospital they want to get it from...that's a pipe dream.

[Ran]

Bob: "To anyone out there who's about to suffer irreparable harm to their health, or die, or become bankrupt because The United States has been unwilling to take care of tens of millions of its citizens the way other major countries do, Dan Riehl and his wingnut friends give you the finger."

One hardly knows where to begin with your lies. Look, liar, the US annually produces more medical advances and patents than the rest of the entire fvcking world COMBINED. Not that a flaming ignoramus such as you would know.

There are many millions of people such as myself here who went for decades without insurance... BECAUSE I COULD FVCKING AFFORD TO DIRECT-PURCHASE, BECAUSE IT WAS IN MY BEST INTEREST TO DO SO. I DIDN'T FVCKING NEED INSURANCE, ^SS H*LE. NEITHER DO MILLIONS, AND THEY AIN'T DYING.

If the US was so damnably retarded in care and backwards in it's access, then why, oh wise one, do wealthy Canadians and Britons and Germans and Saudis come here when they get very sick, eh?

Why is it that the advanced socialist paradise Mexico off-loads it's sick to us, oh wise one?

"9/11 was supposed to be a crisis, and far fewer people died than those who die every year from not having health insurance." Fvcking ignorance. Abysmal, fvcking ignorance. And lies, Bob. You lie.

[x11b1p]

Bob, lets look at your facts: Over 60% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills, or according to my math 900,000 bankruptcies (This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy/from your cnn article dated June 2009) yet this article states that "Consumer and commercial bankruptcy filings are on pace to reach a stunning 1.5 million this year, according to a report from Automated Access to Court Electronic Records." the Headline reads: Bankruptcy filings rise to 6,000 a day as job losses take toll http://tinyurl.com/ovqtr3 So what is it Bob, is job loss a reason why people can't pay their medical bills or is it that people who have jobs can't afford them? Let me quote again from the article "But filings are surging back in part because of rising job losses." Also, notice how you don’t reference the fact that part of the bankruptcies are commercial- I wonder why Bob? Now onto your other source of information. here is a morsel you left out from the Institute of Medicine, where you got your 18K die b/c no health insurance: "To help policy-makers, elected officials, and others judge and compare proposals to extend coverage to the nation's 43 million uninsured" So Bob, tell me, can you produce data that empirically demonstrates that 18K of the 43 million uninsured die b/c of a lack of insurance, because I did not see anything but talking points. When you click on the uninsured facts and figures there is no sourcing to a scientific study to support that 18K number. And, since its already been proven that the number of uninsured is a sliding political number and we are down to what 20 or 30 million now, does that not reduce the 18K#? Once again you fail to provide evidence that proves your point. What about it Bob are you full of or what?

[Bob]

"Fvcking ignorance. Abysmal, fvcking ignorance. And lies, Bob. You lie."

No, YOU lie, Ran. I've got proof for my claim. Where's yours? LOL.

http://www.iom.edu/?id=17632

Back in 2001, it was estimated that around 18,000 Americans die per year from the effects of not having health insurance. That's about, oh, 6 times the death toll of the 9/11 attacks. In the 8 years since 9/11, that would add up to over 100,000 Americans who died unnecessarily. If anything, that's a very conservative estimate too, because the numbers are going up by one to two thousand a year in the interim because even more people are uninsured.

So, dummy, where's your proof that this figure is not true?

[x11b1p]

http://tinyurl.com/q86m95 this article in USA Today states that: Headline: Bankruptcy filings rise to 6,000 a day as job losses take toll "Consumer and commercial bankruptcy filings are on pace to reach a stunning 1.5 million this year, according to a report from Automated Access to Court Electronic Records...But filings are surging back in part because of rising job losses." So BOB your cnn article attributes 60% of bankruptcy filings to medical bills that would be roughly 600,000 yet fails to mention the unemployment rate being a factor nor that the 1.5 number also includes commercial -HOW CONVIENINT THAT INFO IS LEFT OUT IF YOU HAVE AN AGENDA TO PUSH. So what is it, are people going bankrupt b/c they lose their job or b/c they have a job and can’t afford to pay their bills? The site that you reference (IOM) has some problems with its data especially the number you use: "18,000 people die per year from the effects of not having healthcare", http://tinyurl.com/oe7m75 "Continuing the saga, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) uncritically used the Franks result to claim that 18,000 deaths a year in the U.S. are attributable to a lack of health insurance. (See the 2002 report Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late.) The justification for this widely-publicized estimate appears in Appendix D, where the IOM adopts the Franks' 1.25 ratio without explanation or discussion". In a nut shell, the IOM is not able to explain certain variables to justify their numbers, HOW CONVIENINT THAT INFO IS LEFT OUT IF YOU HAVE AN AGENDA TO PUSH. SO Bob or should I say "DUMMY", I've offered up two counterpoints to your data, the first offers a more logical explanation for why bankruptcy filings are so high, and the second source proves that your source uses flawed data. "So, dummy, where's your proof that this figure is not true?" uh, you should not call someone a dummy when you yourself give new meaning to the term.

[Bob]

If you can't get your bankruptcy numbers to add up, x11b1p, I think it's just because you don't know what you're doing. If you have any specific, pertinent critique of the CNN story, then please share it. But if you're just whining about your own confusion over these numbers, then do your homework and get back to us later.

On the Institutes of Medicine study, let's see, we have a branch of the non-partisan and highly prestigious National Academies of Science on one hand, and then we have some conservative "economist" and political hack, John C. Goodman, on the other hand. Goodman was a well-known opponent of Hillary Clinton's healthcare reform plans back in the '90s. "HOW CONVIENINT THAT INFO IS LEFT OUT IF YOU HAVE AN AGENDA TO PUSH!!!" So we have real scientists on one hand, and a political hack on the other. Er, sorry, but I'm not convinced. Don't waste my time if you can't provide information that's not from hacks. Wing nut commentators have shown way too much bad faith over the healthcare "debate" to be taken seriously any more.

[North Dallas Thirty]

Meanwhile, let's watch and see what happens when the fact that Bob and his Barack Obama lie constantly is demonstrated with facts.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service states that, unlike Obama claims, Obama's bills WILL cover illegal immigrants.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamacare-wont-cover-illegal-immigrants--55021087.html

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that Obama's preventative care will not, unlike Obama claims, reduce costs -- and will in fact increase them.

http://politicalderby.com/2009/08/11/cbo-says-expanded-preventative-care-will-increase-cost/

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that Obama's health plans, rather than "bending the curve" of costs downward and saving money like Obama claims, will show no savings and will in fact vastly INCREASE costs.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/cbo-sees-no-federal-cost-savings-in-dem-health-plans.html

[x11b1p]

bob the usa today article offers another explanation for today’s bankruptcy rate, the cnn data you source was from 2007 and i'll even use a quote from the cnn article that you used to prove your point that medical costs are bankrupting people (is he a wing nut hack also):However, Peter Cunningham, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan policy research organization in Washington, D.C., isn't completely convinced. He says it's often hard to tell in which cases medical bills add to the bleak financial picture without being directly responsible for the bankruptcies.

"I'm not sure that it is correct to say that medical problems were the direct cause of all of these bankruptcies," he says. "In most of these cases, it's going to be medical expenses and other things, other debt that is accumulating."

Produce data that shows exactly how many people in 2009 filed for bankruptcy as a direct result of medical bills and nothing else?

Considering that you don’t own this site and are a visitor like the rest of us when you say this :"Don't waste my time if you can't provide information that's not from hacks. Wing nut commentators have shown way too much bad faith over the healthcare "debate" to be taken seriously any more". You can always go somewhere else because to most of us you are exactly what you accuse Goodman of being.

So prove his critique of Peter Frank's methodology is incorrect, the IOM did not do the research that came up with the number 18,000 its from a study that is over 20 years old. Prove John Goodman the wingnut is wrong and I am sure you gain status in the KOS hall of fame.

[x11b1p]

Oh Bob, look what I just found, I'll quote what you said, b/c I am laughing my ass of at it:
"On the Institutes of Medicine study, let's see, we have a branch of the non-partisan and highly prestigious National Academies of Science on one hand, and then we have some conservative "economist" and political hack, John C. Goodman, on the other hand. Goodman was a well-known opponent of Hillary Clinton's healthcare reform plans back in the '90s. "HOW CONVIENINT THAT INFO IS LEFT OUT IF YOU HAVE AN AGENDA TO PUSH!!!" So we have real scientists on one hand, and a political hack on the other. Er, sorry, but I'm not convinced. Don't waste my time if you can't provide information that's not from hacks. Wing nut commentators have shown way too much bad faith over the healthcare "debate" to be taken seriously any more."

Here is what Political Fact Check has to say about the number of people that die as a result of being uninsured: http://tinyurl.com/kt3b3d
"But a more recent paper raises questions about the IOM's conclusions. The paper, published online in April in HSR: Health Services Research, is by Richard Kronick of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California (San Diego) School of Medicine. Using data on adult health and mortality from the National Center for Health Statistics, which is a part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Kronick concludes that the Institute of Medicine's estimate (or any that replicates its methodology, such as Dorn's) is "almost certainly incorrect...The most notable difference between the Institute of Medicine's data — which were drawn from the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey as well as the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey — is that Kronick adjusted it for a number of demographic and health factors, such as status as a smoker and body mass index. When he did that, "the risk of subsequent mortality is no different for uninsured respondents than for those covered by employer-sponsored group insurance." In other words, once you compare death rates in an apples-to-apples fashion — comparing insured smokers to uninsured smokers, for instance — the likelihood of dying evens out. This, in turn, would mean that IOM's estimate of 18,000 deaths would drop essentially to zero."

Please read this again, just so you don't miss it and don’t forget when Goodman stated that the methodology used to get the 18,000 number that the IOM uses was flawed, you stated that it he was to be ignored b/c he is a hack: "This, in turn, would mean that IOM's estimate of 18,000 deaths would drop essentially to zero."

Just so you don’t forget and keep using it: "This, in turn, would mean that IOM's estimate of 18,000 deaths would drop essentially to zero."

No use calling you names or resorting to any liberal antics, I think the facts speak for themselves, on the merits of your sources which you use to argue for HCR you have "been weighed, measured and found to be wanting".

[x11b1p]

Bob, sorry for kicking you in the balls again, more from politcal fact check regarding your bankruptcy claim:

The statistic that we think is most reliable is the percentage of people who say medical bills were the reason for their bankruptcy, and that number is 29 percent. The 2007 study uses a broader definition to conclude that 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies have medical-related causes. Dodd is citing that number correctly. But we find that percentage questionable because it reflects a broad definition of medical issues that contribute to bankruptcy. We rate his statement Half True.

[Bob]

Oh, incidentally, looking through the PolitiFact.com health-related topics, I noticed that almost all of the most bad-faith statements on healthcare reform-related issues were made by the leading lights of the conservative movement -- people like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Steele, Roy Blunt, Sarah Palin, et al. These were such bad-faith statements that they didn't just receive a rating of "False," but were given the special category of "Pants on Fire" by PolitiFact. 10 out of the 12 "Pants on Fire" ratings went to conservative opponents of healthcare reform. The only two that didn't were a statement that Joe Biden made about how when someone sneezes in an airplane, it goes throught the entire aircraft, and another that was a campaign promise of John Edwards, and, well, who cares about him anyway?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/

[Bob]

Sorry, x11b1p, it looks like the server swallowed my earlier post responding to you, so this will be out-of-order with another post I made earlier. Let me summarize:

Yes, I think your item from PolitiFact.com DOES put the 18,000 deaths/year figure in doubt. It sounds like the newer study was done very carefully by an unbiased researcher. So I'll stop using that figure, although I'll note that PolitiFact rated it as "half-true" which probably means that the actual figure is up in the air for now, until more studies are done.

Other useful facts on healthcare reform on PolitiFact.com:

*PolitiFact thinks that a better estimate for the number of uninsured is 36 million. However, they rated Obama's cited figure of 45 million as "Mostly True" because the 36 million figure has undoubtedly risen in response to the economic crisis:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/18/barack-obama/number-those-without-health-insurance-about-46-mil/

*45% of Americans went without needed care because of costs in 2007.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/30/bill-pascrell/pascrell-says-45-percent-americans-went-without-ne/

On the issue you raised about bankruptcy rates, they rated Christopher Dodd's statement about 62% being due to medical expenses as "Dodd correctly cites a study that has issues."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/11/chris-dodd/medical-bankruptcy-study-not-clear-cut/

They found a more accurate estimate of the percentage to be 29% rather than 62%, because the lower number was STRICTLY due to medical expenses. What does that translate into in terms of absolute numbers? They say,

"Between 2001 and 2007, Congress overhauled the rules for bankruptcy, making the process more complicated. This drove down the number of overall bankruptcy filings. So the absolute numbers of medical bankruptcies is lower as well. The study doesn't give absolute numbers, so we did the math for you, using the studies' percentages and data from the American Bankruptcy Institute. In 2001, consumer filings were 1.45 million, so medical bankruptcies would have been 670,837 cases. In 2007, consumer bankruptcies were 822,590, so medical bankruptcies would have been 510,828."

So let's take the least of those numbers as a charitable, conservative low-ball estimate. That says that half-a-million Americans go bankrupt per year STRICTLY because of medical expenses. That doesn't happen in countries with decent universal healthcare systems. And this, to you, is not a serious problem?

To put it all in perspective, x11b1p, even revising the figures according to PolitiFacts studies says that a number of Americans approximately equal to the population of the state of California have no health insurance at all, and half-a-million Americans go bankrupt every year due to medical expenses. We don't know the exact numbers of people who die, but we do know that 45% of Americans went without needed care (hip replacements? bypass surgeries? cataract surgeries?) because they couldn't afford it. This doesn't happen in countries with good universal healthcare systems, and they do it in a sustainable way for far less cost than we do. I think these figures still amount to a terrible toll on our society that could and should be fixed.

Anyway, thanks for a good discussion.

[North Dallas Thirty]

But, of course, notice how Bob endorses and supports every single one of these statements.

"If we went back to the obesity rates that existed in 1980, that would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars."

McCain "has opposed stem cell research."

"As has been noted by many observers, including Bill Clinton's former secretary of labor, my plan does more than anybody to reduce costs."

Preventive care "saves money."

"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter."

Health insurance companies are "making record profits, right now."

On mandating health care coverage.

"Senator McCain would pay for part of his (health care) plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare — $882-billion worth."

Under John McCain's health care plan, people get a $5,000 tax credit to buy a $12,000 health care policy, and "that's a loss for you."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/subjects/health/

All made by Obama. Every one of them false. And yet Bob fully supports and endorses these lies, these outright, demonstrated lies, as being in "good faith".

Notice how all of a sudden Bob, who screams that anyone who points out Obama's lies or criticizes him is a "wing nut" and a "racist", will be running away.

[Bob]

"But, of course, notice how Bob endorses and supports every single one of these statements."

North Dallas, you're such a tiresome bullshitter. I'm willing to accept that McCain "has opposed stem cell research" (which I never expressed an opinion about and don't really CARE about anyway), if you concede that, yes, the survey results show that Medicare and the VA receive significantly higher ratings from their customers than private insurance. And since YOU'RE accepting PolitiFact's conclusions as definitive, then you'll also have to concede that at least half-a-million Americans go bankrupt every year because of healthcare costs. Is it a deal?

[North Dallas Thirty]

"And since YOU'RE accepting PolitiFact's conclusions as definitive"

Unfortunately, Bob, I've not said anything of the sort.

YOU are the one who has stated that PolitiFact's conclusions are definitive. YOU are the one who stated that anyone who said false things as defined by PolitiFact was not acting in good faith. And YOU are the one who has stated that Obama has never said anything false.

Now it is incumbent upon YOU to reconcile these issues. Either PolitiFact is a bad source or your Barack Obama is a liar who is acting in bad faith. You choose.

The problem here, Bob, is that you simply are mentally and intellectually incapable of admitting that your Obama lied. You've spent so much time convincing yourself that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist that you must support everything Obama says or be forced to brand yourself a racist.

Obama uses people like you freely. But I can't say that I pity you, since it's your choice to be used. Perhaps if you ever develop a set of intellectual principles or stop loathing your own skin color, you could be a useful member of society. But given your behavior here, seeing you go down with the Messiah to which you've chained yourself is an excellent example of the universe's own self-cleaning mechanism.

[Bob]

"Unfortunately, Bob, I've not said anything of the sort."

See? You're just a bullshitter who's not to be taken as either honest or honorable. Go play your pathetic little games with someone else.

[Bob]

Since we're on the subject of PolitiFact, we can check Obama's ratings in a FAIR way by doing an apples-to-apples comparison with some prominent Republicans. Obama had by far the most entries in their healthcare section, going back to when he was a candidate for president. They found that in 13 out of 23 cases (i.e. more than half of the time), his statements were "True" or "Mostly True." How did leading Republicans fare?

John Boehner: 1 out of 3 "True" or "Mostly True"

Rush Limbaugh: 0 out of 2 "True" or "Mostly True" (with 1 "Pants on Fire")

Sarah Palin: 0 out of 2 "True" or "Mostly True" (with 1 "Pants on Fire")

Put in perspective with these leading Republicans, Obama has been more truthful on average than any of them. Anybody who wants to tout PolitiFact.com's results as being overall favorable for their side is sorely mistaken.

[Bob]

Oops . . . that last sentence should read, "Any WING NUT who wants to tout . . ."

[North Dallas Thirty]

Thank you for so nicely demonstrating my point, Bob; namely that you are incapable of confronting or even acknowledging your Barack Obama's falsehoods. Your failure to do so further emphasizes that you simply are mentally and intellectually incapable of admitting that your Obama lied. You've spent so much time convincing yourself that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist that you must support everything Obama says or be forced to brand yourself a racist.

Again, YOU are the one who has stated that PolitiFact's conclusions are definitive. YOU are the one who stated that anyone who said false things as defined by PolitiFact was not acting in good faith. Additionally, YOU are the one who has stated that anyone who says false things cannot be trusted on anything. And YOU are the one who has stated that Obama has never said anything false.

Now it is incumbent upon YOU to reconcile these issues. Either PolitiFact is a bad source or your Barack Obama is a liar who is acting in bad faith. You choose.

Can you even confront that your Barack Obama said false things according to your own source, Bob? Can you apply the same rules to Barack Obama that you demand of everyone else?

Obviously you can't -- and that demonstrates completely your hypocrisy, Barack Obama's incompetence, and the Obama Party's addiction to lies and screaming "racist" rather than dealing in facts or in good faith.

[Bob]

"Now it is incumbent upon YOU to reconcile these issues. Either PolitiFact is a bad source or your Barack Obama is a liar who is acting in bad faith. You choose."

See, even according to your own terms, you can't even argue honestly. All politicians make statements that may not be correct, either based on mistakes or intentionally. The HONEST question to ask from your standpoint vis-a-vis PolitiFact, would be how does Obama stack up against OTHER politicians or commentators in an apples-to-apples comparison. In other words, what is the tally of TRUE, HALF-TRUE and FALSE statements associated not just with him, but with his peers on the other side of the aisle.

As I pointed out, according to PolitiFact, Obama is truthful with a higher frequency than Limbaugh, Palin or Boehner. In fact, Limbaugh and Palin are batting 1000 for being DISHONEST. This is an apples-to-apples comparison. If, using your own dishonest reasoning, Obama is a liar, then Limbaugh, Palin and Boehner are BIGGER liars. Either way, PolitiFact.com scores Obama as being more truthful than those Republicans.

A person like you who's never willing to concede a fair point ruins their own credibility. You obviously have no interest in truth. You're a pure hack. And I'd argue that a person who's never able to admit that they're wrong is neither honest nor honorable. Now run along and find some other leg to hump, you pathetic little putz.

[x11b1p]

Dan, having problems viewing what others post and dont even know if my posts make it - each time I view the site I get different view. Help

Sent you a Tweet.

[Bob]

Hey, wingnuts, I'm outta here for a few days. So you can kick me around with impunity til I get back. Don't be too mean when I'm not here to defend myself.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"All politicians make statements that may not be correct, either based on mistakes or intentionally."

Wrong, Bob. YOU are the one that said Obama has never said anything false. YOU are the one who has stated that PolitiFact's conclusions are definitive. YOU are the one who stated that anyone who said false things as defined by PolitiFact was not acting in good faith. Additionally, YOU are the one who has stated that anyone who says false things cannot be trusted on anything.

Now it is incumbent upon YOU to reconcile these issues. Either PolitiFact is a bad source or your Barack Obama is a liar who is acting in bad faith. You choose.

Can you even confront that your Barack Obama said false things according to your own source, Bob? Can you apply the same rules to Barack Obama that you demand of everyone else?

No, you can't. That's why you're running away. Typical. Coward.