09 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignBoth can certainly be sustained. SS only needs to broaden its tax base and/or make some eligibility changes. Medicare can do fine with additional funding and/or controls on pricing (other countries have Medicare like systems for the entire population). Your rhetoric is overblown but like most extremist right wingers you support the abolition of said programs; allowing old people to get money to live on or medical care is stealing from the Producers after all.
Then we disagree only in semantics. For as long as I can remember politicians call each other disingenuous instead of liars.
Can the soft-peddling, politically correct speak. Smack him with your glove and take it to a beach in New Jersey. A lie is a lie, whether by implication, direct assertion, or obfuscation.
At the end of the day, Medicare fixes get pushed further down the road, and become increasingly difficult if not impossible.
09 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Well first I agree with everything no1 said, but even playing devil's advocate to my own position...
A coupon for private insurance has a very similar effect to Medicare. The idea that the GOP wanted to "end Medicare" comes with the clear implication that the government was not going to continue to fund healthcare for the elderly. Their ads were mostly taking aim at this preposterous claim. Therefore, the Dem claim was a hysterical lie and richly deserved "lie ...[text shortened]... 149[/threadid]
Be that as it may, I still consider it a good site and is mostly reliable.
Just saying "They voted to end Medicare" and leaving it at that does leave the impression that they didn't propose some sort of replacement. I think at worst that deserved a 'Mostly False' rating, certainly not an outright 'False'. Giving it a "Pants on Fire" alone is way over the top and declaring it the "Lie of the Year" is absurd to the extreme.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou also have to take the implications of the statement into account, not just the technical truth value.
Well first I agree with everything no1 said, but even playing devil's advocate to my own position...
Just saying "They voted to end Medicare" and leaving it at that does leave the impression that they didn't propose some sort of replacement. I think at worst that deserved a 'Mostly False' rating, certainly not an outright 'False'. Giving is way over the top and declaring it the "Lie of the Year" is absurd to the extreme.
When Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky, that rated a pants on fire (so to speak) even if he never penetrated her. While the truth value of the statement might have been positive if you really want to stretch it, it was so clearly a denial and twist of people's normal association of the word, that it was tantamount to an outright lie in any case.
Same is true here. Even if you can twist the words to mean something true, the implication and more importantly, the way it was presented, made it a flagrant lie.
10 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Politifact always factors both fairly equally. If there is even the slightest semblance of truth they will almost always rate it a Mostly False (formerly Barely True).
You also have to take the implications of the statement into account, not just the technical truth value.
When Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky, that rated a pants on fire (so to speak) even if he never penetrated her. While the truth value of the statement might have been positive if you really want to stretch it, it was so clearly g true, the implication and more importantly, the way it was presented, made it a flagrant lie.
Really this could be a Half True. There is one side of truth on technical merit, but with a false implication that they didn't propose some type of replacement. What the Republicans wanted to replace it with was NOT Medicare. It was an entirely different program.
At worst it should have been a Mostly False. But rating it Pants on Fire, and the unbelievable "Lie of the Year" is just ludicrous. The Republicans did vote to end and replace Medicare, and there's a plethora of statements to choose from that don't even have a semblance of truth to them.
No doubt Politifact went out of their way to choose a Democrat because last year it was the Republicans.
10 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperUnder the Obama healthcare legislation, is it possible that at least one bureaucrat would have to make a decision about whether to cover certain requested healthcare and that such decision might eventually determine whether the potential recipient lives or dies?
Politifact always factors both fairly equally. If there is even the slightest semblance of truth they will almost always rate it a Mostly False (formerly Barely True).
Really this could be a Half True. There is one side of truth on technical merit, but with a false implication that they didn't propose some type of replacement. What the Republic tifact went out of their way to choose a Democrat because last year it was the Republicans.
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76No.
Under the Obama healthcare legislation, is it possible that at least one bureaucrat would have to make a decision about whether to cover certain requested healthcare and that such decision might eventually determine whether the potential recipient lives or dies?
Next?
10 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Our current system allows for that and I don't think Obama's healthcare system stopped that, but it also didn't insert bureaucrats either.
Under the Obama healthcare legislation, is it possible that at least one bureaucrat would have to make a decision about whether to cover certain requested healthcare and that such decision might eventually determine whether the potential recipient lives or dies?
Originally posted by sh76Here is Palin's quote:
Pants on fire
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's death panel so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
Who are the members of Obama's newly formed death panel that they would have to stand in front of? There is zero semblance of truth to this. In contrast, the Republicans DID vote to end Medicare. The fact that they tried to replace it with a coupon program and that wasn't mentioned is certainly worth a downgrade from 'True,' but by your bogus parallel all rated statements that aren't 100 true should get Pants on Fire and Lie of the Year. And I have no doubt you know your comparison is bologna.