Poll: Big Majorities Dismiss Leading Right Wing Health Care Attacks As “Scare Tactics”
Wow, this is cause for cautious optimism: Buried in a new Bloomberg poll is evidence that solid majorities dismiss all the leading right wing health care talking points as “scare tactics.”
Not kidding! It’s true. The poll tested a range of attacks and asked whether they were “legitimate” or a “disortion” and a “scare tactic.” The results:
* Sixty-three percent said the claim that “death panels of government officials would decide how much medical care ailing individuals will receive” is a scare tactic, versus 30% who said it’s legit.
* Fifty-nine percent said the claim that “health care would be rationed” is a scare tactic, versus 35% who said it’s legit.
* Fifty-two percent said the claim that “health care would become socialized medicine” is a scare tactic, versus 43% who said it’s legit.
* Sixty-one percent said the claim that “government money would be used to pay for abortions” is a scare tactic, versus 33% who said it’s legit.
* Fifty-eight percent said the claim that “government money would pay for health care for illegal immigrants” is a scare tactic, versus 37% who said it’s legit.
How to square these numbers with other polls showing a far more credulous public? My bet is that by explicitly offering people the choice of seeing an assertion as a “scare tactic,” it encourages far more skepticism than polls that merely ask whether people agree with the claims.
Of course, it’s worth noting that in response to the attacks, the Senate finance committe bill dropped the public option, nixed end of life counseling and tightened up restrictions on illegal immigrants. In other words, even if the right type of cajoling can get folks to dismiss the nonsense as bogus, it won’t stop the assertions from shaping the legislation.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Hopefully this will reflect poorly on Republicans judgment and will carry into polling stations come 2010 and 2012.
“Sixty-one percent said the claim that “government money would be used to pay for abortions” is a scare tactic, versus 33% who said it’s legit.”
Speaking of that, did you see this?
“A House Democrat on Wednesday insisted he has the votes to kill the House’s healthcare bill unless lawmakers agree to an amendment that would strip all abortion funding from the proposal.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59045-stupak-threatens-to-block-house-healthcare-bill
Damn, I love my life. Just when I’m ready to give up and join those on the left who are convinced the majority of Americans are idiots, Americans go and prove them wrong.
I love it. I don’t like thinking the majority of people I share a country with are that stupid.
What’s you nonpoint, sbj? Are trying to say abortion is covered now? Cause it’s not. I don’t care what some Democratic Rep is saying. Federal funds have never gone for abortions but your insurance company covers them.
Why the double standard? Hmmmm?
My bet is that by explicitly offering people the choice of seeing a claim as a “scare tactic,” it encourages them to be far more skeptical than polls that merely ask people whether they agree with the claims.
Probably.
@tena: You should probably go read the rest of that poll before jumping to any conclusions!
For instance, when Obama said there will be ways to pay for the plan so it will not add one dime to the federal budget deficit, only 24% agreed that it would be possible, 39% felt that Obama had made an inaccurate statement. (Hmm, what’s another word for “inaccurate statement?”)
Plenty of other eye openers. Good stuff.
@tena: My point – entirely – was to bring up some current news relevant to the matter at hand.
Looks like we need advanced psychiatric care for about 30% of America. Sounds about right.
Greg:
“it didn’t stop the assertions from shaping the [DOA POS Baucus'd] legislation”
I’ve told you before to save your links. I don’t click them.
I already know what they’re going to say. There’s nothing eye-opening about the ridiculous ongoing stupid opposition on the basis of fairy tales.
Y’all were sure granny was going to be ground up and fed to turkeys. Now it’s little babies.
God knows what’s next – o yeah, rationing care to the disabled. I read that somewhere this morning.
Just save it, man. I wish abortion was covered. I think it’s absurd that we have a recognized constitution right to privacy in our bodies and we still have to deal with this notion that we are nothing more than walking wombs to be controlled.
@tena: “I’ve told you before to save your links. I don’t click them. I already know what they’re going to say.”
How can you learn?
And sbj – you still avoided my question. Private insurance carriers do fund abortions. Does yours? If so, how come you use them and how come you have a double standard?
obviously, sbj, I don’t think there’s a thing you can teach me.
They need to do a poll asking how many Americans think the insurance and pharma lobbyists are shaping the health care bill. Especially the Max lobbyist darling Baucus bill.
All of which just raises the question, if the Dem plan is so popular, why not just pass it already?
“if the Dem plan is so popular, why not just pass it already?”
god I need a guide to the wingnuts to keep up with this – your side is the side delaying the thing. Your side keeps saying: What’s the hurry.
Now you’re saying pass it already? Make up your mind or just signal when you’re going to reverse yourself again.
@tena: You could learn a thing or two by reading The Hill.
You have made quite a few assumptions about my beliefs regarding abortion. You know what happens when you assume.
Thank you Greg.
Nice evasion of the question.
I appreciate your advice on what I should read. Life is only so long and there’s a lot to read.
I can’t answer your question. It makes incorrect assumptions making the question illogical.
“Private insurance carriers do fund abortions. Does yours?”
I haven’t a clue.
“If so, how come you use them?”
I would not base on my decision on whether they provide abortions.
“How come you have a double standard?”
I don’t.
See what I mean?
Yes, I think these questions were nicely designed. And it is encouraging.
“58% said the claim that ‘government money would pay for health care for illegal immigrants’ is a scare tactic, versus 37% who said it’s legit.”
Unfortunately, the White House has already made it pretty clear (according to MSNBC http://bit.ly/wQvGj) that:
“administration also concedes that hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants.”
So the way the question is framed simply reveals the # of poll responders who were ignorant of the fact that both the White House and the opposition agreed that the bill would indeed fund illegals at the time the poll was being conducted.
That 58% of these poll responders were devoid of the actual fact, as agreed by both sides of the debate at the time, says much about the validity of the “results” and their usefulness to those of us who are concerned about the truth in reality before we formulate a judgment about it.
If you don’t, why do you keep bringing it up?
See what I mean?
““administration also concedes that hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants.””
I’ll bet you $100 right now that if you asked Americans whether they would rather illegal immigrants get ER care, or whether they wanted to have to prove their own citizenship every time they had an emergency, you’d get back a huge majority that would understand the situation.
You can only use a teabag a limited number of times, before you end up with just a cup of bitter, undrinkable P*iss.
That is what has happened to the Teabag movement. Their teabags have lost their potency, from overuse.
I wonder what percentage of the people saying these are scare tactics are Democratic voters who don’t care whether it is a government takeover (all you “of course I like single payer myself” people). Or who don’t pay any income taxes and so don’t care whether it is going to cost trillions. Also, was this even likely voters?
Liam – so true.
Can you get an inkling now why I always did trust the timing, when everyone else was freaking? They’ve run out of arguments.
“So the way the question is framed simply reveals the # of poll responders who were ignorant of the fact that both the White House and the opposition agreed that the bill would indeed fund illegals at the time the poll was being conducted.”
disagree — the poll shows that majorities don’t think the claim about illegal immigrants is significant and that the focus on it by reform plan foes represents a distortion and a scare tactic, if not an outright 100% falsehood
Isn’t it just HYSTERICAL that basically 30% of the Country’s public is getting media attention in such a way as to reflect that they are actually the majority? Many of us have been saying this most of the summer. Just because people are showing up at townhalls screaming doesn’t mean they reflect the majority, but wow do they get cable coverage like they do. How many times did we hear talking heads go on and on about how these townhallers reflect the voice of “real Americans”, “middle class Americans”, “Reagan voter-type Americans” – Seriously, I listened to Joe Scarbourough on Morning Joe almost every single morning going on and on and on about how Democrats dismissing the townhallers was a fatal mistake, that these people represented the heart of middle America and that he too saw this silent majority rise up in 1994 as a rejection of the Democrats…I think Joe burned up major calories this summer putting all sorts of energy into trying to convince his audience that the townhallers were the middle America silent majority and most of us, no matter how many times he said it, can see right through this…these are not the majority of middle Americans showing up screaming at townhalls, these are the roughly 30% of the public that don’t think the **** that the GOP is spewing are scare tactics. @ 30% – that’s what all the fuss has been about. And the reason this is so obvious, is because the majority that voted for POTUS last November knew he was going to reform health care with a public option, he said it over and over again & the majority of Americans voted for him. Now there may be a variety of opinions on how POTUS has handled the H/C reform debate, but make no mistake, if someone voted for POTUS last fall, they new H/C reform was on his main platform, and if they didn’t, then they never listened to one single speech or looked at one single piece of campaign material. So there we have it folks…all the hyperventelation over approximately 30-35% of the American public – what an utter MSM fail!
“Isn’t it just HYSTERICAL that basically 30% of the Country’s public is getting media attention in such a way as to reflect that they are actually the majority? Many of us have been saying this most of the summer. Just because people are showing up at townhalls screaming doesn’t mean they reflect the majority, but wow do they get cable coverage like they do.”
Word straight up.
And cable sure spread the idea, as well, that you could get away with carrying a gun to see the president.
Chris Matthews was indignant about it, but having that guy on was unwise, to say the least.
Tena said:
“god I need a guide to the wingnuts to keep up with this – your side is the side delaying the thing. Your side keeps saying: What’s the hurry.”
Republicans have no power to delay anything. If Dems were confident their “reforms” were so popular, they would just pass them. Would have a long time ago.
The question is why they haven’t.
@ sbj, why don’t you explain to us again how serious and mainstream the GOP is even though you aren’t one. Also, just wondering. Did you ever find your evidence of how the Dems embraced the truthers like the Repubs have the birthers? Just wondering. I figured you’ve had plenty of time by now. Oh wait, how about a link to a cartoon or a movie quote.
Whether people want illegals covered is a separate issue and voters are free to have any opinion they like about it.
My point is 58% in this poll are hanging the label “scare tactic” on a fact which is agreed by both sides in the debate.
If the facts are that “scary”, perhaps these people should reconsider whatever support they might have for the plan.
“Republicans have no power to delay anything. If Dems were confident their “reforms” were so popular, they would just pass them. Would have a long time ago.”
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
god y’all are transparent anymore.
@Tena,
It was a very effective tactic, that was played wrong. For starters, they let the biggest kooks walk around with their crack pot signs, calling for violence, etc. Then the let their most irrational people take over the town hall meetings, instead of weeding out those people, the same way they weeded out all protesters, from all Bush events.
That was their first huge mistake, because TV always shows the sensational, if you provide it for them, and that is the ugly face of the movement, that the nation as a whole were shown.
Secondly, by the time they got to the Washington rally, people around the country had seen it all before, so it had lost it’s shock value. Had it been managed better, they would have been better off to not go the Town hall shouting route, and saved the presentation shock value for one big national rally.
They had said it all before, so they had nothing new to say on Saturday.
That was their biggest blunder. One never gives away the ending during the opening, and middle acts. They did, which reveals how fortunate we were to have such stupid opponents.
“They did, which reveals how fortunate we were to have such stupid opponents.”
Don’t for one second imagine that is lost on many people.
heh heh heh -
But still, 30-40% of Americans are still dumb as rocks. The irony of all this is that I now support mandatory death panels. Let’s start with birthers.
Unless more competition and the openning of Highly Concentrated areas to an expanded market are in the bill, it is not reform! -Kevo
Many of you seem to be arguing that the town hall protests and the 9/12 demonstration have been counter-productive. I have one question: Have you read the poll to which Greg links?
“For each of the following, please tell me if you are mostly optimistic or mostly pessimistic.
A. The U.S. government’s economic plan
Mostly optimistic – 46
Mostly pessimistic – 48
Not sure – 6
D. The ability of the government’s stimulus program to
create jobs
Mostly optimistic – 49
Mostly pessimistic – 48
Not sure – 3
Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president? (Follow with:)
B. With the economy
Approve – 50
Disapprove – 45
Not sure – 5
C. With health care
Approve – 47
Disapprove – 48
Not sure – 5
D. With the budget deficit
Approve – 38
Disapprove – 55
Not sure – 7
How confident are you that Barack Obama’s economic team will be able to fix the problems that caused the nation’s financial crisis?
16 – Very confident
22 – Fairly confident
28 – Just somewhat confident
33 – Not confident
1 – Not sure
Which do you think would do the most good to help the economy?
28 – More spending, even with bigger deficit
62 – Cutting deficit even with longer-lasting recession
10 – Not sure
My point is that “health care coverage” for illegal immigrants is expressly forbidden in every bill I know of so far – and it’s expressed more than once in some.
They aren’t getting coverage. The most they can get without paying is trauma care – and I suppose you’d rather some illegal immigrant who gets his arm cut off in a thresher should just bleed to death.
The problem is, your kid might bleed to death in an ER if you couldn’t prove your citizenship if we don’t have the ER exception.
So it is a scare tactic to keep insisting illegal immigrants will get health care coverage. No they won’t – they’ll get triage = which we probably even give our enemies in a war zone from time to time.
jeez, the absolute cruelty of the right’s greed never ceases to amaze me. And their short-sightedness.
O, those numbers! We are so doooooooooooooooomed, sbj.
The scales droppeth from mine eyes.
Kevo
That’s what I’ve been saying. I’ve read the Baucus framework and it won’t do what the President promised. They can’t mandate like that and then do nothing to expand competition (co-ops are not the answer IMO) and then also shrink the subsidies. We’ll be back where we started with just more people having coverage they can’t afford.
Liam
I think their other blunder was so many in the Senate and House jumping on the bandwagon and trying to act like the distortions of the bills had some merit. Especially Chuck “you have reason to fear” Grassley.
“So the way the question is framed simply reveals the # of poll responders who were ignorant of the fact that both the White House and the opposition agreed that the bill would indeed fund illegals at the time the poll was being conducted.”
disagree — the poll shows that majorities don’t think the claim about illegal immigrants is significant and that the focus on it by reform plan foes represents a distortion and a scare tactic, if not an outright 100% falsehood
Greg, with all due respect you’re missing my point. The fact that the White House itself has confirmed the statement “government money would pay for health care for illegal immigrants” means there should have been no debate about the legitimacy of the claim at the time the poll was conducted.
The fact that 58% perceived it as “just a scare tactic” (or distortion, or outright falsehood) and not a fact verified by the WH illustrates they were patently ignorant of the truth while disavowing the claim as a “scare-tactic”.
“We are so doooooooooooooooomed.”
Unfortunately, tena, with the polls, you gotta take the bad with the good.
“Greg, with all due respect you’re missing my point. The fact that the White House itself has confirmed the statement “government money would pay for health care for illegal immigrants” means there should have been no debate about the legitimacy of the claim at the time the poll was conducted.”
Let me see if I can explain this in small words: the coverage that illegal immigrants get in the bills is exactly the same coverage they have right now and always have had. It’s called Humanitarian aid. I realize that’s something the right doesn’t get, but there it is.
sbj – please save it until the day that Obama’s numbers even approach Bush’s low – by 10 points.
And if you really want a challenge,I’ll pin it to Cheney’s.
sbj. You’ve got to know by now that Tena has tunnel vision directed only to sources that she knows in advance she’ll agree with. You’ve established a co-dependent relationship over the internet with a left wing troll. Wierd, what love can make men do. But who knows? Carville and Matelin come to mind.
actuator – i just lost my lunch.
“Let me see if I can explain this in small words: the coverage that illegal immigrants get in the bills is exactly the same coverage they have right now and always have had. It’s called Humanitarian aid. I realize that’s something the right doesn’t get, but there it is.”
Thus admitting that the statement “government money would pay for health care for illegal immigrants” is actual fact and NOT a “scare tactic”.
If even those of us who need it simplified into small words understand that, why didn’t 100% of poll responders simply check “legitimate”?
Sorry Tena. I wonder how sbj’s taking it.
“Let me see if I can explain this in small words: the coverage that illegal immigrants get in the bills is exactly the same coverage they have right now and always have had. It’s called Humanitarian aid. I realize that’s something the right doesn’t get, but there it is.”
Um, no. This is wrong. HR3200 expands those eligible for emergency Medicaid.
I am ashamed.
Tena – it’s time we hold an intervention for you. I will take my share of the blame for enabling your self-destructive behaviors…
Given we are still in an economic mess and that a final healthcare bill isn’t through being written, I don’t find those numbers too alarming. Yet.
“I’ll bet you $100 right now that if you asked Americans whether they would rather illegal immigrants get ER care, or whether they wanted to have to prove their own citizenship every time they had an emergency, you’d get back a huge majority that would understand the situation.”
I’ll also bet you that if you ask Americans if hospital ERs should turn away illegal immigrants with highly contagious treatment resistant tuberculosis, even the Glenn Beck Republicans would favor reconsider a little “socialism.”
Poll shows public uninformed and brainwashed by liberal media. When BO and ACORN decide on the life of your grandparents, you’ll regret not listening to facts. We have to get Obama out of there. He’s not American (no birth certificate ever given), so who is he working for? Vote Republican in 2010 as if your life depended on it! IT DOES!
This poll won’t be in MSM, guaranteed!!
Hmmm, how’s Vegas sound. You know what goes on in Vegas stays…
oh Jason – get out of here!
“I’ll bet you $100 right now that if you asked Americans whether they would rather illegal immigrants get ER care, or whether they wanted to have to prove their own citizenship every time they had an emergency.”
No one is asking for proof of citizenship for emergency care. Where did this get started?
Obama (Obama!) supports a provision that requires proof of citizenship before purchasing insurance from the exchange.
Big difference.
@chuck. Agreed. However, I don’t think it bodes well for 2010 midterms.
“No one is asking for proof of citizenship for emergency care. Where did this get started?”
Aaaaaaaarghghghghghgh!
How frelling dense are you?
If the “coverage” you claim is in the the reform bill wasn’t there we’d all be required to prove citizenship in the ER because that is the only coverage anyone is talking about. How would they know who they were supposed to turn away without some proof?
I’m off this thread – I can’t take teh stupid – it burns.
Tena, tena, tena. The proof of citizenship that Obama wants is required to purchase health insurance in the HR3200 exchange.
No one can be turned away from emergency service in this country.
HR3200 expands the eligibility of illegal aliens for emergency Medicaid.
Purchase health insurance – NOT obtain emergency care.
Oops! I’m enabling again, aren’t I?
What? I thought the majority of Americans were in Washington last weekend protesting the President and Health Care Reform! Glenn Beck said that according to the “University of I Don’t Know” there were like 200 million people there!! This poll CAN’T BE RIGHT!!
sbj – “Hmm, what’s another word for ‘inaccurate statement?’”
Do you mean innacurate statement as in the following:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” – Dick Cheney
“Mission accomplished” – George W. Bush
“Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.” – Ari Fleischer
“Fair and Balanced” – Faux News
“61% said the claim that “government money would be used to pay for abortions” is a scare tactic, versus 33% who said it’s legit.”
Ahem – http://bit.ly/2flFN0
If you want to argue with the ACLU be my guest.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure. So said the Supreme Court of the land, repeatably.
Pregnancy complications, which endanger the life of a woman, and require medical care, should be paid for under all healthcare policies.
A woman has a right to have her life saved by a legal medical procedure.
“Abortion is a legal medical procedure. So said the Supreme Court of the land, repeatably. Pregnancy complications, which endanger the life of a woman, and require medical care, should be paid for under all healthcare policies. A woman has a right to have her life saved by a legal medical procedure.”
Understanding all of this, why then would coverage under the plan be labelled a “scare tactic” by 61% and not a “legitimate” claim by 100%?
I think the issue with abortion being covered in any sort of “public option” being funded by the federal government, is far more complex than it appears. The ambiguity and disagreement occur in cases where the Mother’s life is at risk. If the Mother will DIE without an abortion, then some people believe its a valid medical procedure which should be covered under all insurance plans.
Because the Boy molesting clergy, and a cluster of Hill Billy Ayatollahs have whipped their followers into a frenzy about it, and even refuse communion to elected officials who refuse to break their oath of office, to uphold the constitution; that is why.
When JFK was running for President, The Hill Billy Ayatollahs were against him, because they were afraid that The Vatican would try to run the government, and that a catholic President would do what the pope wanted, instead of upholding the constitution.
Flash forward, and now we have the exact opposite taking place. The Hilly Billy Ayatollahs have joined forces with the Vatican, in an effort to force the President, and other elected officials to violate their oath of office, To Support And Defend The Constitution.
And, as far as the 61% who believe its a “scare tactic”I imagine these folks are assuming that “abortion” in this instance means a form of birth control and includes multiple abortions or late term abortions — where its a choice rather than a medical necessity. So, they conclude (rightly) that these sorts of procedures will not be covered under a public option.
“No one can be turned away from emergency service in this country. ”
Let me get through to you: You do not have the first, second or third clue what you are talking about because you don’t get it. You just keep doing the side-step – so whatever.
You are either sincerely as clueless as you seem, or you are just doing it to be argumentative. Either way there is no point in my talking to you about it anymore. I’ve made it as clear as I can.
Rebecca – “If the Mother will DIE without an abortion, then some people believe its a valid medical procedure which should be covered under all insurance plans.”
Good point…problem is when we look at the law and it’s interpretation we find that the term “medical necessity” is frequently used instead of “life-saving”. Typically courts intepret “necessity” as defined by the mother, and “medical necessity” if the Dr. agrees with her.
This language and interpretation essentially open public payments for abortions to any woman who wants one, any time she wants one.
I don’t have a problem with a woman having an abortion; that is a decision between her, the unborn baby and God. My issue is about the govt forcing others to pay for that abortion even if it is decidedly against their fundamental sense of morality.
A totally separate argument is the abject hypocrisy demonstrated the minute anyone raises the slightest notion of the right of the father to “choose.”
President Obama said that the Public Option will be paid for out of membership fees, just like the Private Insurance Options are. That means that there will be no government money involved, therefore the same rules about paying for medical care, for pregnant women, should apply, as those for the Private Insurance plans.
If the government forbids that the Public Option, payed for by it’s members, can not cover an abortion procedure, where the health of the mother is involved, then that bill will violate the constitution, and will not hold up in courts, so we will be back to square one.
Will they refuse to also pay for vasectomies, and Viagra?
Think about it folks. The right wingers want government to stay out of the lives of people, except when it comes to bedrooms and the reproductive rights of women, or the sexual orientation of **** and lesbians. By God, the God of their imagination, they sure want the government to be completely in charge of those peoples’ private lives.
I love this blogs software. It posts the word lesbians, but it censors the wor g*ays. That shows you how pervasive the invasive power of The Hill Billy Ayatollahs has become.
Lots of people are against the death penalty. The catholic church is against it, but strangely enough they never refuse communion to elected officials who support the death penalty. How is that for Cognitive Dissonance!
But, to make my key point. The tax money of people who oppose the death penalty goes into paying for executing those people, so why should a legal abortion procedure be treated any differently.
Rebecca – “I imagine these folks are assuming that “abortion” in this instance means a form of birth control and includes multiple abortions or late term abortions — where its a choice rather than a medical necessity. So, they conclude (rightly) that these sorts of procedures will not be covered under a public option.”
If abortions are currently covered under Medicaid (as per my ACLU reference above) how do you figure they will not continue to be covered under Medicaid without specific language limiting gov funding to $0?
The statement “government money would be used to pay for abortions” is FACT. (also, you can replace “would be” with “would continue to be”) What does this say about the people who labelled the statement a “scare tactic”? Are they unaware that the gov pays for abortions and would continue to do so under any proposed bill without specific language limiting the funding to $0?
Why didn’t they all just check “legitimate”?
Why is it a “scare tactic” to openly state a fact?
Liam – you said:
“If the government forbids that the Public Option, payed for by it’s members, can not cover an abortion procedure, where the health of the mother is involved, then that bill will violate the constitution, and will not hold up in courts, so we will be back to square one.”
Can you explain how NOT funding abortions would be unconstitutional?
sbj:
“HR3200 *expands* the eligibility of illegal aliens for emergency Medicaid.”
Site where HR3200 does this. In addition, explain who is paying for illegal aliens today that get treated at the hospital.
HR3200 is cheaper than what Americans are currently paying to cover those that fail to pay their hospital bills, since all US citizens and legal resident aliens will be required to have health insurance. This means that instead of going to the hospital, because they’ve let their condition worsen, these people will now go see a normal doctor which is much cheaper.
Some of these people will receive a credit to get their health insurance. The cost to taxpayers for these credits will be less than what insured Americans are currently paying through increased premiums to cover the uninsured that fail to pay their hospital bills.
Covering illegal aliens might actually be good policy, but it is poor politics, and that is why HR3200 does not cover illegal aliens contrary to your statement.
Excuse me, that is, “Cite where HR3200 does this.”
Stupid typos.
Because it is a legal medical procedure. Refusing to pay for it, and treating it different that all other medical procedures, would lead to legal challenges, and the bill would get thrown out, just like all the prior bills that did not include an exception for the health and life of the mother. It would be just an attempt at trying to get the same violation of a woman’s rights, through the back door, again.
If the new law says that no one can be refuse medical coverage, and since abortion, is a legal medical procedure, and has been ruled so, more than once, by the Supreme Court of the USA, then there is not a legal justification for refusing to pay for it.
Is it funny or sad to see how many of our fellow citizens are so eager to be and easily duped by Republicans?
And the congressional Republicans are so child-like. Before I got deep into politics, I thought these folks were intelligent. I feel like a rocket scientist compared to Bachmann, Steele, Cantor, Boehner, and Palin etc.
@kirk: Please review the link:
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40773_20090825.pdf
“The bill as reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would extend Medicaid coverage up to 133 1/3% of poverty for populations that previously were not covered (e.g.,childless adults and many parents). This extension of benefits could mean an increase in the
number of noncitizens who already meet the immigration status requirements for Medicaid eligibility (e.g., refugees, LPRs in the country more than five years) who would be eligible for Medicaid.
…………….
In addition, this change could also mean that more noncitizens who meet the categorical and income eligibility standards for Medicaid but are barred due to their immigration status (e.g., nonimmigrants, unauthorized aliens) would be eligible for emergency Medicaid (discussed below).
…………..
Notably, the House Energy and Commerce Committee added a section to H.R. 3200 that reiterates current law that unauthorized aliens are not eligible for full-benefit
Medicaid coverage.”
You are wrong.
Government money is used to execute people. Massive amounts of government money are spent to kill people in war, etc.
If anti abortionists get to say when the government can not spend tax money, because of their beliefs, then so should all pacifists, and those who oppose the death penalty.
Fair is fair. If no government funds can be spend on abortions, then no government funds can not be spend on war, because a significant number of citizens object to having their tax dollars used in that manner.
There you go. Let us ban the government from funding abortions, the death penalty, and wars, because certain segments of the population do not want their taxes paying for them.
edit:
then no government funds can be spend on war, because a significant number of citizens object to having their tax dollars used in that manner.
Liam – please see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
to understand how you are in error.
BUT, if you WERE correct then the current HR3200 provision for a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” which would have the obligation to determine what “legal medical procedures” the govt will or will not pay for, would be unconstitutional.
So, which is it?
“then no government funds can be spend on war, because a significant number of citizens object to having their tax dollars used in that manner.”
The Constitution expressly enumerates the power of Congress to declare war. We’d be a lot better off if we had a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights, but the govt is not mandated to pay for every right we have. It is mandated to stand aside as we express those rights, inasmuch as we do not infringe on another’s right when we do so.
We have the constitutional right to bear arms as well, but the gov’t isn’t handing out shotguns is it?
Liam – one more thing:
I want cosmetic surgery to make me look *exactly* like Elvis Presley. It is a legal medical procedure, therefore the gov’t *must* pay for it under the plan, right?
Absurd.
sbj:
Thank you for proving me correct that HR3200 doesn’t expand coverage for illegal immigrants. I knew you would be incapable of citing a provision of the bill as I had asked, because there is no such provision.
Jenn D – “Isn’t it just HYSTERICAL that basically 30% of the Country’s public is getting media attention in such a way as to reflect that they are actually the majority?”
“Isn’t it just HYSTERICAL that basically 13.5% of the Country’s public is getting media attention in such a way as to reflect that everyone else is racist?”
More species arguments from those who want to control women.
A medical procedure to protect the health or life of a woman, is a medical emergency.
Cosmetic surgery to improve your self esteem, is not a medical emergency.
I get tired of the right playing the abortion card everytime they get stuck. In my opinion, the GOP’s only platform is No Taxes for the Rich, No Abortions for the Poor! The rich can always get an abortion if they want….weather it’s legel or not in this country. They just go on holiday to another country where it is legal. The Poor on the other hand have NO other options or choses. There are Way Too many people, we have got to do something to control overpopulation….birth control should be FREE for one thing!
Typing is off tonight.
edit: specious arguments
It is mostly about a bunch of men, trying to take women back to the days when they were fully under the control of men, and kept barefoot and pregnant.
Even though the Right Wing Christian Leaders claim that they supported the Invasion of Iraq, because it would liberate women, in fact it is amazing how the Hill Billy Ayatollahs want to control women in almost the same manner as the Iraq Ayatollahs do.
Kirk – just my 2 cents – the poll didn’t ask whether the plan would “expand” coverage for illegals…it simply said “government money would pay for health care for illegal immigrants” was considered a “scare tactic” by 58%.
Thanks for proving ME right
Sorry Liam but you stated quite clearly that the main reason NOT paying for abortions was unconstitutional was because abortion is a legal medical procedure.
You said: “Because it is a legal medical procedure. Refusing to pay for it, and treating it different that all other medical procedures, would lead to legal challenges,…”
Using your logic here, you *must* also pay for my Elvis surgery, or face legal challenges over the opression of Elvis lovers everywhere who want to honor his memory by looking exactly like him. I have as much right to govt funded Elvis surgery as any woman has to gov’t funded abortion.
If you think I don’t, please explain how / why?
Text of the official Tea Party proclamation:
We here tee party folks hereby proclame we is agin everthin that the unamerican afercan Obamer’s is fer, on account of him bein’ born sumwhere’s else, in afern country wich is Hawaii. That ther Obamer shor is a smooth tawker but he ain’t foolin’ us fer a minut with his smartass Notsi helth kare tryin’ to make us all into Communists like Kennedy and huntin’ down our kinfolk soon as they’s a turning sixty five and tryin’ to force folks to quit eatin’ deep fried squerls and eat vejtibles on account o’ kalesstral. We also hereby proclame that it jes ain’t natural fer a man of Obamer’s compleckshun to be our right full President and so we’re jes gonna go ‘n’ haveta take our country back cuz he dun took it illegle and snuck it away from us when we wuzzint payin’ attenshun so help us Jesus, Amen.
The United States does ration medical care, it gives it to people who can afford it, and takes it away from people who can’t afford it, e.g. because they have lost their job or happened to be born with a pre-existing condition. Why the richest country in the world would accept rationing of this sort I have no idea. It is morally reprehensible, and degrades the U.S.’s standing in the world.
Let us keep it simple.
Why should a women not be reimbursed, under her health care coverage plan, for getting an abortion to save her life?
If it is because you object to your tax dollars being spent that way, then…
Pacifists should have the same right to stop taxes being spent on wars,
And death penalty opponents should have the right to prevent any tax money being spent on executions, or trials that seek the death penalty.
Your set of moral values are not entitled to special consideration, while other groups moral values are not.
Notice how the anti-abortion crusade is dominated by men.
It is not about where taxes are spent. That is just a flimsy camouflage, rigged up to conceal that it is all about controlling women.
What is the Difference between Middle Eastern Ayatollahs, and Hilly Billy Ayatollahs.
Answer: Just one thing; The Middle Eastern Ayatollahs are more open about just wanting to sujugate women, in their portable Burqa prisons, while the Hill Billy Ayatollahs are not as straightforward about their desires to subjugate women.
Liam – “Why should a women not be reimbursed, under her health care coverage plan, for getting an abortion to save her life?”
I have no problem with this at all. In the case of private insurance they can negotiate whatever they like as long as it’s legal, and abortion is in most cases.
I have a problem with tax dollars paying for elective medical procedures that result in the loss of life of a person who has no legal representation concerning the procedure.
Liam – keep in mind that in an earlier post I support a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights precisely because I understand that many people disagree with my moral beliefs about it.
BUT, have you ever wondered why the N.O.W. never demands a constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights? Though they warn continuously about potential challenges to Roe vs Wade? Why not direct some of that energy into getting a constitutional amendment and settle the question once and for all?
Why don’t they do that? Don’t you think the majority of Americans would support it?
Could there be some other reason?
The distinction may be between “elective” procedures and “life of the mother” procedures.
From the Baucus draft today ..pg 26 ..
Current Law
Currently, Federal funds may be used to pay for abortions only if a pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest, or where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed. However, many private insurance plans include coverage for abortion beyond these limited categories.
Chairman’s Mark
This provision provides that abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. A qualified health plan would not be prohibited, however, from providing coverage for abortions beyond those for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted. Federal funds continue to be prohibited from being used to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.
Freehold – thanks for the clarification
I have 2 points here:
1) This language was not part of “the plan” when the Bloomberg poll was being conducted and,
2) “Medical necessity” has a different meaning than “life of the mother is in danger”. The current law governing state reimbursement under Medicaid is as I have described previously, wherein “medical necessity” is defined quite loosely allowing largely unfettered access to publicly funded abortions.
yourplastic:
Sbj made the claim that “HR3200 expands the eligibility of illegal aliens for emergency Medicaid.” Sbj was also kind enough to prove the HR3200 does not expand the eligibility of illegal aliens for emergency Medicaid.
I’m glad Americans are finally waking up to the misinformation campaign being put forth by folks like sbj, yourplastic, and the health insurance industry.
“This provision provides that abortion cannot be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package except in those cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted.”
When you apply the words “cannot” and “except” as intended in the language, the passage really says:
In cases for which Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services are permitted, abortion can be a mandated benefit as part of a minimum benefits package.”
but because it is worded precisely the way it is, (with “cannot” and “except”) any public option would have an immediate advantage because the “minimum” package available from non federally funded plans in the exchange would not cover abortions and this would be pointed out very clearly at sign up – think of it:
“Among all the lowest cost plans, *this* (public option) is the only one that covers abortion, just in case.”
AND
“Federal funds continue to be prohibited from being used to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.”
The problem here is that of course, Federal funds pay for abortions due to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger and *technically* the statement is also true as long as the Federal govt refuses reimbursement to as few as 2 “elective” abortions per year on the basis of lacking financial eligibility under Medicaid.
If the language said:
“Federal funds will be prohibited from being used to pay for ANY abortion unless the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.”
would be better, but then we’d still need to discuss the myriad of false rape and incest accusations that would justify the abortions and are then dropped as specious, or the “life threatening conditions” that miraculously evaporate moments after the procedure is performed.
Here’s a question, is the life of the mother technically in danger if she threatens suicide if she doesnt have an abortion? – or claims “my parents/boyfriend/husband will kill me if they find out?”
“OMG, I would just die if my friends saw me gaining weight.”
Let’s get real for a second here, can’t we agree as reasonable adults that we know how the world works? Can’t we agree that the language used here is purposefully vague and if I can come up with applicable loopholes in the space of 30 seconds then it is disingenuous to claim that the language would stop a single abortion from being funded by this bill?
Come on.
The cited polls are reassuring, but the polls that matter are the ones that put the scaremongers out of office. American democracy no longer has room for the prejudices of conservative Republicans.
Kirk – OH boy you are surely one to talk about misinformation…
sbj provided the link to the Congressional Research Service report that establishes that while “coverage” is not expanded for illegals, “eligibility” for emergency medicaid clearly WOULD be.
You can argue all you want about the difference between “coverage” and “eligibility”, but when you consider the poll asked
“government money would pay for health care for illegal immigrants”
and we are now debating not “whether it will pay” but “how much MORE it will pay than it already does” then it’s pretty clear YOU are the one being disingenuous and attempting to “spread misinformation” that the fed gov somehow *doesn’t* pay for healthcare for illegals because they are not “covered” when in fact they are clearly “eligible” for emergency medicaid funds today, and there will be MORE TAX FUNDED CASH available to them under HR3200.
Are you going to sit there and deny that FACT?
Are you freakin kidding me??? You would sit there and accuse others for spreading misinformation because you NEED to point out that “coverage” would mean the freakin illegal actually PAID SOMETHING IN instead of “eligibility” which means they dont? And on this ground you wag your finger at someone else and say:
oh oh you are wrong for saying more would be “covered” and you’re misinforming people!!!!
when you know perfectly well we’re talking about MORE illegals having MORE access to MORE gov money under hr3200 than they currently do.
And that is *exactly* the kind of argument that keeps people like “us” from buying a single word uttered by people like “you”.
You can keep calling us “stupid” if you want, but we’re smart enough to know you’re LYING.
Clear?
Yourplastic:
Yes, I am clear that the public is no longer buying the misinformation that you are spreading. I’ve already thanked sbj for proving that his/her misinformation was just that: misinformation. I also thank you for so clearly demonstrating how reform opponents try to redefine the argument when they are proved wrong.
The bottom line is HR3200 does not expand coverage to illegal aliens and proponents of health insurance reform should thank sbj for posting excerpts of a report that clearly does not apply to illegal aliens as it helps further erode the credibility of the anti-reform movement.
Health insurance reform proponents should also thank you for demonstrating how reform opponents’ arguments morph into the next bit of very obvious misinformation.
Again, thank you for your assistance. We need as many people as possible helping to bring much needed health insurance reform to the United States.
Hahahahahahaha! Obfuscation, too funny!
OK, let me know when you want to engage in a reasoned debate instead of smoke and mirrors. In the meantime, I suppose you can take up the argument with the Congressional Research Service.
Good luck
Yourplastic’s semantics o “lying” reminds me of the same reasoning on miscegenation laws. One drop of colored blood = black, accompanied by hours of Southern fried debate over if you look white but are black how badly do you get treated. SBJ the same with the abortion reasoning. Their crayon boxes have 2 colors and they deny any shades in between. I am relieved that the majority of US adults live in the real world where you are allowed room for judgement calls, nuances,and reason. In fact one of Jesus’s main points with the pharisees. It’s not always black and white when it comes to following me.
Yourplastic:
I’ve re-read our little exchange and I will have to admit that I missed what you and sbj are apparently basing your arguments on:
…“this change could also mean that more noncitizens who meet the categorical and income eligibility standards for Medicaid but are barred due to their immigration status (e.g., nonimmigrants, unauthorized aliens) would be eligible for emergency Medicaid”…
Interesting that this excerpt uses the word “could” while the other excerpts that clearly apply to legal aliens use the word “would”, yet you and sbj keep saying that HR3200 does expand eligibility. Why is it that you say it does, when the Congressional Research Service is unsure?
At least now I can understand your rant. Nonetheless, saying that HR3200 expands eligibility to illegal aliens is incorrect. My saying it doesn’t do this is also incorrect. The correct statement is that HR3200 may (or “could”) expand coverage to illegal aliens.
I apologize for my oversight. It is fair to say that I am guilty of misinformation, albeit unintentionally, by saying that HR3200 does not expand eligibility to illegal aliens. It is also fair to say that you and sbj are spreading misinformation, perhaps unintentionally, by stating that HR3200 expands eligibility to illegal aliens. Neither is fact.
Saying HR3200 *may* expand eligibility to illegal aliens, however, is not misinformation.
… and according to a 2006 NSF study, 20% of Americans think the sun goes around the earth. The other 80% have the CRAAAAZY idea that the earth orbits the sun.
Interesting.. A large number of people here seems to think that “Scare tactic” automatically means lies. I pose to you that it does not.
Much of the Republican opposition to Medicare was a consistent drum of “SOCIALISM!!” Completely accurate. Yet still a scare tactic. No debating the merits. No debate of any kind.
These polls aren’t talking about the truthfulness of these claims. They are speaking to the peoples perceptions. Clearly, whether or not what the republicans (and conservadems) claim is true, people consider them scare tactics. Which means that:
a) People consider [insert attack here] a non-issue.
or
b) People consider [insert attack here] a lie.
Just because one or another is true doesn’t mean people aren’t informed. It could just be they don’t really care. Some of these have already been rigorously dis-proven.
In the end there is only one conclusion. The majority believes that the right is trying to scare, not lead, this nation. The accuracy of individual assaults are irrelevant. In case you weren’t aware, paranoia about the ‘guvment’ isn’t all that wide spread. Tales and lies about them “killing grandma” are not going to be taken seriously by the majority. What will happen is that people will STOP taking YOU seriously. Again, apologies but, most people don’t see government inherently as a “problem”.
As such most of the rights assaults fall flat.
What people do see as a problem is incompetency in government. Conservatives have not exactly tried to be competent in their governance. Liberals (since Reagan) haven’t been much of a problem but they haven’t been part of the solution. Seems they are finally growing a spine thanks to the Internet. All those boring helpful things they do, which the “news” fails on a regular basis to tell, are being exposed. This is not the 90’s. We aren’t going to blame the liberalism as a whole if they don’t get this done. We are however going to be blaming conservatism. Heres a quote that I found which sums up everything quite nicely:
“They say 9/11 changed everything. Katrina changed it back.” – (some guy)
In the end this is just a shot across the bow. I’m not going to be coming back.
What we need is a poll asking people the same questions about private healthcare – is it too expensive? Does it ration care? Does it include “death panels”? Is it fair? etc.
People may like their health insurance plan, but do they like the industry and system? I think not.
@kirk: “At least now I can understand.”
Praise Buddha!
Kirk – thank you for taking the time to dig in and understand, and you’re right too, it does say “could” before it says “would”.
My reasoning there was that if there is no language to modify EMTALA it would automatically pay for those additional people who would become eligible without prejudice. I believe it is therefore fair to say that without any other changes it “would” pay more.
I accept that you disagree, but in the case of a rising tide you’d have to show how that one boat wouldn’t rise along with the others.
Thanks again for looking at this in a fair and honest way, and I’m glad we can discuss it reasonably.
I don’t think the Republicans have been shooting themselves in the foot. It’s more like they’ve been shooting themselves in the head.
Jackwhistle –
Poll responders were asked to select from the following terms to describe the statements:
legitimate, distortion, scare tactic
The scale ABSOLUTELY asks them to evaluate the “truthfulness” of the claims, albeit in a clumsy way that conflates truthfulness with the unknowable intention of the claimant.
Poll responders have 3 choices, and 2 of those choices suggest that at least some distortion is going on. I wonder what the results would look like if you asked true/false.
The problem is that at least 4 of these statements are demonstrably true, meaning a perfectly informed public should check “legitimate” 100% of the time. But they don’t…why?
It looks as if the designers of the poll wanted to obscure that fact and show how lots of people think true statements are actually “scare tactics”.
So let me ask:
“Will government money be used to pay for illegal immigrants”? the statement is absolutely true
“Will government money be used to pay for abortions?” the statement is absolutely true
“death panels of government officials would decide how much medical care ailing individuals will receive” In this case let’s remove the inflammatory language “death panels” and ask:
“Government officials would decide how much medical care ailing individuals will receive” the statement is absolutely true.
“health care would be rationed” if govt officials decide how much medical care patients receive, then it’s rationing. This statement is absolutely true.
“health care would become socialized medicine” Can’t say this one is absolutely true…it would be true only if 51% or more of the cost of US healthcare was paid by the govt. Some people believe this will happen under the public option, but it’s not fair to claim that beyond any doubt. We say it “could” become socialized medicine, not that it definitely would.
So, given that 4 out of 5 of the statements are demonstrably true, what does it tell you about the people who labelled these statements “scare tactics?”
Sbj and yourplastic:
What is clear is that HR3200 will have zero impact on how much Americans are paying to cover illegal immigrants. This is fact. Whether the money comes from the government or whether it comes from increased insurance premiums to cover unpaid hospital bills, the money is still coming from the American public and HR3200 neither increases nor decreases these costs.
What is also clear is that HR3200 reduces the costs the public currently pays for the uninsured that reside in the United States legally. This is because instead of going in for an expensive hospital stay for a condition that could have been cleared up by a relatively inexpensive general practitioner, the currently uninsured will be insured and will see that general practitioner. A simple infection is a good example. If you are uninsured and can’t pay to see a GP to get some oral antibiotics, you may end up with a serious infection that requires an overnight stay at the hospital on an IV drip. As one of you pointed out, hospitals are required by law to treat patients regardless of their ability to pay. This expensive hospital trip goes away with HR3200.
I don’t think sbj understands what I said in my last comment. I corrected an inaccuracy in what I was saying, but this inaccuracy did not change the fact that both you and sbj have been spreading misinformation regarding HR3200 expanding eligibility for illegal immigrants. The report sbj cited uses language that indicates that this possible, but unknown at this time.
Yourplastic,
Wow, you would have had to totally ignore JackWhistle’s excellent point to respond like that.
But, that is how misinformation campaigns work. Take the truth and twist it until it is nearly unrecognizable. Then claim that the one grain of truth left intact in the steaming pile of misinformation proves you are correct.
I love how you try to redefine what a scare tactic is without explicitly redefining it. That is a beautiful job and a classic example of how to sidestep a very solid point that was made.
@your plastic: “Poll responders have 3 choices: legitimate, distortion, scare tactic.”
Not quite, they could choose between “legitimate” and “distortion/scare tactic” and “Not sure.” The problem arises with grouping “distortion/scare tactic” as a single choice.
“I don’t think sbj understands what I said in my last comment. I corrected an inaccuracy in what I was saying, but this inaccuracy did not change the fact that both you and sbj have been spreading misinformation regarding HR3200 expanding eligibility for illegal immigrants. The report sbj cited uses language that indicates that this possible, but unknown at this time.”
I understand that I am responding to someone who is naive beyond belief. You obviously did not grow up in Santa Ana, Ca.
Kirk –
“What is clear is that HR3200 will have zero impact on how much Americans are paying to cover illegal immigrants.”
This statement is only technically true because illegal immigrants aren’t “covered” as such. However, illegal immigrants are “eligible” to recieve emergency healthcare at no cost under the provisions of emergency medicaid (EMTALA) which they do not pay for.
However, the poll asked whether the statement “government money will be used to pay for illegal immigrants” was legitimate, a distortion, or a scare tactic. The fact is that the govt pays for illegal immigrants now under emergency medicaid, and will continue to pay for illegal immigrants under emergency medicaid.
Since medicaid itself will be expanded under hr3200 to include more people, emergency medicaid will also necessarily expand. So, it is fair to say that “more people will be eligible for taxpayer funded medical care under emergency medicaid.” If more people are eligible under emergency medicaid then it stands to reason that a certain percent of those “more people” will be illegal immigrants.
Unless you can show specific language that modifies EMTALA to reduce eligibility for illegal immigrants, it is fair to say that more will be paid for under hr3200.
The term “could” is used in the CRS report because the analysis focuses on HR3200 and not EMTALA, which is where the funding for illegals occurs. Therefore the following statement is necessarily true:
Without modification to EMTALA, taxpayers will ABSOLUTELY and NECESSARILY pay more money for more health care for illegals under hr3200.
I would like to state again that we started this debate assessing the “legitimacy” of the claim that the “govt money will pay for illegal immigrants” and that 58% called that statement of FACT a “scare tactic”. Now we are debating whether MORE MONEY will be used to pay for illegals and my argument stands to reason while you simply repeat that I am wrong without demonstrating the necessary modification to EMTALA that would be required.
SBJ, I did read your link. It is a very weak link indeed if you are trying to say the health care bill includes provisions for public funds to pay for abortions. The quote below is from your link. I think any red-blooded Merikun would insist that they do whatever they please with THEIR OWN PREMIUMS.
‘… the amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions, with one exception: “The only funds that may be used to pay for other abortion services are from private funds generated by the policyholders’ premiums…”…’
regarding Jackwhistle’s point…
Jack says “These polls aren’t talking about the truthfulness of these claims. They are speaking to the peoples perceptions.”
Even if you accept this, (and I don’t exactly) one must question why respondents seem to perceive the truth as distortions and/or scare tactics?
I hate to say it so bluntly, but:
Are supporters of HR3200 scared of the truth?
Rather, I have made the argument that it is reasonable to believe respondents label the statements as “scare tactics” only when they erroneously believe they are NOT true.
Here’s why:
If you believe the statement is true, and you feel it is a legitimate argument against HR3200, you would answer “legitimate”.
If you believe the statement is true, but you feel it is also being used as a scare-tactic, you would answer scare-tactic.
If you believe the statement is false you’d be crazy to also call it “legitimate” so you’d be forced to choose distortion or scare tactic
In essence if you do not believe the truth to be true, you are then forced to conflate the unknowable intention of the claimant and call the statement either a “distortion” or a “scare-tactic.”
There is no way to express that you believe the statement is false and the people saying it are simply wrong with no intention to distort or try to scare you.
front row – I’m afraid you’re wrong about the abortion issue. I clearly illustrate this in a couple earlier posts using the exact language. Here it is again in a nutshell:
“Federal funds continue to be prohibited from being used to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger.”
(let’s just put all the false but convenient rape allegations aside for a moment)
Woman walks into abortion clinic and simply says “omg my boyfriend/parents/employer will kill me if they find out I’m pregnant. But I really cant afford it right now. Woe is me, what ever will I do?”
The abortion is carried out, the gov pays. It’s that simple.
Well, I guess that settles it…moving on…
Yes, what it settles is that proponents of health insurance reform tend to be reasonable and will correct inaccuracies in their statements when the facts are presented, while health insurance reform opponents will keep repeating the same misinformation no matter what the facts are.
This is exactly the reason that health insurance reform should be rammed through by reconciliation; and all the watering down of the bills to please health insurance reform opponents should be removed. There is no common ground to be found with opponents of health insurance reform, because first and foremost they are opponents of health insurance reform and will try to prevent any real reform no matter what.
The comments made here speak for themselves and people can make their own judgments.
Aloha! tsk
Aloha! wlo
Aloha! ght
Aloha! ltc
Aloha! cey
Aloha! bmq
Aloha! qrm
Aloha! ewj
Aloha! tag
Aloha! elc
Aloha! dsu
Aloha! fif
Aloha! fjc
Aloha! sut
Well f#$%$# durrrrr, they provided the answer to the question in the poll itself.
I love it how liberals torture the most obvious polling data into agreeing with them and then just stand their like tards when the actual public turns against them. Who knew that ordinary people would have actual opinions about things!?!
Aloha! zvv
Aloha! rzp
Aloha! pjh
Aloha! qqk
Aloha! zir
Aloha! lgn
Aloha! mmy
Aloha! gth
Aloha! vqu
Aloha! kyt
Aloha! rlm
Aloha! dus
Aloha! xvj
Aloha! hsg
Aloha! iov
Aloha! bzj
Aloha! ham
Aloha! xwj
Aloha! ael
Aloha! vcx
Aloha! bqw
Aloha! ffg
Aloha! oui
Aloha! nbr
Aloha! ied
Aloha! exl
Aloha! xcu
Aloha! ngo
Aloha! zwq
Aloha! mta
partners led events level probably
sensitivity lapse states reports
albedo melts available developing percent safari iii working
contribute seasonal biological keep gps
data found 2005 economics webmate announced assumptions
relates events android natural likewise geological gas modeling non activity rays
slow growing aerosols next volcanic unfccc working
others cover issue kyoto
Erectile dysfunction, generic viagra, 4065, [URL=http://www.viagrausageneric.com/]generic viagra[/URL], (d);, http://www.viagrausageneric.com/ Viagra, yodnf.
home gases paleoclimatology estimate benefits