Obamacare = DEPOPULATION

Our representatives should not be able to create or vote on a bill they themselves cannot read nor understand.

 

The truth is I posted the section of the bill that pertains to end of life counseling and you can read it yourself. It is neither difficult or impossible to read. There is nothing there that supports killing seniors or denying them access to treatment. There is also nothing making this counseling mandatory.

 

I agree in theory, however, this would mean raising the bar and criteria to be elected since reading comprehension is not a prerequisite.

This section of the bill is not gibberish or hard to comprehend. It is written if basic English and is very strait forward.

I believe our representatives should be mandated to be truthful when acting in their official capacity. You will find that each of them have a staff of people who read and explain every letter to them before any voting ever takes place. It would also reduce the amount of confusion and misrepresenting on either side of a bill. This will allow the American people to truthfully understand what our representatives are doing.

Look, if your lawyer lies you get a mistrial.
If your doctor lies you can sue for malpractice.
We don't even allow a company to misrepresent its product to the public.
No professional is allowed to lie and truth in advertising is necessary to make informed decisions.

Why is it we allow professional politicians to be protected by the first amendment when acting in their official capacity and go as far as telling a bald face lie while standing on the floor of the house saying this legislation will mean our government will kill seniors? Why do we allow them to go on the Sunday morning talk shows and lie? Both sides do it. This drags our government into the gutter and is what makes it evil.

I don't care if you are for or against any bill, but you should be for or against it based on truth and not some trumped up scary set of lies. Freedom of speech protects average Joe citizen and freedom of the press protest the media but our elected officials should be obligated to be professional and truthful with the people they represent.

 

Shall in this sentence means it is included in the benefit. It says, "shall include" which means these things will be included to anyone who choses to take advantage of the benefit.

Yes, in order for you to claim that the government is mandating something they the government would have to be making a law to that effect. Otherwise it is pure speculation and fear mongering.

The committee or secretary will decide what? Can you show me this in the actual legislation? I would like to see what it is they are deciding.

Only if you want it to be, it seems pretty strait forward to me.

Again LE, you're just fear mongering and adding as fact that which isn't in the bill. Now you are saying they left wording out of the bill that would support your position. :thumbsup:

I don't know if you can prove the growing number part but I will say that 72% were in favor of the public option. Now if that has dropped by a million still doesn't make the opposition a majority.

The difference between you and I LE is that I fear no man because my faith is in God. It is clear you are so politically biased that you won't give opposing view a fair look. If things aren't your way then they must be the worst thing that can happen in the world so shouldn't happen or God won't love us or the world will end.

I agree with you here which is why I am glad the counseling is with your doctor like it says in the bill and not with a bureaucrat like others have said.

Again, my faith is in God which is why I have no fears about the things of this world. I am completely at peace. I invite you to trust God and you too can be at peace.

LE, I also noticed you switched from the actual bill to a third site where the person outlines their interpretation of the bill. I would suggest sticking to the actual bill since there is a lot of false information being propagated by both sides on the WWW. It is too easy to get fired up and passionate about something that isn't true.

 

Ooh, nice...accusing LE of lying.

This comes from someone who posts the 72% poll over and over, despite being shown that when the qualifiers are placed with it, that number doesn't hold.

Gotta watch that measure you measure with...

 

It's been posted here over and over, read sometimes.

 

As I said, it's been posted here over and over.
And, it seems you haven't really read that quote very well.

 

Thank you for reading what I said.

 

In other words, "I can't back up what I say."

 

You haven't proven that number doesn't hold and 72% is one of the lower polls, I can show you higher numbers than that.

 

But this section of the bill is straitforward and easy to see it doesn't way what you keep saying it says.

You can explain it anyway you want but it is fear mongering.

The $1 Trillion figure is from the CBO and it is just about paid for. They are within $250 Billion of making this plan deficit neutral and that is according to the CBO and not Obama's bean counters.

Here you go again inserting your theories like they are facts. Are you an expert on economics also?

More fear mongering, there is nothing in this bill that will put anyone to death.

Show us any of this in the actual bill. All this is your fear mongering and twisting of facts. Your premonitions and trick knee suspicions of what might happen. Federally funded abortions are currently against the law and since abortions are not mentioned in this bill, they would still be illegal for federal funds.

1. Abortions are legal. We don't have to like or agree with it but that is a fact.

2. There is no need to put writing in the bill to eliminate federally funded abortions, they are already illegal. Bush passed that law, remember.

So again LE, I hate to sound like a broken record but you are all worked up over no factual things. You are propagating the spirit of fear based on personal unwarranted and non-factual suspicions.

 

LE, I thought you might want to see this...

The end of life clause that has you and others believing it's Obama's way of killing seniors was actually introduced by Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson. In fact, his original version was rejected because it would have made the consultations mandatory. So you can thank the Democrats who you are so fearful of for making the benefit simply available instead of how that dangerous Republican wanted it to be mandatory.

I'm starting to believe it's your own party that scares you but they are making you believe it's the Democrats. What flavor kool-aid is that?

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/460660

 

Based on the stuff you post, you probably subscribe to websites that state support is at 120%.

 

I also read the astro turf and spontaneous protest movement sites. Because I am in the middle, I like to see what both sides have to say then form my own opinion.