Incorrect.

 

My saying that (my opinion) she's not very intelligent or she's traditional politician (talk out both sides of her pretty mouth) is an OPINION.

 

Stating that Obama wants to eliminate private health plans and basing it on a parsed video or stating that many Americans will be forced to change their plan as facts is simply an incorrect statement. Its not an opinion.

 

Saying that its too expensive or it might cause companies to drop health plans would be an opinion.

 

I'm sure you're able to see the difference.

 

 

Stating that Obama wants to eliminate private health plans is an opinion, just as you stating that Palin is not very intelligent.

Stating that Obama wants to eliminate private health plans is an opinion, just as you stating that Palin is not very intelligent.

 

Again, incorrect in the most recent case on BGP. A poster posted a video stating that Obama DOES want to get rid of private plans. He wasn't saying it as an opinion. He used his video to back it up.

 

That's my point. Express opinions all you want. Its what we do here. However, don't state facts that have no basis. This reform conversation often veers that way.

Again, incorrect in the most recent case on BGP. A poster posted a video stating that Obama DOES want to get rid of private plans. He wasn't saying it as an opinion. He used his video to back it up.

 

That's my point. Express opinions all you want. Its what we do here. However, don't state facts that have no basis. This reform conversation often veers that way.

 

You do realize that someone can have evidence to support an opinion, without it being seen as a fact right? I mean, I have evidence that Josh Hamilton is a loser of a person, yet I don't claim it as a fact.

 

Al Gore has an opinion that global warming is a serious problem for the world, heck there is even videos and articles written about it. That doesn't make it any more a fact than those producing evidence that it doesn't exist. Just because you present supporting material doesn't change an opinion from being just that...an opinion.

You do realize that someone can have evidence to support an opinion, without it being seen as a fact right? I mean, I have evidence that Josh Hamilton is a loser of a person, yet I don't claim it as a fact.

 

Al Gore has an opinion that global warming is a serious problem for the world, heck there is even videos and articles written about it. That doesn't make it any more a fact than those producing evidence that it doesn't exist. Just because you present supporting material doesn't change an opinion from being just that...an opinion.

 

When your evidence is a parsed video your opinion has no validity.

I don't understand it completely but I do know the two doctors in my family have vowed that they will not accept any new government insurance and if it comes down to it they will take fees from individuals to be their personal on call doctors and not have set office hours that are available to the public.

When your evidence is a parsed video your opinion has no validity.

 

Which is not what you have been claiming this entire thread. You've been saying they are claiming them as fact, when in reality they are doing no different than anything you post regarding Palin; or your understanding, or from your vote in this thread, lack there of, of the healthcare plan.

Which is not what you have been claiming this entire thread. You've been saying they are claiming them as fact, when in reality they are doing no different than anything you post regarding Palin; or your understanding, or from your vote in this thread, lack there of, of the healthcare plan.

 

You're not paying attention . It was stated as fact.

Which plan? Aren't there more than one being proposed?

 

Any of them........does he know what is in them?

 

Or is he letting the people who put him in the WH push through what they want?

 

Or is he letting the people who put him in the WH push through what they want?

 

I just read an op ed piece about Obama letting Pelosi et al have too much influence and his need to be his own man. It will be interesting to see how that relationship plays out.

I just read an op ed piece about Obama letting Pelosi et al have too much influence and his need to be his own man. It will be interesting to see how that relationship plays out.

 

Obama was elected in spite of Reid and Pelosi, if he's as smart as I think he is he cuts them loose and goes his own way. Otherwise he has a good chance at being a one term president.

Obama was elected in spite of Reid and Pelosi, if he's as smart as I think he is he cuts them loose and goes his own way. Otherwise he has a good chance at being a one term president.

 

Agreed.

I don't have a firm grip of it, which is why I am opposed to it. Whether it's health care or any thing else, I'm not in favor of changing something as important as health care unless I have a very valid understanding as to the effect of the change. I've not been one to constantly rail against Obama, but it seems to me he is trying to push through some level of major change without knowing what the actual change will be and what will be the effects of the change. Seems like very, very poor judgment to me. The simple fact that we (and my guess the President and Congress too) don't even understand what the change will be is reason enough to oppose any change. Another good reason is that the change will supposedly not even be applicable to the President and Congress. If true, that's all I need to know to be opposed. It's tantamount to the President and Congress voting to approve the draft but exempting their families from being subject to the draft.

I don't have a firm grip of it, which is why I am opposed to it. Whether it's health care or any thing else, I'm not in favor of changing something as important as health care unless I have a very valid understanding as to the effect of the change. I've not been one to constantly rail against Obama, but it seems to me he is trying to push through some level of major change without knowing what the actual change will be and what will be the effects of the change. Seems like very, very poor judgment to me. The simple fact that we (and my guess the President and Congress too) don't even understand what the change will be is reason enough to oppose any change. Another good reason is that the change will supposedly not even be applicable to the President and Congress. If true, that's all I need to know to be opposed. It's tantamount to the President and Congress voting to approve the draft but exempting their families from being subject to the draft.

 

 

Completely agree on 90% of your statement. We simply do not know enough to approve it or to say it will fail.

 

However, as I pointed out somewhere(the threads run together), unless Congress is going to force you and me to drop our current coverage and go to the public option but they are excluded then I don't see why it matters that they are offering a choice that is not mandatory to us.

 

They have a healthcare plan. You have a healthcare plan. I have a healthcare plan. If we're all happy with it, why should we have to change? I haven't heard anyone say we will have to change.

 

When we do hear that then we can take issue with Congress not playing by the same rules.

Completely agree on 90% of your statement. We simply do not know enough to approve it or to say it will fail.

 

However, as I pointed out somewhere(the threads run together), unless Congress is going to force you and me to drop our current coverage and go to the public option but they are excluded then I don't see why it matters that they are offering a choice that is not mandatory to us.

 

They have a healthcare plan. You have a healthcare plan. I have a healthcare plan. If we're all happy with it, why should we have to change? I haven't heard anyone say we will have to change.

 

When we do hear that then we can take issue with Congress not playing by the same rules.

The reason why the public option is bad is because A) it provides the taxpayers with unlimited liability and B) since the government is able to swallow all costs because we allow them to spend money that they don't have, private companies will have trouble competing with a competitor that has reason to keep costs low.

 

I'm really starting to believe that the most efficient way is healthcare vouchers. The government gives each person a voucher, but it is private companies competing for those vouchers. Yes, it is taxpayer-funded, but the taxpayer's liability is limited, and all Medicare and Medicaid spending would be eliminated.

So we're all in agreement that we don't have a clue as to what's in it or what the effect will be (outside of the CBO projections) and yet we still are smart enough to criticize its components?

 

Or support it? :sssh:

 

I don't have much to say about the plan because I haven't read it and dont' understand it.

 

However, that hasn't prevented many from either supporting it or opposing it.