*fear *dark

Adding video to channels (Dark, Fear) - requested by griefer_queafer.

After I watched this i went searching for section 1255 that she refers to and came up short. I'm a pretty decent googler but could someone give us some clarity on this? I'd like to confirm that she's talking out of her ass.

How can you tell if Ann Coulter is lying?

Her mouth is open...

Like Jigga J, I found nothing on the internets about "Section 1255" (with "Obama Transparency" you'd think the whole proposed bill would be posted online).

So unless Duckman has some proof that she's "lying", the title should be revised to something like "Ann Coulter says Obamacare will Encourage State-Assisted Suicide for Elderly".


FOX hires a useless wad of dirt like Geraldo. How many liberal "news" outlets hire anyone that opposes their views?

*horse

Ok QM - so if someone makes a claim that Obama's healthcare plan encourages assisted suicide for the elderly, the burden of proof lies with....Obama? Liberals? Who exactly?

Ann Coulter literally sucks donkey penises. It's almost incestuous.

So QM - on whom does the burden of proof lie? Should Coulter have to defend against these allegations?

I heard from a reliable source that QM sucks dick left and right.

>> ^budzos:
I heard from a reliable source that QM sucks dick left and right.


From the FAQ:
What can't I say in a comment?

We love a good fiery comment thread, but sometimes they go overboard. Please avoid personal attacks.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3200

There is no section 1255.

It's a shame. If she were nice, she'd be hot. Her hair is nice.

whoops. My bad. That was 2007's.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

This is 2009. Still, no 1255.

I think she has it confused with Executive Order 66.

Sorry QM, but Throbbin is 100% right. If you make an accusation it is up to YOU to back it up.

This may or may not help some of you. According to the White House, a site was set up directly to explain some of the myths and fear tactics of conservatives and/or republicans. If you still not sure, contact the white house or your representive/senator.

www.whitehouse.gove/realitycheck

I think its rather funny, that Mr. Obama uses it a reality check. Since the stuff I hear out of the conservative came is pure fantasy. Do they (conservatives/republicans) actually have a counter proposal? Or are they just spending all their money & time, to keep the status quo of health care in the USA going as is?

She read it wrong, the bill only encourages HER assisted suicide.

The whole "health care reform" thing is:
A) Serving as a distraction from other, FAR more important issues.
B) Assisting in the suicide of the United States.

Who's the hottie on the right, and why aren't we talking about her?

>> ^quantumushroom:
So unless Duckman has some proof that she's "lying", the title should be revised to something like "Ann Coulter says Obamacare will Encourage State-Assisted Suicide for Elderly".


Sorry, I'm not changing shit. As others said, it's not my job to fact check her lies. The title stands as is.

>> ^Throbbin:

Ann Coulter literally sucks donkey penises. It's almost incestuous.


I'll pay to see that! (well not really "pay", but I'll watch it 3 times a day)

>> ^ForgedReality:
The whole "health care reform" thing is:
A) Serving as a distraction from other, FAR more important issues.
B) Assisting in the suicide of the United States.


What could be more important? In the near future, health care will be 16% of our GDP, far more than any other first world country. We're going to piss the riches of our nation down the toilet to prop up an insurance industry that does nothing but push paper around? The success of our nation depends on reining in health care costs.

Hmm. I remember there being something about refusing treatment those who fail to meet a treatable level of care but I can't remember where it was. Rather simply treating the symptoms. It's been a month or so since I've read that thing you'd call a 'bill', god what a mess.

Moot but I do remember that. Btw Duckman, a lie is knowingly spreading an untruth. Speaking on something in error that's untrue is a falsehood. Get your head out of your ass.

>> ^Mashiki:
Btw Duckman, a lie is knowingly spreading an untruth. Speaking on something in error that's untrue is a falsehood.


Oh, so since she's willfully ignorant she's off the hook! BOOYAH, OBAMALOVERS!

What could be more important? In the near future, health care will be 16% of our GDP, far more than any other first world country. We're going to piss the riches of our nation down the toilet to prop up an insurance industry that does nothing but push paper around?

You - like Obama - offer a false choice. Health care costs are increasing. This is true. Something should probably be done to help reduce costs. This is also true. What is NOT true is that the proper, correct, wise course of action is to accept Obama's plan.

In fact, it is something of a misnomer to even call it "Obama's Plan". Obama doesn't really have a plan. For all his rhetoric and his speechifying, Obama has never once put forward a concrete, solid "plan" that is written down on paper for people to discuss. The plans we are discussing today are the House plans (of which there are 4 or 5 different ones in 'draft' form) and to a lesser extent the Senate plan (which is largely unknown and unwritten).

Now - there are some pretty alarming provisions in the House bill. Page 18 is a provision that will essentially put private insurance offerings out of business within a few short months to years. Page 838 has language that suggests government will be required to visit the homes of new parents to advise and consent on educational and social choices. Page 22 mandates audits of all companies who self-insure. Page 30 establishes a government committee to decide on patient health care options. Page 59 gives the Federal government involuntary, uncontested access to your personal checking accounts in order to draft for payment. Page 65 ensures taxpayer subsidization of Union health care in perpetuity. Page 72 and 84 forces all private insurance to use the government's rules, and also forces them to be 'part' of the government system (effectively making 'private' insurance an 'in name only' option). Pages 95 turns ACORN and other liberal interest groups into an army of 'enrollers' to recruit people into the plan. Page 102 automatically enrolls any Medicaid qualifier into the national plan. Page 124 shuts the door on suing the government plan for malpractice, price fixing, or any other consumer recourse for mistakes & constested decisions. Page 127 gives the government panels the right to set doctor wages. Page 145 forces all companies to auto-enroll employees in the system whether they participate or not. Page 149 forces all companies to pay health care for part time employees and family members. Page 150 forces anyone with a salary of 250K+ to pay a 6% tax if they don't participate in the national "option". Section 1233 gives the doctor the mandate to 'initiate' so-called 'end of life couselling' to patients, and who is to say that at some point the government won't apply pressure to doctors to do this less as an 'option' and more as a 'you really should do this...' approach? For government to even brush against these kinds of issues is creepy beyond belief.

Now - the neolibs of Congress and the Senate are defending the umbrella term "health care reform" by saying that the bill really DOESN'T do all these things. The problem is, there is concrete language right there in the bill that says YES the government IS going to get involved in these things. The American people have seen it, and they don't like it. The language in the bill is vague, indeterminiate, and smacks of the 'public option' really being a Trojan Horse to a nationalized, mandatory, compulsory system. And what is more - Barak Obama (and the neolibs) have for YEARS said that what they are really after is a nationalized system. Why in the world should we believe them when they say they DON'T want a national system when (A) the bill is leading towards nationalization and (B) they have said that's what they want?

The fact is that the Health Care plan that is going through Congress is a horrible plan, and the American people have seen it for what it is. They don't want it. And they are NOT satisfied with politicians who make vague, non-committal excuses that the bill really ISN'T what the people think it is (when all evidence contradicts them). Should health care be reformed? Probably. Should the government be solution to the problem? Pht - not in a BILLION years.

The demand being made by Obama and the neolibs that THIS PLAN be passed now now now now now NOW over the objections of the majority of the American people is not flying. There is no reason to be so hasty. It makes the neolibs look shifty, desperate, and untrustworthy - and the American people as a whole are not falling for it. If it is SOOOOOO all-fired important, shouldn't Obama have a plan on paper? Shouldn't Congress be willing to address the SPECIFIC objections over language in the bill rather than just whining "No no no - you're wrong!" Can't we just admit the House bill is crap and broom the whole thing and start over with a bill that DOESN'T contail all these suspicious provisions? If you're answer is "NO NO NO - we need THIS bill NOW!" then I have no choice but to conclude that you're a partisan zombie. Something this important should be done slowly, carefully, with rigorous testing, and with the consent of the majority of the American people.

Ann Coulter is a frigid weak bitch of a liar. She has done nothing for the world.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Section 1233 gives the doctor the mandate to 'initiate' so-called 'end of life couselling' to patients, and who is to say that at some point the government won't apply pressure to doctors to do this less as an 'option' and more as a 'you really should do this...' approach? For government to even brush against these kinds of issues is creepy beyond belief.


Funny. Hospitals, nursing homes, hospice programs and other medical facilities are already mandated to counsel patients on end of life issues. Why doesn't Fox news mention that part? Probably because it was signed into law by George H.W. Bush (hint: not a liberal democrat) back in 1990.

The proposal you misquote simply allows reimbursement when the Medicare patient talks to their actual doctor (who normally wouldn't be able to be paid for their time) instead of hospital staff.

The proposal you misquote

It's not a misquote. It's in the bill. I didn't 'quote' it so much as 'refer' to it. Regardless, the language of the bill is such that it leaves a lot of doors open to possible government involvement in the decision-making and/or approval of elderly care. That kind of language is disturbing to the people, and they don't like it. They don't want government involved in it. They dont' want government within a million miles of it. And it's showing in the polls.

The fact that Democrats are trying to sweep such concerns under the carpet with vauge, dismissive "Oh, it doesn't REALLY mean that..." brush-offs is not reassuring to the people bringing up these issues. A politician saying, "We PROMISE we won't use the bill to do stuff like that..." is not good enough for something this critical. The end result of all socialized medicine is rationed care. How can they say they WON'T ration the care of the elderly in this manner when any actuary will say the elderly are the most expensive and least "GDP-wise" productive segment of society?

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by silvercord.

Awarding rasch187 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.