Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Example: Palin's "death panel" comment, while being ominous and scary sounding, is essentially true.IMHO - hyberbole is the bread and butter of "scare tactics"The accusations themselves are in fact true, even though the semantics themselves are a tad hyperbolic
And I'll agree to disagree with you on how much is truth and much is hyperbole.
DECEPTIVE SCARE TACTICS.
(A radical right wing trait in order to scare people into submission)
The entire Bush administration was based on deceptive.scare tactics to control people. Its no wonder that people have distrust for the government. They are so use to lying deception scare tactics to the point they cannot recognize an honest government when one is in power. The fail to recognize that Obama is trying to help them.
Information to go to war was based on false information and therefore got the votes to go to war.
Axis of evil, security danger alerts when there were no danger in order to control the outcome of the election. The same scare tactics are used by dishonest and deceptive radical right wingers to control people to oppose HC reform, death panels, government control, cost your grand-children for life, raise you taxes even tho you do not pay any, force you to drop private HC, ration medical care, and the list goes on and on.
Rush, Hannity, Beck, and all the other right wing tv and radio commentators use scare tactic to work people into a mob violence mentality. Mass hysteria. Cause people carry guns to town hall meetings.
There is no end to the deception of the Bush administration. There is a long list of honest people left the administration.
What a great example of democracy we set for the world we are dying to change.
The k00ks feel compelled to continue the farce as they have not yet found a suitable replacement for the OCD thing with Bush. So they have to go vascillate in places like this that about 584 people know about.
Example: Palin's "death panel" comment, while being ominous and scary sounding, is essentially true.
OK, chic - I'll bite.
But let me preface it by saying intelligent+feisty+the image beside your name = HOT and that puts me at a decided disadvantage.
BUT
1) I think the mischaracterization of the end-of-life counseling reimbursements could very well mean that people may lose what could be a very valuable tool for those who choose to use it.
2) If you try to get an insurance company to pay for a heart transplant for a 98-year-old man with sclerosis of the liver .... well I think arguing that the plan under consideration includes a "scary" depature from THAT situation is just fear-mongering.
Quite credible, when you recognize that some anonymous and unaccountable panel of gubmint bureaucrats will be deciding which treatments, including those which will save and extend lives, will be available to whom.Example: Palin's "death panel" comment, while being ominous and scary sounding, is essentially true.
I think the word "essentially" when used as it is here, is strecthed BEYOND credibility.
Example: Palin's "death panel" comment, while being ominous and scary sounding, is essentially true.
I think the word "essentially" when used as it is here, is strecthed BEYOND credibility.
Example: Palin's "death panel" comment, while being ominous and scary sounding, is essentially true.
I think the word "essentially" when used as it is here, is strecthed BEYOND credibility.
BTW, did you have an opportunity to read the WSJ op-ed referenced in post #8?
If so, do you still find the idea "BEYOND credibility"?
You forgot one.I liken it to someone attempting to refute your claim by labelling you a "racist", "homophobe", "redneck" (pick and adjective). It is the last gasp of an empty argument.If you see the phrase 'scare tactics' as a way to side-step proving that the above are untrue, in other words that the phrase is pejorative, then using the term 'scare tactic' is a 'scare tactic.'
Actually, this sounds a lot like rule #5 from my (apocryphal) Liberal Libretto, as ratified by Saul Alinsky:
5. If you find yourself in a debating box, where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
a. Claim that the question is above my pay grade.
b. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
c. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
d. Learn phrases such as its time to move on, or lets put this behind us.
e. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say Im only interested in discourse.
OK, chic - I'll bite.
But let me preface it by saying intelligent+feisty+the image beside your name = HOT and that puts me at a decided disadvantage.
BUT
1) I think the mischaracterization of the end-of-life counseling reimbursements could very well mean that people may lose what could be a very valuable tool for those who choose to use it.
2) If you try to get an insurance company to pay for a heart transplant for a 98-year-old man with sclerosis of the liver .... well I think arguing that the plan under consideration includes a "scary" depature from THAT situation is just fear-mongering.
No fair making me blush.
The departure from what currently exists is that a govenment bureaucrat will make the final decision. As the following from Oregon, which has a nationaliized plan:
"When Barbara Wagner's lung cancer returned, the Oregon woman was prescribed a chemotherapy drug, Tarceva, that could lengthen her life and provide comfort. Then, she was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn't cover the cancer drug, but would cover palliative (comfort) care, including a doctor-assisted suicide."
Oregon Patients Denied Chemo, Offered Assisted Suicide - Disaboom
Under the Obamunist plan, will there be some bureaucrat panel that passes judgement on the efficacy or costs of implementation?
"In the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases."
Defend Your Health Care
Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC Bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get
Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!
Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Government will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected.
PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.
PG 624 "Quality" measures shall be designed to assess outcomes and functional status of patients.
PG 624 "Quality" measures shall be designed to profile you including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc.
Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Government may implement any "Quality measure" of health care services as they see fit.
PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed "Quality Measures" for Physician Services and Dialysis Services.
__________________
In the American tradition, the sanctity of the individual, his freedom, and his life come before any political institution. In Thoreau’s 'On the duty of Civil Disobedience', he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
Not the collective, not the nation, but the rights of the individual will be abridged by Obamunism.
Quite credible, when you recognize that some anonymous and unaccountable panel of gubmint bureaucrats will be deciding which treatments, including those which will save and extend lives, will be available to whom.Example: Palin's "death panel" comment, while being ominous and scary sounding, is essentially true.
I think the word "essentially" when used as it is here, is strecthed BEYOND credibility.
"Non-partisan" as defined how and by whom?Quite credible, when you recognize that some anonymous and unaccountable panel of gubmint bureaucrats will be deciding which treatments, including those which will save and extend lives, will be available to whom.I think the word "essentially" when used as it is here, is strecthed BEYOND credibility.
Not imho - nor in the opinion of a host of fact check type sites, nor in the view of many non-partisan sources, nor in the view of many Republicans. (Obviously many Democrats take issue).
