Politifact should have revealed the contribution in their story. Instead they passed him off as a neutral observer. That was journalistic malpractice.
They held him up as an expert in his field, which he is. Can you comment on his credentials or are you so myopic that his political contributions are the only thing you can see? How many of the "journalists" over at Fox, WND, or RedState disclose their contributions in their stories? Heck, how many of them disclose the corporate paychecks they take in from the very corporations their stories are about? You have zero credibility, brah.
We're jouranlistic integrity here, brah. Here's what happened here, brah. PolitiFact loves Obamacare, brah. They found some folks who support Obamacare, brah. They quoted these folks, brah. They then labeled as liars people who did not share their enthusiam for Obamacare, brah. That's what happened, brah.
They found an expert and quoted him. If you don't like the word "brah," maybe you should tell your brother to stop using it.
Not angry at all. I'm not even disappointed anymore when right wing morons like your brother disparage the source rather than arguing the content, it is SOP for y'all. When you want to discuss ACTUAL reality, get back to me. Until then, you don't have anything worth listening to.
There's no content to argue, brah. Calling Obamcare a government takeover is simply a matter of opinion, brah. PolitiFact loves Obamacare so they write an editorial but dress it up as a fact-check, brah . Indeed, that's what these so-called fact-check site really are - editorials, brah.
Yup. Gladiato is butt hurt because his party got obliterated in the midterms, which was proof positive their actions have failed.
I am glad you are not one of those idiots who wanders around blathering about a "government takeover" Oh....wait.... never mind....
Faux, 24/7 Your average Fox News viewer is more misinformed about the reality-based world than your average consumer of news who doesn't watch Fox -- and the more they watch Fox the more misinformed they become
Link If you want to point out that the GOP stretched this one, then by all means go ahead. The PPACA wasn’t strictly a government takeover of the entire health care system. No, it was just a dramatic increase in government regulation, oversight, and control of many parts of the system. Sure, as the earnest lie-rankers at Politifact point out, nothing was explicitly nationalized in the wake of the PPACA’s passage. The law, they write, does not call for “a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees.” To hammer the point home, PowerPoint style, they even provide several helpful bullet points that explicitly spell out the following facts: The law does not nationalize hospitals, or make doctors government employees, or even call for the creation of a government-run health insurance plan (a “public option”). All of this is as true as the sky is blue! But what they don’t lay out in any detail are the many ways the law vastly expanded the government’s reach over the health care sector—for example, that the PPACA calls for the creation of a board of unelected bureaucrats who have the power to set provider reimbursement rates for Medicare (a bloated, fiscally unsound program that already exerts a significant controlling influence on payment rates for medical services). Even if you're rooting for the board to succeed in controlling Medicare's spending, the board represents a significant increase in federal control. Nor do they mention that the PPACA sets up a system in which health insurers are regulated so extensively that they are more or less transformed into quasi-public utilities. The new regulations include a rule that caps administrative costs and profits as a percentage of premium revenue—a rule that pushes the boundaries of the government’s regulatory authority so much that the Congressional Budget Office has said that if the rules were any stricter, it would turn the health insurance industry into “an essentially governmental program.” So no, it’s not a gub’mint takeover. It’s just pretty damn close. Meanwhile, our rigorous team of fact-checkers even introduce a misleading statement of their own when they claim that “the law Congress passed...relies largely on the free market.” The only way this is true is if you utterly fail to distinguish between the concepts of “the free market” and “a highly regulated private sector,” which is a far more accurate description of what the health care law relies on to accomplish its goals. Sadly, making important distinctions doesn’t seem to be their strong suit. Somehow when picking their lie of the year, Politifact settled on a minority party exaggeration with elements of truth—and managed to ignore the near-continuous stream of full-blooded whoppers coming from the folks actually running things.
No it isn't. It is a fact that the health care program is not a government takeover of health care. That is fact. If you want to dispute that fact, then please provide evidence and/or proof. Anyone who thinks health care reform put in place a government take over of health care is factually wrong, and opinion doesn't enter into it. People can like or dislike the health care reform, but there are no facts to show that it is a government take over.
Even though these aren't your own words I am going to challenge this post as it has several problems. So they agree that this isn't a government takeover which justifies PolitiFact for calling it a lie. Except that Medicare is already a Federal program so this is an expansion of control of a program that the government already controls. This arguing that the government is taking over something it has already. This is a very flawed argument yet it is one that has come up before. Close though doesn't make the argument that this is a government takeover. While yes the new law increases regulation but as even the author's of this piece note regulation isn't takeover. Except again as noted there is no public option so this is being left to the private sector market to implement this law. True this is a highly regulated market but there is almost no free market for anything and the term "free market" is generally used in our present context as being the private sector. The author is correct to note that this greatly increases regulation but again that does nothing to support the argument that this is a government takeover. Except that the most important distinction is that saying that the new health care bill is a government takeover is a lie. Even as the author notes that is self-evident but the author instead tries to obfuscate that by claiming there are full-blooded whoppers coming from the folks actually running things. The author hasn't made that case at all he has pointed out certain counter points but none of those support the argument that government has taken over health care, especially regarding Medicare as that is a government program already. Further none of the points raised in this piece PolitiFact needs to point out to say that government takeover is a lie. The only full-blooded whopper here that can be drawn from this piece is that government has taken over health care.
Republicans are just better marketers hands down. "Gov't takeover of health care" - wow, that's brilliant. Democrats are too focused on being truthful and don't get it at all. Dems should have painted the Republicans as being rich and greedy while others suffered. That's the only message they should have pounded home. Not that the recession was Bush's fault, but that the Republicans aren't interested in the economy or the suffering of people. They should have shown that Republicans want to save the average rich person 100's of thousands of dollars while the avg american would get a pittence from their tax cuts. It wasn't policy that lost dems the election, it was marketing.
