Originally Posted by cabo35

Wait a minute...not so fast. Some of your hip shooting, predictable responses, with rare exception, seem to speak with a finality that precludes rebuttal. The first observation I made based on your links and citations raises a legitimate question. There is direct evidence of a walk back in the Snopes quote and the AANS statement. In fact, with little research effort, I found two versions of the "official" response. One states emphatically:

"it appears that the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon is not a neurosurgeon"

The other watered down version says a lot. It leaves open the possibility the the caller "may" be a neurosurgeon although it is cleverly framed in the most negative context.

"it appears that the caller who identified himself as a brain surgeon may not actually be a neurosurgeon"

The first seems to be an emphatic conclusion that the caller was not a neurosurgeon. The second opens the door of possibility that he might be.

The Snopes version hedges its conclusion by going with the "may not". This one is not over yet. Why two versions of the same "official" response? They're easy to find with a little Google work. Lawyers?, lawsuits?, Mark Levin himself a litigious Constitutional attorney? Did someone actually find out it was a neurosurgeon that called? That would explain the AANS and Snopes walk back.

An old professor once told me "words do not mean....people mean". Given that context, I have to wonder why the AANS in the same document did not outright deny the existence of documents suggested by the caller. There position is:

"The AANS and CNS are unaware of any federal government document directing that advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70 years of age will not be indicated and only supportive care treatment will be provided".

Why didn't they flat out deny the existence of the document? Kind of gives them plausible deniability if that document should surface. Actually it is rather Clintonesque. You know.....it depends on what the meaning of "is" is. The use of the word "unaware" certainly gives them wiggle room should someone eventually provide the document. Kind of like the guy who gets caught with a trunk full of blow and says he was "unaware" it was there.

Point two - Anyone who pins the essence of their arguments to Snopes does so while dismissing the copious debatable controversies that paint Snopes as a biased tool of the liberal left. Full disclosure, the right has disinformation sources as well. Try Googling Snopes-liberal bias.

In the OP, I suggested using an open mind and indicated rather clearly that the video had not been disputed ......yet. I presumed vigorous rebuttal but was surprised how long it took. The "open mind" part suggested a debatable topic for those motivated to express honest opinions. I accepted a degree of tolerance for the inevitable party line assassins and their cheap sniping at posters instead of issues.

Political and court challenges notwithstanding, the full impact of Obamacare will not be felt for two years or more. There is sufficient credible documentation that medical care rationing is a major component of the system. It is that point that gives the neurosurgeon story street credibility.

In the final analysis, we each have to draw our own conclusions tempered with our own biases. I do not believe we have definitively heard the end of the neurosurgeon story or the rationing of Obamacare that it purports. That's just me though.

Have a good day in the Villages.