Maybe one of his grandkids hijacked the computer and is reposting some of his material.

Originally Posted by billethkid

rather than spending the keystrokes and brain cells on trying to discredit the topic/speaker/presenter....how about approaching the issue as presented as a hypothesis.

The hypothesis: first patients being referred to as units; secondly that a governing body could determine to not provide a surgeon recommended care based on age.

Now, see if some of you can take your persistent partisan goggles off and address the hypothesis.

I fear much useful dialogue never gets to a discussion point when a loyalist is personally affected by an issue. One can tell when this occurs because the only sound is silence. At some point partisanship has no value to add, especially for those not invested in the issue. At some point even a loyalist will one day be confronted with an unacceptable decision stemming from a hypothesis proposed above. Maybe when they or a loved one are on the table and they hear those dreadful hypothesized words...sorry but your unit does not........

btk

Here is one of several posters who constantly claim that the "liberals" who write here do not use any facts to support their claims. So in this case, several important facts have been presented which completely debunk the original Mark Levin Show claim. Instead of accepting the facts, or (perish the thought!), acknowledging that the original claim was false, the thrust now is to try to give some credit to the claim as a HYPOTHESIS!
Please, let's just recognize garbage for what it is.

ijusluvit...your interpretation and re-stating of what others present to compliment your objective. You are entitled to your opinion however when comes to you re-stating my objective in your words, then presenting them as mine then criticizing is pure BS....

"...the thrust now is to try to give some credit to the claim as a HYPOTHESIS!" The thought never entered my mind....believe it or like it or not. Feel free to level any criticism your heart desires, but how about dispensing with putting forth your interpretations of my posts as a basis of for your partisan snipping.

I guess there is something in your ilk that just refuses to accept the fact there are issues that can be discussed without having to take a partisan position. After a while (and some of us are there) it just comes across as so much noise....and that is how I see and hear it without having to re-state something you said to make it so!

btk

Originally Posted by billethkid

rather than spending the keystrokes and brain cells on trying to discredit the topic/speaker/presenter....how about approaching the issue as presented as a hypothesis.

The hypothesis: first patients being referred to as units; secondly that a governing body could determine to not provide a surgeon recommended care based on age.

Now, see if some of you can take your persistent partisan goggles off and address the hypothesis.

Except the HYPOTHESIS is based on a false premise. The presenter is lying. IN other words, what you appear to be saying is "Ok, so he's lying but what if the lie were the truth?"

And before you accuse me of having blinders on, remember please, I am no fan of the way Obamacare ended up. To me, it's unconstitution, welfare for insurance companies and does NOTHING to address the real underlying causes of our health care crisis.

So why did I post this? Because if you're trying to discredit the law with lies, you're just killing your own credibility. Use the truth.

Definition of HYPOTHESIS
1
a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

No requirement for a qualification of subject matter. My hypothesis was presented under the definition of 1a above....an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument....made for the sake of argument!!! Trying to take the subject out of the constant arbitrary partisan snipping mode with the hope of a discussion....the single biggest challenge on this forum.

btk

however it is a false hypotheses,hence worthless in any way shape or form.

So, BTK is saying that he knows the YouTube submission is a complete lie and he knows that the statements were never really presented at a neurosurgery convention - but WHAT IF they were true? Wow, that means absolutely zero.

The only thing certain about the claim of looming "comfort care only" for elderly "units" is that:

If it is one of the policies buried in the obamacare law that's bigger than the Manhattan phone book.......

this is not going to be released by the feds in a presidential election year, nor before Obama is securely sworn into office for a 2nd term.

Anything is possible with these politicians.

Looks as though some are decided on who will win in 2012. I agree.

"this is not going to be released by the feds in a presidential election year, nor before Obama is securely sworn into office for a 2nd term."

Originally Posted by buggyone

Looks as though some are decided on who will win in 2012. I agree.

"this is not going to be released by the feds in a presidential election year, nor before Obama is securely sworn into office for a 2nd term."

The statement beginning with "IF" implies a hypothetical situation.

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.

Originally Posted by billethkid

ijusluvit...your interpretation and re-stating of what others present to compliment your objective. You are entitled to your opinion however when comes to you re-stating my objective in your words, then presenting them as mine then criticizing is pure BS....

"...the thrust now is to try to give some credit to the claim as a HYPOTHESIS!" The thought never entered my mind....believe it or like it or not. Feel free to level any criticism your heart desires, but how about dispensing with putting forth your interpretations of my posts as a basis of for your partisan snipping.

I guess there is something in your ilk that just refuses to accept the fact there are issues that can be discussed without having to take a partisan position. After a while (and some of us are there) it just comes across as so much noise....and that is how I see and hear it without having to re-state something you said to make it so!

btk

Why do you have to resort to an ad hominem attack, (an even more prevalent technique than claiming that liberals don't use facts.)?
I'm not part of an "ilk".

Your original statement which drew my response could only be interpreted on it's face: you ask that instead of others spending keystrokes on facts they should look at the claim as a "hypothesis". That's ignoring the facts and turning things around.

I you really just want to debate, you might have started your comments a little like this, as I have done a couple of times commenting on your stuff: "OK, point well taken that the claim about Obamacare is not true, but why don't we consider..."

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.

I respect that you are convinced that there will be health care rationing under Obamacare, but instead of trying to reinterpret the snopes finding that this is false, I would ask that you present language from the law which makes your case. Thank you

let me see not only are you telling me what I said you are now telling me how I should have said it....

what part of for the sake of argument

is so damn difficult to grasp?

I did not claim one single thing except for the sake of argument.

If some of you want to continue to make banquets out of ham sandwiches....knock yourself out. Turn it all around anyway you like that either makes you feel good all over or suits your position!!!

Eventually there will be a subject you folks are allowed to discuss without going partisan soapbox.

btk

I have read some of the replies to original post and yes I sat and read the obamacare before it was voted into law and one thing folks dont want to admitt is you will be refused treatment after a certain age. One which if you are told you have cancer you will be give pain meds to make you comfy. Doesnt that make you feel warm all over. If it's your wife or mother you will look at it differently. It's time that people need to read some of this stuff and understand what the administation is trying to do to you . I get to talk to a lot Canadians and they always say the same thing. We don't know how good we had it till the full force of obamacare hits us. It's time to see what really is going on. Pull your heads out the sand, I could have said some thing else, and face facts. As the old saying goes read it and weep. And other thing Romney is going to do the same thing watch your back.