Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Politics] Julia Hall: Obama's Possibly Planted Question and Reactions

12357

Comments

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Ed321 wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Ed321 wrote: »
    I'll ask you again: Do you know the difference between an Opinion Segment and an anchor reporting the news?

    Apparently one fits your argument and the other doesn't? When you find the flashing icon that says "now its opinion time" or what distinguishes them from every other show on cable news, you let me know

    So no, then.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Ed321 wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Ed321 wrote: »
    I'll ask you again: Do you know the difference between an Opinion Segment and an anchor reporting the news?

    Apparently one fits your argument and the other doesn't? When you find the flashing icon that says "now its opinion time" or what distinguishes them from every other show on cable news, you let me know

    So no, then.

    You can only tell when someone is editorializing if there is a chiron telling you they are? I'll give you a tip, when the show is named after a person, it's probably going to be an editorial segment. When it is called 'CNN Newsroom' it is not. You can also look at the time of day. If it's when people are normally at work, it's the news. If it's prime time, it's not.

    This isn't a hard and fast rule. Anderson Cooper is generally anchoring, rather than being a part of the commentariate, but its more true than false. Of course idiots reading other idiots tweets during the news period is degrading even that thin veneer of respectable news gathering.

    tea-1.jpg
  • Ed321Ed321 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Ed321 wrote: »
    I'll ask you again: Do you know the difference between an Opinion Segment and an anchor reporting the news?

    Apparently one fits your argument and the other doesn't? When you find the flashing icon that says "now its opinion time" or what distinguishes them from every other show on cable news, you let me know

    edit
    Ed321 wrote: »
    Most people get their news from opinion segments, don't they? All I ever see on cable news shows are opinion segments or anchors covering other people's opinions.

    So are you arguing that MSNBC is endorsing the idea that Obama is a socialist, or that CNN is doing the same with the birth certificate?

    Goalpost moving?
    Apart from Fox, I never saw CNN, MSNBC, CBS reports about how Obama was a socialist and shit like that.

    Which as you pointed out was in response to the statement that the "old media" was "too busy trying to find out why Obama is a socialist and what Britney Spears is fucking now..." Now not only must they be spending time on these stories but actively and universally pushing them?



    Wow, I knew you'd pull this goalpost-moving shit, despite the fact the original post several pages back is perfectly clear. I've already explained the difference between what I typed, which was in response to - as you acknowledge existing - the argument that the old media was "too busy trying to find out why Obama is a socialist" and would make no sense whatsoever if it was arguing that the media never covered the story. Why the hell would I explicitly exclude Fox, which is the only network I listed there known to be institutionally biased against Obama? How does it make any sense in the context of the preceding sentence from my quoted response:
    Does the American media have some kind of special yankee-only area where they fawn over the Republican Party and attack Obama all day long?

    if I'm talking about merely covering the story at all? Why, in response to that, does Veitsev say:
    Fox will go in total attack mode when Democrats are in a position of power. The remarkable thing about Fox is that they have a clear message from their morning segment on that is pushed all day. The other news networks really don't have clear talking points that are pushed in this way. Thier problem seems to be that if Fox (or any outlet really) pushes a story hard enough they think they have to cover it. This was seen with the birther nonsense. Fox and right wing radio/blogs mentioned it loudly enough that the other networks felt they had to give the story air time. It was presented as the "Birther Controversy". Even though the non FOX MSM denounced it they still gave birthers air time to spout their nonsense. The biggest problem I have with the MSM is that they will take an issue like the birther bullshit and bring two opposing viewpoints on to a program as if the debate had equal sides. CNN is most guilty of this. They try to be so centrist at times that it carries over into things where they are neglecting their journalistic duty by not slapping it down.

    if he read my post as arguing that the MSM never covered it at all?

    Why do I immediately respond:
    Realistically, the false equivalency approach to coverage is the lesser of all evils, in my opinion. Like you say CNN etc. were running those kind of stories because they were big, but also pointing out the lack of evidence. I only know FOX's "hard" coverage (i.e. not glenn beck etc.) from breezing past their website (I need to get the the video player to watch Redeye) which seemed to be "we're totally not pushing this or anything and the actual article will criticize it but we're going to run it front-page with a vague title anyway". MSNBC I only know from their opinion shows, which with the exception of Scarborough were covering the story even more than FOX, probably - from what I saw at the time - because they don't seem very friendly to republicans and like running anything that makes them look bad.

    This was all before you posted your irrelevent videos, and all involve the basic premise that I was talking about the idea the Networks were endorsing the stories, not merely reporting them. The fact is, nothing that came before your posted video makes sense if I was arguing that the networks never even reported the birther/socialist stories.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Now, if you want to talk about an actual town hall plant, let's talk about Katy Abram - a supposed "disinterested housewife radicalized by Obama" that appeared on national TV, who has since been outed as a Glenn Beck 9/12 organizer and who has been politically aware and active since at least 2006, if not 2004. That's a plant.

    Except your argument for Katy Abrams being a plant is just as inductive as the argument for Julia Hall being a plant.

    Huh?

    You have a woman who portrayed herself as being just an average housewife who only became active in politics because of the UHC debate. Except that was a complete lie - she's actually been active politically for several years, and she's one of the people organizing these protestors for Beck. And there is actual evidence of this!

    Abram is the definition of a plant, and the evidence is there for it.

    Abram is not the "definition of a plant." A plant is a campaign/candidate inserting someone who they instruct to ask/say a particular thing. A supporter going to a meeting and asking a predictable question is not that.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'm confused as to the argument here. Is it that networks never covered the birth certificate 'controversy' or that they did but in such a way as to disprove it? Is it that cable only covered the birther craziness on their editorial programs, or that the editorial programs on all 3 major cable outlets were helping to fuel the crazies more than tone them down? Or what?

    I mean, 'cable news sucks' is hardly a controversial point to make. Network News is generally alright and certainly sucks a great deal less, but it's still below the optimum level for getting to be knowledgeable about the world at large. Chiefly due to the restrictions of the medium.

    tea-1.jpg
  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Now, if you want to talk about an actual town hall plant, let's talk about Katy Abram - a supposed "disinterested housewife radicalized by Obama" that appeared on national TV, who has since been outed as a Glenn Beck 9/12 organizer and who has been politically aware and active since at least 2006, if not 2004. That's a plant.

    Except your argument for Katy Abrams being a plant is just as inductive as the argument for Julia Hall being a plant.

    Huh?

    You have a woman who portrayed herself as being just an average housewife who only became active in politics because of the UHC debate. Except that was a complete lie - she's actually been active politically for several years, and she's one of the people organizing these protestors for Beck. And there is actual evidence of this!

    Abram is the definition of a plant, and the evidence is there for it.

    Abram is not the "definition of a plant." A plant is a campaign/candidate inserting someone who they instruct to ask/say a particular thing. A supporter going to a meeting and asking a predictable question is not that.

    She was an important member of a website created with the intention of coordinating and inserting her accusations.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Now, if you want to talk about an actual town hall plant, let's talk about Katy Abram - a supposed "disinterested housewife radicalized by Obama" that appeared on national TV, who has since been outed as a Glenn Beck 9/12 organizer and who has been politically aware and active since at least 2006, if not 2004. That's a plant.

    Except your argument for Katy Abrams being a plant is just as inductive as the argument for Julia Hall being a plant.

    Huh?

    You have a woman who portrayed herself as being just an average housewife who only became active in politics because of the UHC debate. Except that was a complete lie - she's actually been active politically for several years, and she's one of the people organizing these protestors for Beck. And there is actual evidence of this!

    Abram is the definition of a plant, and the evidence is there for it.

    Abram is not the "definition of a plant." A plant is a campaign/candidate inserting someone who they instruct to ask/say a particular thing. A supporter going to a meeting and asking a predictable question is not that.

    I don't know, does this mean that the opposition is physically incapable of planting a question since they don't really control the venue? Or is it possible for the founder/high up member of a movement to act as a plant since they are basically inserting themselves at their own volition?

    tea-1.jpg
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So what? A plant is someone "planted" by the candidate answering the questions. An activist who goes to a meeting isn't a plant.

    edit: and yes, the opposition can't "plant" anyone because they don't control the venue. The colloquial term for what Abram was is a bird-dog.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Ed321 wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Ed321 wrote: »
    I'll ask you again: Do you know the difference between an Opinion Segment and an anchor reporting the news?

    Apparently one fits your argument and the other doesn't? When you find the flashing icon that says "now its opinion time" or what distinguishes them from every other show on cable news, you let me know

    So no, then.

    You can only tell when someone is editorializing if there is a chiron telling you they are? I'll give you a tip, when the show is named after a person, it's probably going to be an editorial segment. When it is called 'CNN Newsroom' it is not. You can also look at the time of day. If it's when people are normally at work, it's the news. If it's prime time, it's not.

    This isn't a hard and fast rule. Anderson Cooper is generally anchoring, rather than being a part of the commentariate, but its more true than false. Of course idiots reading other idiots tweets during the news period is degrading even that thin veneer of respectable news gathering.

    So a large majority of the programming on the CNN and MSNBC 24-hour news networks don't count in determining what CNN and MSNBC report? Scarborough and Dobbs are both "anchors." CNN Newsroom features "News and Analysis." Dobbs and Scarborough and every other named show? "News and Analysis." The distinction is an artificial one invented in order to reduce the accountability of the named shows.
    He goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from different points of view, so you can make up your own mind.
    Lou Dobbs Tonight brings you hard hitting news, politics and world affairs, debate on the issues of the day and Lou’s passionate and provocative opinion.

    The idea that you can simply re-label the by-far most watched news shows on the 24-hour news networks as opinion and that this in someway means there are no reports on MSNBC or CNN regarding this non-sense is self-deception at best

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    So what? A plant is someone "planted" by the candidate answering the questions. An activist who goes to a meeting isn't a plant.

    edit: and yes, the opposition can't "plant" anyone because they don't control the venue. The colloquial term for what Abram was is a bird-dog.

    When is a bird a dog?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Ed321 wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    Ed321 wrote: »
    I'll ask you again: Do you know the difference between an Opinion Segment and an anchor reporting the news?

    Apparently one fits your argument and the other doesn't? When you find the flashing icon that says "now its opinion time" or what distinguishes them from every other show on cable news, you let me know

    So no, then.

    You can only tell when someone is editorializing if there is a chiron telling you they are? I'll give you a tip, when the show is named after a person, it's probably going to be an editorial segment. When it is called 'CNN Newsroom' it is not. You can also look at the time of day. If it's when people are normally at work, it's the news. If it's prime time, it's not.

    This isn't a hard and fast rule. Anderson Cooper is generally anchoring, rather than being a part of the commentariate, but its more true than false. Of course idiots reading other idiots tweets during the news period is degrading even that thin veneer of respectable news gathering.

    So a large majority of the programming on the CNN and MSNBC 24-hour news networks don't count in determining what CNN and MSNBC report?

    Yes. In the same sense a large chunk of what the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal prints don't count in determining what NYT, WaPo and the Journal reports.
    Scarborough and Dobbs are both "anchors." CNN Newsroom features "News and Analysis." Dobbs and Scarborough and every other named show? "News and Analysis." The distinction is an artificial one invented in order to reduce the accountability of the named shows.
    He goes beyond the headlines to tell stories from different points of view, so you can make up your own mind.
    Lou Dobbs Tonight brings you hard hitting news, politics and world affairs, debate on the issues of the day and Lou’s passionate and provocative opinion.

    No, they are personalities or hosts. And the distinction is rather apparent and the distinction fairly objective. It's the difference between a story, a column, and an op-ed. It may be fairly blurred thanks to info-tainment, but there is still a line there. If you want to take PR blurbs over convention and your lying eyes feel free.
    The idea that you can simply re-label the by-far most watched news shows on the 24-hour news networks as opinion and that this in someway means there are no reports on MSNBC or CNN regarding this non-sense is self-deception at best

    Who's re-labeling them? They would have to have been labeled journalism in the first place in order to re-label at as something else, and they have always been editorializing. I'm frankly shocked that you ever felt differently. If you want to knock them for giving jackasses a megaphone and tacitly endorsing their points of view good on you. The fact that WaPo prints bullshit from George Will and Bill Kristol, some of it debunked in the very same issue that went to press, just shines poorly on WaPo's editorial staff. Not their reporters. Does Nightline influence how you view World News?

    tea-1.jpg
  • Ed321Ed321 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    I'm confused as to the argument here. Is it that networks never covered the birth certificate 'controversy' or that they did but in such a way as to disprove it? Is it that cable only covered the birther craziness on their editorial programs, or that the editorial programs on all 3 major cable outlets were helping to fuel the crazies more than tone them down? Or what?

    I mean, 'cable news sucks' is hardly a controversial point to make. Network News is generally alright and certainly sucks a great deal less, but it's still below the optimum level for getting to be knowledgeable about the world at large. Chiefly due to the restrictions of the medium.

    If you really need to know, start from post 53 on page 3, then keep reading until page 66 if you don't want to follow several pages of pointless-back-and-forth. I think everything that needed to be said about it happened in that block of posts.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    So what? A plant is someone "planted" by the candidate answering the questions. An activist who goes to a meeting isn't a plant.

    edit: and yes, the opposition can't "plant" anyone because they don't control the venue. The colloquial term for what Abram was is a bird-dog.

    When is a bird a dog?
    Spoiler:

    Also; a plane.

    Birddogging means following an elected official, candidate or other political individual around looking for ways to trip them up and catch it on tape (or get other people to do it for you). Political activists attending and disrupting townhalls hosted by officials they disagree with are effectively birddogging a caged bird.

    It's not technically planting, though.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    It is not the kind of question I would think the average person would need to read from a piece of paper, moreover I love how her mother focuses entirely on the paper in her hand, except for a quick glance at Obama.

    I did not however attend any town halls, is it normal to walk past a bunch of signs into a building and then write down your question?

    I know during the democratic primaries here in vegas with the famous jewelry question to Hilary what had happened was they made everyone submit two questions, on serious and one more lighthearted. The poor girl was told to ask her lighthearted jewelry question. Which lead to the media shit storm of "ZOMG UNLV STUDENTS ARE IDIOTS!"

    Anyway, I am biased and have little respect for our current, or previous president. I admit however that I would not be shocked to learn a politician with an agenda worked to forward that agenda by any quasi legal means necessary. How do you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Maybe it's because I'm Canadian, but uh... who cares?

    On the one hand, maybe the child was a plant. Did anybody really think that a young girl would voluntarily go sit through a town hall on health care reform and then be bold enough to ask a long, well-written question without significant preparation by her parents, whether they were pro- or anti-?

    And on the flipside, does anybody seriously believe that this was an attempt to fool people somehow, using the precociousness of a little girl to deceive whoever could not figure out the previous question into believing that Obama is right about health care reform, because the little girl agrees with him?

    And then is that really any worse than taking what was presented as an obvious bit of stagecraft and representing it as a malicious attempt to deceive, when it could really only be, at worst, a really dumb attempt to fool the really dumb?

    I mean really. Let the little girl ask her question. Or do you want to make her cry?


    (Also, the thing that was different about Bush's townhalls wasn't that there were softball questions, but rather that they were all softball questions, which made the entire event into stagecraft, which was fine, since really, it was only preaching to the choir and it's not like they're ever going to let people who hate the President be in a presidential town hall anyways, so who cares? Tomorrow - The President doesn't write his own speeches?! We have been betrayed!)

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Detharin wrote: »
    It is not the kind of question I would think the average person would need to read from a piece of paper, moreover I love how her mother focuses entirely on the paper in her hand, except for a quick glance at Obama.

    I did not however attend any town halls, is it normal to walk past a bunch of signs into a building and then write down your question?

    I've always written down my question right before asking it so I don't screw it up. Though I've never been to a town hall that was protested. Chiefly because most things don't get protested.
    I know during the democratic primaries here in vegas with the famous jewelry question to Hilary what had happened was they made everyone submit two questions, on serious and one more lighthearted. The poor girl was told to ask her lighthearted jewelry question. Which lead to the media shit storm of "ZOMG UNLV STUDENTS ARE IDIOTS!"

    That was a Presidential debate hosted by a news organization. They screened everything possible. We don't know the level of screening for this town hall, and considering some of the questions it doesn't seem as if sycophants were the only ones who could apply.
    Anyway, I am biased and have little respect for our current, or previous president. I admit however that I would not be shocked to learn a politician with an agenda worked to forward that agenda by any quasi legal means necessary. How do you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving.

    For one, even assuming the absolute worst, how is this only quasi-legal? For two, rolleyes.gif

    tea-1.jpg
  • gigEsmallsgigEsmalls __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2009
    So beyond the planted eleven year old girl calling the health care protesters meanies why isn't anyone here calling out Obama on his lies during his recent town hall meetings?

    big l wrote: »
    $5 says gigEsmalls never responds to this excellent post.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    So beyond the planted eleven year old girl calling the health care protesters meanies why isn't anyone here calling out Obama on his lies during his recent town hall meetings?

    What planted eleven year old girl?

    What lies?

    tea-1.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    So beyond the planted eleven year old girl calling the health care protesters meanies why isn't anyone here calling out Obama on his lies during his recent town hall meetings?

    What planted eleven year old girl?

    What lies?
    maybe the lie that arguments like "I don't want no gov'mint in my medicare!" should be respected, and not laughed at and mocked.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • gigEsmallsgigEsmalls __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    So beyond the planted eleven year old girl calling the health care protesters meanies why isn't anyone here calling out Obama on his lies during his recent town hall meetings?

    What planted eleven year old girl?

    What lies?

    Yeah, the girl was legitimate. LOL

    About the lies, here ya go.
    Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

    http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

    big l wrote: »
    $5 says gigEsmalls never responds to this excellent post.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I'm not convinced that was a lie and not just a mistake. I mean, his point about helping patients manage their diabetes rather than leaving them to their own devices and then cutting off one of their legs still stands, regardless of what the cost of the procedure is. If the author of the article understands that, why can't you?

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    So beyond the planted eleven year old girl calling the health care protesters meanies why isn't anyone here calling out Obama on his lies during his recent town hall meetings?

    What planted eleven year old girl?

    What lies?

    Yeah, the girl was legitimate. LOL

    Until proved otherwise, yes.
    About the lies, here ya go.
    Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

    http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

    Anything more than getting one set of numbers wrong on an example? Or was this repetitive?

    tea-1.jpg
  • juice for jesusjuice for jesus Registered User
    edited August 2009
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    About the lies, here ya go.
    Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

    http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

    They are misrepresenting what Obama said. The "$30-50,000" figure was meant to represent the cost of the procedure, not the surgeon's compensation.

    Lanlaorn wrote: »
    That's just insulting, I think DBZ is bad but I'm not going to insinuate that it only appeals to people who are equal parts retards and psychopaths.
  • NarianNarian Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    About the lies, here ya go.
    Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.
    http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

    They are misrepresenting what Obama said. The "$30-50,000" figure was meant to represent the cost of the procedure, not the surgeon's compensation.

    Hey, woah there juice, don't get your "facts" all mixed up in this now.

    Narian.gif
  • gigEsmallsgigEsmalls __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    So beyond the planted eleven year old girl calling the health care protesters meanies why isn't anyone here calling out Obama on his lies during his recent town hall meetings?

    What planted eleven year old girl?

    What lies?

    Yeah, the girl was legitimate. LOL

    Until proved otherwise, yes.
    About the lies, here ya go.
    Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

    http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

    Anything more than getting one set of numbers wrong on an example? Or was this repetitive?

    Sigh... if you clicked on the URL I posted you would have had your answer. So yes, President Obama is known for lying to push his failed (as of today) agenda.

    Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

    big l wrote: »
    $5 says gigEsmalls never responds to this excellent post.
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Sigh... if you clicked on the URL I posted you would have had your answer. So yes, President Obama is known for lying to push his failed (as of today) agenda.

    Here's a quote from a WSJ article on Obama's comment.
    Those greedy doctors. “You come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats,” President Obama explained at Wednesday’s press conference. “The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’”

    If that’s what he really thinks is wrong with U.S. health care—and with the medical profession—then ObamaCare is going to be even worse than we thought. The point Mr. Obama oversimplified is that the way the U.S. pays for medical services can encourage some physicians to prescribe unnecessary tests or treatments, especially in Medicare. But his implication is that doctors aren’t acting in the best interests of their patients in order, basically, to rob them.

    To me, he wasn't saying that surgeons are corrupt so much as he was saying that the reimbursement system is susceptible to exploitation.

  • LionLion Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    So this thread has taught me that I, should the opportunity come up, need never ask Obama a question on anything remotely controversial unless I'm willing to go on the 24 hour cable news networks and defend myself as something other than a plant.

    Hope everyone likes arugula on their pizza.

    EDIT: Oh shit, tonsillectomy? Like it or not but that shit is controversial right now. And not in the flu vaccine causes autism kind of controversy.

    PSN: WingedLion | XBL: Winged Lion
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    What's the controversy surrounding it? I'm unfamiliar.

  • LionLion Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    In very general terms, that infections that used to require removal of the tonsils can be cured with antibiotics or other treatments that are less invasive than surgical removal. For whatever reason, though, tonsillectomies seem to have very polarizing crowds, either for or against. Not unlike circumcision, it gets pretty heated sometimes.

    PSN: WingedLion | XBL: Winged Lion
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Were you really expecting a surgeons' trade organization to agree that surgeons are making decisions based on finance rather than health? I mean sourcewise it does not seem like the best refutation.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    if the rapture don't come cousin, then pass the guns
    I'll burn'em for the return of my investment funds
  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    So beyond the planted eleven year old girl calling the health care protesters meanies why isn't anyone here calling out Obama on his lies during his recent town hall meetings?

    What planted eleven year old girl?

    What lies?

    Yeah, the girl was legitimate. LOL

    About the lies, here ya go.
    Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

    http://www.facs.org/news/obama081209.html

    plant=Asked by the speaker to show up and ask a question that will make him look good.

    Plant doesn't=coerced by mother to ask the Speaker something that will make him look good.

    Why can't people tell the difference? One is something Obama has control over the other he doesn't. One we have no proof happened, the other we can be damn sure happened.

    Quire.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I can see getting personal about circumcisions since nobody wants to be told that they have the wrong kind of penis, but I can't fathom arguing in favor of tonsillectomies if they're really not necessary anymore.

    In any case, gigEsmalls should have researched things before proclaiming that Obama is a liar.

  • gigEsmallsgigEsmalls __BANNED USERS
    edited August 2009
    I can see getting personal about circumcisions since nobody wants to be told that they have the wrong kind of penis, but I can't fathom arguing in favor of tonsillectomies if they're really not necessary anymore.

    In any case, gigEsmalls should have researched things before proclaiming that Obama is a liar.

    President Obama was either lying or talking out of his ass like a fool, which is it?

    big l wrote: »
    $5 says gigEsmalls never responds to this excellent post.
  • LionLion Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    t Robo: It's the necessary part that is the catch. The fight is over who gets to determine that.

    PSN: WingedLion | XBL: Winged Lion
  • ElkiElki hegemon globalSuper Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited August 2009
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Were you really expecting a surgeons' trade organization to agree that surgeons are making decisions based on finance rather than health? I mean sourcewise it does not seem like the best refutation.

    Yeah surgeons are just defending their profession. LOL.

  • LionLion Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    I can see getting personal about circumcisions since nobody wants to be told that they have the wrong kind of penis, but I can't fathom arguing in favor of tonsillectomies if they're really not necessary anymore.

    In any case, gigEsmalls should have researched things before proclaiming that Obama is a liar.

    President Obama was either lying or talking out of his ass like a fool, which is it?


    Or he has looked at something controversial and thinks that one side is right and the other isn't? Like I said tonsillectomies aren't free of controversy and there is a debate going on in that community.

    PSN: WingedLion | XBL: Winged Lion
  • DalbozDalboz Resident Puppy Eater Right behind you...Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Sigh... if you clicked on the URL I posted you would have had your answer. So yes, President Obama is known for lying to push his failed (as of today) agenda.

    Here's a quote from a WSJ article on Obama's comment.
    Those greedy doctors. “You come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat, or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats,” President Obama explained at Wednesday’s press conference. “The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.’”

    If that’s what he really thinks is wrong with U.S. health care—and with the medical profession—then ObamaCare is going to be even worse than we thought. The point Mr. Obama oversimplified is that the way the U.S. pays for medical services can encourage some physicians to prescribe unnecessary tests or treatments, especially in Medicare. But his implication is that doctors aren’t acting in the best interests of their patients in order, basically, to rob them.

    To me, he wasn't saying that surgeons are corrupt so much as he was saying that the reimbursement system is susceptible to exploitation.

    From personal experience, this is a load of horseshit. When I was a kid, we were on an HMO and I came down with strep throat that was unresponsive to antibiotics. The doctor basically kept refusing to authorize a tonsillectomy for six months and simply kept trying to load me up with antibiotics as I got sicker and sicker, all because the doctor was trying to avoid incurring the expense of a tonsillectomy, until my grandmother went into the doctor's office and had it out with him, that he authorizes the surgery or else.

    Back to whether the kid was a plant, I would say it's likely, or that the kid was definitely coached. But they all do it. Obama is a good, charismatic speaker that keeps his cool and people can still have that weird sense of pride that we've elected a black man as president (another story, but in short, I really don't give a shit what someone's race is, especially in elections, because policy is the only thing that matters), but at the end of the day, he's still just a politician. Last year during the election, Hillary Clinton got a lot of heat because basically every single one of her Q&As were all directed and coached and it was so blatantly obvious. They all do it, even Obama. I don't know why anyone is even remotely surprised, unless they've been living under a rock this whole time (and lunatic right wingers can crawl back under that rock for all I care).

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    olol anecdotal proof. That doesn't make his answer horseshit. It makes your doctor a good doctor.

    Quire.jpg
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Yeah, just because you needed the surgery after the other option failed doesn't mean that we shouldn't look to antibiotics first.

  • ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited August 2009
    gigEsmalls wrote: »
    I can see getting personal about circumcisions since nobody wants to be told that they have the wrong kind of penis, but I can't fathom arguing in favor of tonsillectomies if they're really not necessary anymore.

    In any case, gigEsmalls should have researched things before proclaiming that Obama is a liar.

    President Obama was either lying or talking out of his ass like a fool, which is it?

    Dude, every bit of evidence points to the fact that our reimbursement system increases costs and causes unnecessary operations, which is why all those clinics that keep doctors on salary can keep costs low. If you're talking about the price figure, it's already been pointed out that he was referring to what a person pays for something, not what the surgeon pockets after expenses.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.