FACTCHECK.ORG is your friend

I factcheck.

 

Excellent site......

 

One website that I would like to add is opensecrets.org for all your political campaign contributions. Yay PACs

 

In the California Debate, Obama asserted that under hillary-care, one way she may fund her plan was to penalize those who either refuse to get the plan or can't afford it by garnishing money and fees from their wages.

Well, now reports are flying all over the place of that fact. CNN, CBS, FoxNews, ABC, The L.A.Times, Detroit Free Press, Washington Post, N.Y.Times, Wall Street Journal, and USAToday, and many others.

If this doesn't frighten hillary supporters, hell, all Americans, than I don't know what will. This is a form of a Gastapo. I cannot believe people don't see her Leftist ideology/philosophy and is just fine with that. Garnishment of your wages if you decide you don't want to be force to accept it. OMG!

Obviously, Americans have not learn, Socialize Health-Care not only has failed in many of the top Industrialize Countries of the World; but also, is one of the first steps in controlling our lives. Look at what the politicians was trying to do, to cut cost and so-called pollutants in California, by trying to pass a bill that would control your home's thermostat. OMG!

This is the mind-set of a lot of politicians in both parties, who feel only government knows what's best... sadly, more and more of the American populous are beginning to feel the same way... many others are simply apathetic.

RudyG is gone, but hillary is still there.

 

STOP. Just stop. Why do you have to turn every thread into an anti-Hillary soapbox? This thread was about Factcheck.org, not some conspiracy to transform the United States into the Soviet Union. You're not even adding to the discussion by posting facts, you're exaggerating Clinton's positions and comparing her to Rudy Giuliani.

Granted, I show bias towards Clinton, because I'm a supporter and a volunteer and all that jazz. But I have taken a look at Obama objectively. I have praised a few of his stances and said he's strong on certain issues. But I've supported everything I've said with references to his Senate record or the organization of his campaign.

This is just obnoxious. Seriously.

 

I cannot speak for the "other" top industrialized countries but here, in mine we are very happy with our "socialized" medicine. Sure, it could be improved here and there but overall it's a very good concept.

 

Yeah, that's the reason why so many come here for the quality of care.

The only thing I can say about Socialize Health-Care, is that it's cheaper than the American system. You are force take certain medicines that may not be suitable for ones needs(generic cause it's cheaper), treatment is hampered, waivers against malpractice, bureaucracy, and much more.

Cost is the problem with our Health-Care, and that is mostly caused by delays in approving drugs(time-frame is improving), frivolous lawsuits(going down, but not fast enough), Medical Practice Insurance(MPI), record keeping(which has improved because of electronic data-bases), and lack of preventive care(which goes more towards our culture and lifestyle, but has gotten tremedously better in just the last ten years). Besides, America has the best Health-Care Professions on the planet.

I like our system much better, you can keep yours.

 

Our health care system sucks.

Yeah, we have some of the best doctors in the world. Certainly, more of our sick get treated here than in other countries. But the fact that health care costs have become astronomical is incredibly sickening.

I don't like it when a single mother of four with a full-time job and steady income can't afford basic health insurance, yet the CEO of a major pharmaceutical or insurance company takes home an eight-figure salary. I think it sucks that our government has done enough to set up either a low-cost health insurance program or extended Medicaid as an alternative to high-cost, unaffordable insurance

I don't like it when a prescription drug costs $104 in the United States for someone without insurance coverage, but it costs less than $50 in Canada for someone in the same situation. And I especially don't like it when the United States government can't agree that children, of all people, deserve health care coverage.

So, yes, we have great scientific advancements, somewhat decent access to medicine, and a lot of health insurance providers to choose from. But we certainly don't have the best health care system in the world, and it definitely needs to be changed, whether it involves improving access and choice to private insurers (which I'm in favor of) or offering universal health care to everyone. 'Socialized medicine' only sucks because the conservatives turned it into another catch phrase designed only to instill fear through ignorance.

 

OpenSecrets is still my favorite political site. This one is good too.

 

fine with me, we are happy with our system. And I haven't encountered any of the stuff you mentioned yet.

 

For those who believe FactCheck.org:

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

 

My Rebuttal, for those who believe FactCheck.org:

 

Though I doubt you will read all that RDh007, FactCheck.org isnt always right, and if they are wrong about a plan as simple as the FairTax, what else are they wrong about?

 

but, what if they are NOT wrong.
then that means that the fairtax is flawed.
you would have to consider this possibility wouldn't you?

 

Did you read the Response? They are judging the Fairtax by a different set of Measurment. They are biased in their review of the Fairtax. It is obvious in their explaination.

 

so, you're suggesting the response is NOT biased?
why is that?

 

I am saying that over 14 years of research and over $29 million private dollars are spent on the Fairtax Plan with hundreds, if not Thousands of Individual Economists and Tax Research Offices looking into the Idea. That the FactCheck.org Review of the Fairtax is wrong.

 

I didn't ask that.
I asked if you thought the response was NOT biased.
since you called factcheck.org biased.
plus, I hope you realize that you just cited reasons WHY the response WOULD be biased.

 

Even in the Corrections Section they say that people making less than $15,000 a year would be paying more. That is not true because of the Fairtax Stipulates that the Prebate would cover the Tax Burden on every purchase under the Poverty line. So, people making $15,000 a year would only have only $5000 of their spending taxed, and that is only if they spend the $5000. Remember, under the Fairtax, you decide when you pay taxes, not that it is forced from you before ever receive your Paycheck.

 

haha! your mind is pretty much made up man.
that's why I merely asked you questions, that you obviously don't want to answer.
it's cool, I'm sure it's a good idea, I'll still depend on factcheck.org for unbiased analysis on political matters in the US and you can skip it.

 

This is in reference to FactChecks assertion that it is really a 30% tax, not 23%:

The 23% Fairtax Rate in Inclusive, just like how our income taxes are Inclusive. 30% is if the price was exclusive. If you buy something that is $100 dollars, under the Fairtax, the retailer forwards $23 dollars to the Government. 23 out of 100 is what? 23%. Now, if you take the difference, it is $77, $23 is 29.87012% or rounding up, 30% of $77

 

I do like what Factcheck stands for, but if they get one wrong, how can we take anything else seriously?