Chuck Norris: Dirty secret No. 3 in Obamacare

Having informed you in previous columns of "Dirty secret No. 1" and "Dirty secret No. 2" in Obamacare, dirty secret No. 3 is the sin of omission. It's what the health care bill doesn't say that will bite you in the end.

If you were writing 1,000+ pages on a subject, don't you think you'd have enough space to cover the essentials? But what if some of the issues were political hotbeds? And, if you were trying to sell the package, are there issues you'd intentionally leave out? If you were a Washington bureaucrat, I know you would!

In 1,000+ pages, there's surprisingly sparse coverage or complete avoidance of a host of necessary issues. I would cite pages in the bill as I've done in my other articles, but there aren't any covering them. These are questions that need specific answers by the Obama administration as well each of our representatives.

Full story here

Chuck makes more great points about Obamacare. You'd think that in over 1000 pages they would be clear on things but that's big Gov for ya.

Chucky's dirty secret is that he is a right wing tool. He may be an honest man, and may, in fact, believe what he is saying. I certainly hope so. But, the fact of the matter is, that he continually clouds the issues by throwing around his celebrity, as if that somehow makes him an expert. I assure you, HE IS NOT.

After reading only the first few items on his list it became apparent that he is more interested in attacking views expressed by President Obama's adviser, Dr. Emmanuel, then the bill itself. The questions Chuckles asks are in regards to Dr. Emmanuel's book, but are not mentioned in the bill itself.

Of course, I do realize, that that is his point, right? But you cannot have it both ways. The right has continually said that "the bill" (which is itself a misnomer, as there are several versions currently being passed around and none of which are being voted on currently as Congress is on recess) is too long and purposefully misleading. Now, they are going to blast it for being to vague as well? He has cherry picked elements from Dr. Emmanuel's book that he disagrees with and applied them to the bill as if they are implied, then ask questions regarding his own implied assertions"

Basically, he says "if you don't specifically mention __blank__ in your bill, and I read somewhere that someone who advices the President is in favor of __blank__, then that automatically means that you definitely will implement __blank__ in the future, secretly." Oh yeah, and it will kill old people and puppies because you hate America

Really??? I realize that this is a conspiracy based site, and we are all believers and skeptics both, but shouldn't we require a bit more than mere assumption from a B- list internet celebrity before running to post a thread simply repeating political posturings from a known political hack. Next you will be telling us what Joe the Plumber thinks about the illuminati (hint: no one cares). As if any of these people, right or left are anything more than props, they are one step above set decorations.

People that continually post this non-sense have no desire to debate issues or find solutions because they are dead set in their ways, and convinced already that they and they alone are right. Obama is and always will be a socialist to them at best, and a traitorous tyrant at worst. Thus, if they start from that immovable position how can those of us who are actually open to ideas debate with them, the points that ARE in the bill?

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

Basically, he says "if you don't specifically mention __blank__ in your bill, and I read somewhere that someone who advices the President is in favor of __blank__, then that automatically means that you definitely will implement __blank__ in the future, secretly." Oh yeah, and it will kill old people and puppies because you hate America

What he is saying is true - at least in regard to law and the possibility that the things that omitted will be allowable. Think of it as the U-turn situation. Unless there is a sign that says "NO U-TURN" at an intersection, by law, you can make a U-turn. Same goes with these bills.

And the fact that this 1,000+ page bill has things totally unrelated to health care (like bike paths and farmers markets) you can be darn sure that if something isn't included there is a reason for it and it's not a good one.

Jemison

reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios


If you can't debunk what was said, attack the person . . . .



typical.

[edit on 8/24/2009 by Lemon.Fresh]

Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
Chucky's dirty secret is that he is a right wing tool. He may be an honest man, and may, in fact, believe what he is saying. I certainly hope so. But, the fact of the matter is, that he continually clouds the issues by throwing around his celebrity, as if that somehow makes him an expert. I assure you, HE IS NOT.

After reading only the first few items on his list it became apparent that he is more interested in attacking views expressed by President Obama's adviser, Dr. Emmanuel, then the bill itself. The questions Chuckles asks are in regards to Dr. Emmanuel's book, but are not mentioned in the bill itself.

Of course, I do realize, that that is his point, right? But you cannot have it both ways. The right has continually said that "the bill" (which is itself a misnomer, as there are several versions currently being passed around and none of which are being voted on currently as Congress is on recess) is too long and purposefully misleading. Now, they are going to blast it for being to vague as well? He has cherry picked elements from Dr. Emmanuel's book that he disagrees with and applied them to the bill as if they are implied, then ask questions regarding his own implied assertions"

Basically, he says "if you don't specifically mention __blank__ in your bill, and I read somewhere that someone who advices the President is in favor of __blank__, then that automatically means that you definitely will implement __blank__ in the future, secretly." Oh yeah, and it will kill old people and puppies because you hate America

Really??? I realize that this is a conspiracy based site, and we are all believers and skeptics both, but shouldn't we require a bit more than mere assumption from a B- list internet celebrity before running to post a thread simply repeating political posturings from a known political hack. Next you will be telling us what Joe the Plumber thinks about the illuminati (hint: no one cares). As if any of these people, right or left are anything more than props, they are one step above set decorations.

People that continually post this non-sense have no desire to debate issues or find solutions because they are dead set in their ways, and convinced already that they and they alone are right. Obama is and always will be a socialist to them at best, and a traitorous tyrant at worst. Thus, if they start from that immovable position how can those of us who are actually open to ideas debate with them, the points that ARE in the bill?

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

You seem to be a person that puts much faith in government practices. I for one believe that the devil is in the details. Our government never met a loop hole it didn't eventually use. The rational they use is if a specific point isn't specified,it must be implied. All these bills that come before our congress are "Legalese".Everyone knows a good lawyer can inturpet legalese to suite their needs. And our government is full of lawyers. They all smile brightly,when they have their hands in your pocket!!

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
Where did I attack the person. I simply claimed he is no more a health care expert than you or I. Does his internet celebrity give him special insight into the bill of which I am not aware, because I did not receive that memo. I believe I did debunk his "claims" by showing that they are not claims at all, but are instead, simply implied assertions regarding Dr. Emmanuel's book.

On the other hand, what exactly did your post contribute. You simply attack me because you assumed that I attacked someone with whom you agree. That is reactionary and adds noting to debate or the free flow of ideas. I suggest you try again, but this time either with with facts or with wit, as a simple disdainful repetition of the word "typical' is insufficient.

*edit: I see upon re-reading where you may believe I am using the term "tool" in a derogatory manner. However, I assure you that is not the "only" intent. I admit to a level of pleasure in belittling the man as a "tool," but only because he allows himself to be made use of in such a manner. No, I actually mean he is being used as a tool of the far right wing. I even say that I believe that he thinks he is helping the situation.

But what has he shed light on? Nothing but the speculative assertions of someone so distrust of anything the "left" presents as to resemble a child with his hands over his ears dancing and singing "na na na na - I can't hear you." That is not dialogue. It is no debate. And it is not helpful. Specualation, Implications, and misleading assertions do not help advance honest intellectual debate, and are the "tools" of a lazy debater. Thus, I stand by my assertion that Kicky McRoundhouse is a TOOL. *end edit


[edit on 24-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

[edit on 24-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

reply to post by daddyroo45
I understand that it appears that way to you, but I assure you, I am not one that simply "puts much faith" in anything. Rather, I attempt to question authority with information as opposed to speculation. I find it more effective.

As for this:

"The rational they use is if a specific point isn't specified,it must be implied. All these bills that come before our congress are "Legalese".Everyone knows a good lawyer can inturpet legalese to suite their needs. And our government is full of lawyers. They all smile brightly,when they have their hands in your pocket!!"

Broad and sweeping statements such as this are hyperbolic and usually prove to be inaccurate. While there certainly are instances of slimy attorneys, the vast majority of the legal profession are honest men and women who have studied the laws and their effects on us; and, because their expertise and passion to understand the laws, generally are your first line of defense against tyrants and unlawful prosecutions. It is easy to rail against legalese and attorneys, but when you are wrongly arrested by a government lead by corporations and international cartels, then you will pray to whatever god you know that the courts are still functioning and there is an attorney to represent you.

*edit for spelling and grammar*


[edit on 24-8-2009 by Artephius Abraxas Helios]

Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

Where did I attack the person. I simply claimed he is no more a health care expert than you or I. Does his internet celebrity give him special insight into the bill of which I am not aware, because I did not receive that memo. I believe I did debunk his "claims" by showing that they are not claims at all, but are instead, simply implied assertions regarding Dr. Emmanuel's book.

On the other hand, what exactly did your post contribute. You simply attack me because you assumed that I attacked someone with whom you agree. That is reactionary and adds noting to debate or the free flow of ideas. I suggest you try again, but this time either with with facts or with wit, as a simple disdainful repetition of the word "typical' is insufficient.

they don't want debate, they don't want a discussion...they simply want to keep the same system we have now. they want more poor people to die from lack of healthcare, and they want the middle class to go broke trying to pay the premiums and non-covered procedures. this is class warfare against the poor and middle class by the wealthy, and the wealthy are winning. we here in america, have a hard time believing this, but the evidence is everywhere. they want most of the working class living on as little as possible, while still able to perform at a job.

[edit on 24-8-2009 by jimmyx]

Well, you can't trust the slimeballs in power these days. I doubt that anyone in the top 5 Presidential successor lineup would pass a basic security clearance with the associations they've held. Of those in Obama's cabinet, Emmanuel is the least trustworthy of the bunch, based on his opinions, his vision, and his writings.

We're firmly on our way to a National Socialist government, and there's latency in the response of those that swore to protect the constitution.