No, he doesn't. He said it was "imperfect" and "reflects a fundamental flaw that exists in society" both when it was written, and today.

Do you think the Constitution was perfect as it was originally written, and still perfect today?

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

Using a misinterpreted story as a way to disprove an entire news organization will quickly leave everyone without sources... Think it through folks... think it through.

The IBD was dead on with Hawkens and his wife now corroborates the IBD story.... so u'll have to find another error....

YAWN.....

Let's use a bit of common sense... which party has something to gain by misinformation with health care? IBD or the Govt.? Which party needs to keep its integrity to sell their product? IBD.....not the govt.

use a bit of common sense..... haters aside.... the IBD is one of the finest papers in the world. No one with an education doubts that much....

As you can see, there are some very effective fixes for private health care that Obama is NOT talking about. There are options.... much better options than handing over 17% of our GDP to ppl who time and again waste our hard earned money...

Think it through folks....


Don't be swayed by the haters and misinformed.....


Kapp, u go right ahead.... Hope u don't care about ur grade in that class.....

__________________
...out
______________________________________
You haven't countered nothing, because the points you made are not valid, you are basing your counter on information you don't understand, regardless the accuracy of the information, because it does not state what you are saying.. (Brazko)

I've seen you post articles, and you post them as what they are: articles from another source.



"I am going to go through the brunt of his speech and give the reality behind what he says." - CrackerJax

Clearly he is attempting to pass this off as his own writing

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

I'm not sure if Investors business daily monitors this forum. Either way this post was very informative.

__________________
I can't take that stuff. For some reason, it makes me feel like I'm 5 inches tall and 300 lbs. I'm between 5'8 and 6' and 175 and 200.

I can give CJ the benefit of the doubt here, just as I would do to you Doob. its not plagiarism because their is no grade in this class. Perhaps he just forgot to give the credit due.

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Hooooo-kay. If you say so.

Forgetting to give credit doesn't explain the statement "I am going to go through what he said and explain what it means", when he could just as easily have said "Here is an article I found that explains things".

I'm thinking more along the lines of... he forgot about Google, or thinks we're all stupid. Maybe a little of both.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

Well anyway he should know better than to try and get it past a consummate fact checker as yourself, thats why I think its just accidental. CJ is certainly not stupid, you know that as well as I. In fact this forum section ( Politics) probably has some of the most well read, educated, critical thinkers of ANY forum I've ever been on, and you can include yourself in that summation.

__________________
It is far easier to ignorantly control others than it is to wisely control yourself.

Flattery will get you nowhere... though I think I may be falling in love with you...

Anyway, you're probably right and it was accidental. As the resident consummate fact checker I felt it was my duty to attribute the article to its true source.

Stupid, no, but the term "selective intelligence" does come to mind.

Now back to the liberal bashing already in progress.

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.

I also never claimed it to be my own..... difference. I reformatted the article for brevity. The way I put it together one could easily peruse specific points without getting lost in the text as I did when I read it in the paper. Going back and forth is a pain (as some do with 28 mini quotes in one response U know who U R!)

The other reason why I didn't just post the entire article verbatim is I do that already in "Articles of Interest" .................. &...........................nobody reads them and if they do, they complain that it's too long...

I jhave an answer to the Stephen hawking post and I will print it in it's entirety... don't worry, it isn't too long. It also shows that hawking is indeed a genius. He did not get pinned down. He kept Brittainia happy on the official side, while all along knowing his wife would do the corrections privately.... read on. hawking... mastermind.
==================================================



By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Medical Care: We took a lot of heat for using Stephen Hawking as an example of someone who'd suffer under a socialized health system. But a closer look at the treatment he got in the U.K. shows it wasn't all roses.
IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure

As our Aug. 1 editorial put it: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
Now, Hawking is British and — though he suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), often referred to as "Lou Gehrig's Disease" — is very much alive at 67. He even credited the NHS for being so. We used a bad example and corrected that, but it didn't stop the Internet Left and the likes of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman from suggesting Hawking's life proved the value of the U.K. system.
Krugman devoted not one but two essays to this, calling the editorial "vile and stupid," and claiming IBD was "trying to frighten its readers." "We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false," he wrote.
Krugman suggested that the care Hawking got represents the kind all of us would get if we socialized our medical system too. But evidence shows that isn't so.
Hawking is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, a renowned post once held by Sir Isaac Newton. He's a best-selling author and one of the most famous people in the world. Any harm that could come to him from the NHS would be big news, with political repercussions for the British system.
But, as Kayak2U blogger Mike Soja noted, it wasn't always that way.
Hawking biographers Michael White and John Gribben, in the second edition of their 2003 book, "Stephen Hawking, A Life In Science," found that back when Hawking was less well-known, NHS wasn't nearly as good to him.
In the mid-1960s, Hawking's father became disillusioned with the care Hawking was getting from NHS and took over his son's treatment himself, doing his own research and prescribing vitamins.
On his own Web site, Hawking recalls that private help was also critical. "I caught pneumonia in 1985," he says. "I had to have a tracheotomy operation. After this, I had to have 24-hour nursing care. This was made possible by grants from several foundations."
White and Gribben describe what that meant: "The best the National Health Service could offer was seven hours' nursing help a week . . . They would have to pay for private nursing. It was obvious they would have to find financial support from somewhere.
"Jane (his wife) wrote letter after letter to charitable organizations around the world and called upon the help of family friends in approaching institutions that might be interested in assisting them.
"Help arrived from an American foundation aware of Hawking's work and international reputation, which agreed to pay £50,000 a year toward the costs of nursing. Shortly afterward several other charitable organizations on both sides of the Atlantic followed suit with smaller donations.
"Jane feels bitter about the whole affair. She resents the fact that, after paying a lifetime of contributions to the National Health Service, they were offered such meager help when the need arose. She is very aware that if her husband had been an unknown physics teacher he would now be living out his final days in a residential home.
" 'Think of the waste of talent,' she has said of the situation."
Do we have to say more? The sorry reality is that a socialized program with no accountability and no competition is inferior to a free private system that must put its clients first — or go out of business.

__________________
...out
______________________________________
You haven't countered nothing, because the points you made are not valid, you are basing your counter on information you don't understand, regardless the accuracy of the information, because it does not state what you are saying.. (Brazko)

I don't mind long posts, as long as they are formatted and aren't a solidwalloftext.

That follow-up doesn't really excuse their lack of fact checking before running the original article. What they are basically saying is Mr. Hawking received care, but it wasn't exceptional care until he became famous so that somehow justifies the statement they made in the first article.

Replace "famous" with "rich", and they just described the health care system in the US (except in the UK, everyone receives treatment, even if it's unexceptional).

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want, makes Santa Claus pretty much obsolete.