Cain threw a spitball past the republicans in the debate

The Truth-O-Meter Says: False


"If we had been on 'Obamacare' and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan, that would have delayed my treatment." Herman Cain on Thursday, September 22nd, 2011 in the Fox News Google debate in Orlando


Herman Cain said government bureaucrats will determine when you get a CAT scan once the new health care law begins



Herman Cain said at a Republican presidential candidates' debate last week that he would be dead if his cancer had occurred while "Obamacare" was in effect.

Cain had made the statement previously, so Chris Wallace of Fox News asked him about it at the debate sponsored by Fox News and Google in Orlando, Fla.

Wallace: "Mr. Cain, you are a survivor of Stage 4 colon and liver cancer. And you say if 'Obamacare' had been -- (Here Wallace was interrupted by sustained cheers and applause) and we all share in the happiness about your situation, but you say if 'Obamacare' had been in effect when you were first being treated, you'd be dead now. Why?"
Cain: "The reason I said that I would be dead on 'Obamacare' is because my cancer was detected in March of 2006. And from March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy, go to get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months.

"If we had been on 'Obamacare' and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan, that would have delayed my treatment. My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able to get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable, and not the government's timetable, that's what saved my life, because I only had a 30 percent chance of survival. And now I'm here five years cancer-free because I could do it on my timetable and not on a bureaucrat's timetable. This is one of the reasons I believe a lot of people are objecting to 'Obamacare,' because we need to get bureaucrats out of the business of trying to micromanage health care in this nation."
"Obamacare," in case you haven't figured it out yet, is the Republicans' often mocking name for the health care law that President Barack Obama signed into law in 2010. Some of the changes resulting from the law have already taken effect, including sons and daughters under 26 being allowed to be covered by their parents' health insurance. But many major provisions don't begin until 2014.
Here's the general way the new law works: The major health insurance systems are left in place, especially the health insurance coverage people get through work and Medicare. For people who have to buy insurance on their own, the government adds new regulations for health insurance companies to follow. States will create "exchanges," which are virtual marketplaces where people will be able to comparison shop for insurance. The law says that everyone must have insurance or pay a tax penalty. (That's called the individual mandate, and it's being challenged in federal courts.) People who make modest incomes will qualify for tax breaks to help them buy insurance, and very poor people will be eligible for Medicaid.

What the law is not is a single-payer system, as in Canada, where the government picks up the bills; nor is it a nationalized system like Great Britain's where the government owns hospitals and employs doctors. So if those are the systems Cain had in mind, that's not what the new health care law is. (We asked Cain's campaign what the basis was for his statement, but we didn't hear back.)

Even for people over age 65 in Medicare -- the part of the health care system that most resembles a single-payer plan -- private physicians would still make decisions about scans and treatments.

Still, opponents of the health care law have argued that it will eventually result in bureaucrats making decisions that affect treatment, particularly for Medicare recipients. But those claims have been rated False on our Truth-O-Meter when they have asserted that bureaucrats will make decisions about individual cases.

For example, PolitiFact Georgia looked at a statement from Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., who said that under the health care law, "a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy."

Gingrey said the bureaucrats are part of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB.

The board is a new part of the health care law, and it was created in response to criticism that Congress has been unable to make the politically risky and technically complex decisions needed to slow the growth of costs for Medicare.

Under the health care law, if Medicare spending growth is projected to exceed certain targets, the IPAB must come up with plans to slow the increase. If Congress does not act on the recommendation within a set time frame, the IPAB's plans are automatically implemented.

Both sides of the aisle have problems with the board. Some worry it will be too hard for Congress to overrule IPAB recommendations or that the board will stifle innovation. In recent months, several members of Congress from both parties have signed on to repeal the board.

But saying that the IPAB will determine the course of treatment for individual cases is an entirely different matter -- and it's factually incorrect. Even people who oppose the IPAB agree that it will not intervene in the cases of individual patients but will rather determine how much the government pays health care providers for various services. It can also reduce payments to hospitals with very high rates of readmission or recommend innovations that cut wasteful spending. (See PolitiFact Georgia's fact-check for more details on the IPAB.)

But we should point out here that the IPAB applies to Medicare. Medicare is a government-run health insurance program for those over age 65. When Cain was diagnosed with cancer in March 2006, he would have been 60 -- too young for Medicare. So the IPAB wouldn't even have applied, even if it had been in effect at the time.

We don't know the personal details of Cain's health status or how he is insured. But it's impossible for us to see how a government bureaucrat could have delayed Cain's care. Cain said at the debate that, "If we had been on 'Obamacare' and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan, that would have delayed my treatment." But there is no part of the health care law that allows a government bureaucrat to weigh in on an individual's course of treatment -- not Cain's nor anyone else's. We rate his statement False.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/27/herman-cain/herman-cain-said-government-bureaucrats-will-deter/

Cain is a lying piece of crap- first off Cain is a millionaire and has the luxury of getting the best treatment money can buy- ask Cain if he would switch places with someone with the same cancer who got denied because of a pre-existing condition- or who works but can't afford the treatment.

I wonder how many people, if given the chance, would be able to say "If Obamacare had been in effect when i got cancer, i'd be alive today"?

Perhaps someone should ask Mr. Cain that question. And while they're at it, maybe they can follow up by asking, ignoring the fact that what you say is a lie, are you suggesting you're more important than those people?

I wonder how many people, if given the chance, would be able to say "If Obamacare had been in effect when i got cancer, i'd be alive today"?

Perhaps someone should ask Mr. Cain that question. And while they're at it, maybe they can follow up by asking, ignoring the fact that what you say is a lie, are you suggesting you're more important than those people? Originally Posted by Doove

Very good point there are literally thousands of Americans who are 6 feet under as we speak because there was never a plan like Obamacare in effect- now I am not saying Obamacare is perfect but it's a helluva a lot better than the status quo- and trust me I work in the health field I know something about this topic.

I wonder how many people, if given the chance, would be able to say "If Obamacare had been in effect when i got cancer, i'd be alive today"? Originally Posted by Doove

Most of those folks are poor. They don't count in the Republican universe. After all, the fact that they were poor proves that they were morally unfit in some manner. Their poverty is their own fault. Eliminating them from the gene pool before they reproduce is a good thing. You've just got to follow their logic to it's logical conclusion and you'll see that they just have the best interests of the nation at heart.

TTH, you never fail to entertain. Your statement is so ignorant, I can't even respond. The poor don't matter to either party, and Obamacare is a power grab, and will not improve either the quality of or access to health care. No wonder the store is sold out of Kool Aid! LOL!

Most of those folks are poor. They don't count in the Republican universe. After all, the fact that they were poor proves that they were morally unfit in some manner. Their poverty is their own fault. Eliminating them from the gene pool before they reproduce is a good thing. You've just got to follow their logic to it's logical conclusion and you'll see that they just have the best interests of the nation at heart. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

My God TexTushHog, spoken like a true globalist pig! What a lack of compassion. The democrats and republicans are merely political pawns serving the agenda of the globalist elites of the Fortune 100 and top members of the Bilderberg Group, the people behind the scenes. A lot of democrats and republicans in office probably couldn't survive if they weren't getting their government welfare check for life for doing a lousy job serving the people.

In a hyperinflated economy many of the wealthy of today who hold the majority of their wealth in paper assets would join the ranks of the poor in a flash. Then the people who were considered wealthy in such an environment, are the new poor. It's already happening via inflation and taxation. As inflation ramps up more will join the ranks of the poor. I just love to hear and read stories of people who had it all, then lost it all through ignorance or bad investments. Even today in America there are many wealthy people who think like and have the mentality of a poor person. They are all around us. People who cannot hold onto true wealth. Just look at sports stars, musicians, brokers, bad businessman, failed banks, failed businesses, lottery winners, etc. In today's world a person can't measure wealth by how many dollars their holding onto. That is foolish! When a hyperinflation does hit this nation, the rich who measure their wealth in dollars who aren't prepared will be the ones screaming the loudest! They'll be the most affected by their poor decision for not properly preparing as they join the poor. The members of society that are already poor will be least affected because they were poor to begin with.

While I do agree with you that it's a persons own fault who puts theirself into poverty. But to say, "Eliminating them from the gene pool before they reproduce is a good thing," makes you sound like a spoiled rich kid who was born into privlege.

TTH, you never fail to entertain. Your statement is so ignorant, I can't even respond. The poor don't matter to either party, and Obamacare is a power grab, and will not improve either the quality of or access to health care. No wonder the store is sold out of Kool Aid! LOL! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Are you ever going to respond to the questions I asked you in the repost below? Or is this post with it's "Your statement is so ignorant, I can't even respond." going to be your typical escape? It looks like I should change my assessment of you. You’re neck and neck with whirlaway and headed for a photo finish. But is a moot point which of you win. That's because you both pull up lame in your responses.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
We would all like to see what quotes from me leads you to say this. I answered your earlier questions explaining a post I made. Your turn. I have to defend Nixon? Who asked you to? What words did I post that you think is requesting that action? If Nixon did it, does that make it ok for Democrats to do something similar? Who said or implied that? What words did I post that make you believe that is my position? You're logic never ceases to amaze me. . I can see why you are amazed at my logic since you apparently lack any of your own. I am not a Republican, and don't intend to defend them for anything, I didn’t ask you to. I'm just tired of this Obama's shit doesn't stink mentality. BFD! And what does that have to do with me? Reference a post I have made on ECCIE implying his shit doesn’t stink. If you actually looked, you might notice I don’t comment on every thread. Of course he has fucked up multiple times. But here is a clue if you don’t have one. The number of times he has played golf doesn’t mean shit. He is as big a liar and at least as corrupt as those who have gone before him, and unfortunately, quite probably like those who will come after him. I don’t agree with your last statement. Me saying that does not mean I think he is infallible. There is a hell of a lot ground between calling someone the Devil and calling them God.




You read a lot into my posts that isn’t there and warp what is there. Even though I didn’t say a word about the content of the OP other than all public speakers do what Alex had said (I disagree with “talking down to”. It’s easy to take things out of context to make them seem that way) you claim I’m a shill. I didn’t defend or make excuses for any democrats.
You took my statement;

It never fails to amaze me when I hear people demonize one party over the other. Go to townhall.com and check it out the conservatives there. See what actions they advocate.

Let's point out proven, documented actions and jail time awarded cases of how far one of the political parties will go.

I'll go first

Watergate.
And turned it into me asking you to defend Nixon, me saying it’s OK to do what Nixon did first, Obama has shit that doesn’t stink, and I’m a shill whose logic you don’t understand. You’re closing in on whirlaway for most astute (sarcasm) poster.
I didn’t ask for anyone to defend anything. I don’t make excuses for anybody, why would I expect you to? Besides not asking, why did you bring up Nixon or think I was asking you to? Nixon was just top dog. Putting him out as the “object” you feel I asked you to defend covers the fact that many high-ranking repubs were involved. You didn’t even need to put in an example from the democrats. Just because you misunderstand what Let's point out proven, documented actions and jail time awarded cases of how far one of the political parties will go. meanswhen it follows It never fails to amaze me when I hear people demonize one party over the other. That’s not my problem. I mean what I say. I don’t intentionally cloud statements. The best way to figure out what I mean is to ask me. Like you did earlier in this thread. And the response I gave answered your questions.

Most of those folks are poor. They don't count in the Republican universe. After all, the fact that they were poor proves that they were morally unfit in some manner. Their poverty is their own fault. Eliminating them from the gene pool before they reproduce is a good thing. You've just got to follow their logic to it's logical conclusion and you'll see that they just have the best interests of the nation at heart. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

See below what happens when you don’t label sarcasm? I would think that when looked at in the light of your regular views that it would be obvious. But being a simple kool-aid drinker, what do I know (sarcasm and rhetorical)?

TTH, you never fail to entertain. Your statement is so ignorant, I can't even respond. The poor don't matter to either party, and Obamacare is a power grab, and will not improve either the quality of or access to health care. No wonder the store is sold out of Kool Aid! LOL! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

My God TexTushHog, spoken like a true globalist pig! What a lack of compassion. The democrats and republicans are merely political pawns serving the agenda of the globalist elites of the Fortune 100 and top members of the Bilderberg Group, the people behind the scenes. A lot of democrats and republicans in office probably couldn't survive if they weren't getting their government welfare check for life for doing a lousy job serving the people.

In a hyperinflated economy many of the wealthy of today who hold the majority of their wealth in paper assets would join the ranks of the poor in a flash. Then the people who were considered wealthy in such an environment, are the new poor. It's already happening via inflation and taxation. As inflation ramps up more will join the ranks of the poor. I just love to hear and read stories of people who had it all, then lost it all through ignorance or bad investments. Even today in America there are many wealthy people who think like and have the mentality of a poor person. They are all around us. People who cannot hold onto true wealth. Just look at sports stars, musicians, brokers, bad businessman, failed banks, failed businesses, lottery winners, etc. In today's world a person can't measure wealth by how many dollars their holding onto. That is foolish! When a hyperinflation does hit this nation, the rich who measure their wealth in dollars who aren't prepared will be the ones screaming the loudest! They'll be the most affected by their poor decision for not properly preparing as they join the poor. The members of society that are already poor will be least affected because they were poor to begin with.

While I do agree with you that it's a persons own fault who puts theirself into poverty. But to say, "Eliminating them from the gene pool before they reproduce is a good thing," makes you sound like spoiled rich kid who was born into privlege. Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

See below what happens when you don’t label sarcasm? I would think that when looked at in the light of your regular views that it would be obvious. But being a simple kool-aid drinker, what do I know (sarcasm and rhetorical)? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Munch your an idiot! Shit like this has already happened throught history, to include our own! The middle class is already getting wiped out via inflation. Their are a lot of families living on the threshold of joining the ranks of the poor. This isn't sarcasm or rhetoric, this is the truth. Your just one of those people living life in denial. One of them blind dump sheep out their wandering around without a sense of direction.

Munch what thread was that in? It wasn't this one. I don't have time to keep track of all the logical errors you make in these threads. I think if you look at your original post, you will see that my responses were consistent with what you said, but I'm not taking the time to review all the threads to find out what this one was on. You want me to respond so you can attack me again, if I thought you would listen to reason, I might consider it.

I'm here for the entertainment, and you are very entertaining.

Munch what thread was that in? It wasn't this one. I don't have time to keep track of all the logical errors you make in these threads. I think if you look at your original post, you will see that my responses were consistent with what you said, but I'm not taking the time to review all the threads to find out what this one was on. You want me to respond so you can attack me again, if I thought you would listen to reason, I might consider it.

I'm here for the entertainment, and you are very entertaining. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

We knew you weren't here for discussion or resolution.

Want to know a secret? You can check every post some one has made. Your poor excuses are nothing more than poor excuses. You don’t have time to find one of the many according to you. So you lie, then run and hide.

An example from your post. First you ask which thread I’m talking about, and then you touch on the large number of logical mistakes I’ve made (without examples of course). Then you “think” if I check my post, I’ll find you responded correctly. Moot point it turns out. You won’t respond like you demanded I should. I easily answered your questions.

Plus you could always replied to the questions I asked on this thread. But everyone knows you won’t, or can’t for that matter.

You play fast and loose with the truth and have poor analytical abilities. You put your talking points in other people’s mouths. Your statements will need to be fact checked.

But your “I don’t have time but even if t did I wouldn’t answer because you say I’ll just attack”. How uncouth that I would ask you to explain unfounded and unsubstantiated derogatory comments directed towards me.

You are a coward as well as an asshole.

Cain just took another step in alienating himself from the good ol' boys in the GOP southern base:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...UVFL_blog.html

I love it.

LOL! Well, at least he didn't call me a neocon!

Of course I'm not here for discussion or resolution, I already said I'm here for the entertainment. And you are incredibly entertaining. Has anything ever been intelligently discussed on this board? With thoughtful reflection on one's opinion, and a respectful, thoughtful response? Has anything ever been resolved on this board, other than clarifying each other's sexual deviance? As far as I know, only one person on a regional board has EVER changed his opinion based on information received on that board, and that person was me.

Don't flatter yourself that you are here to listen and learn, or educate. This is a SHMB, and this thread is simply an off-topic distraction. It's fun to watch you guys rant on matters that have no meaning as if they were important, and as if anyone outside of here cares.

I will have fun, and post what I think. But I'm not spending hours sourcing my opinions, I have a life outside of here, and I have already researched my opinions, and their mine. I source me. I lived a long time, had a lot of experiences, read a lot, talked to a lot of different people, and have decided that liberty is the best option. I don't need to find other people that say the same thing. If this were a serious board, I might. But it's not. It's for fun, and I'm having fun. Call me whatever names you want, the only one that hurt was "neocon" and I got over it.