Obamacare Working

[Acebb]

What about a guy like Acebb who calls me a liar, posts bullshit and I refute him with sources, do you guys not see that he misinterprets the shit he posts or am I off base here? The guy posts a lot of crap and his links often supports the people he is arguing against. It's unreal

Except you didn't "refute" me with any 'sources' and you can't provide a singular example of me posting any link that "supports" the people I am "arguing against"

Not 1.

 

[Acebb]

Ace doesn't "misinterpret" anything. He just LIES. Continuously. It is unreal in a snae place, but when you consider that he's just a sick, uncontrollable, shameless liar, and this place is an insane hellhole, it's as real as it gets.

See comments above, you rank idiot.

 

[Acebb]

I think many here can witness you posting that preventive care does not save lives. You posted several links, some in which if you read closely debunks your theory. I posted many links that state that preventive care does in fact save lives but you only think your few sources are credible. I think the next time you see a MD you should tell him about your findings. It will give him a good chuckle.

Please point to 1, just 1, link that I posted that "debunks" anything I said regarding preventive care.

I dare you, you idiot lying clown.

 

[Acebb]

Yes it does, easily.

You are a comical idiot.

 

[Acebb]

http://www.usnews.com/education/bes...ompare-in-the-2014-best-high-schools-rankings

I'm assuming this is what you were referring too?
.

Note how you can not stop yourself from lying here.

Here is how the rankings were derived

We teamed up with American Institutes for Research, a D.C.-based organization, to evaluate schools in three phases. The first two steps looked at overall student performance on state-mandated assessments, as well as how effectively schools educated their black, Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students. We then used participation in and performance on AP and IB exams to evaluate how well schools prepared students for college-level course work.

http://www.usnews.com/education/bes...news-releases-2014-best-high-schools-rankings

Now why do you think you went ahead and left out the first 2 phases?

I know the answer, of course.

 

[Acebb]

I posted many links that state that preventive care does in fact save lives but you only think your few sources are credible. I think the next time you see a MD you should tell him about your findings. It will give him a good chuckle.

1. No you didn't. You posted a bunch of links to blogs saying preventive care is "important" - Note: I already responded to your idiotic drivel on this and you have repeated the same bullshit lie.

2. Here is 1 doctor who isn't chuckling, you rank idiot

This, while the benefits -- the number of lives saved -- are very small at best, nonexistent at worst. [The value of a widespread prostate cancer screening was questioned Friday by the top medical officer for the American Cancer Society."Screening does not clearly save lives and many men who get aggressive treatment clearly do not need aggressive treatment," Dr. Otis W. Brawley said]

Note: I provided references to a number of actual studies on the matter, the US Preventive Care Task Force recommendations, and you posted links to blogs. Yes, blogs.

You lying idiot.

Again, notice how quickly you revealed yourself to be nothing but a lying loon here.

 

[Acebb]

I think many here can witness you posting that preventive care does not save lives. You posted several links, some in which if you read closely debunks your theory.

You couldn't point to a singular example of me posting any link that "debunks" anything, you pathetic clown. I called you out on this before and your declined to respond, and instead posted idiotic 1 liners such as "did you read that"

The study is a follow-up to one of the two in 2009 that looked at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, and it confirms that men who receive regular PSA tests do not live longer than men without regular screening. Both the 2009 study and the follow-up, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI), use data from the same Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. But the new study updates the old one, confirming the finding that there’s still no mortality difference between the screened and non-screened groups, even after the roughly 75,000 men in the study have been followed for 13 years.

Here is one on Breast Cancer

Now go ahead and point out how I am "dunked"

Go right ahead. I dare you.

Your posts here are simply pathetic.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Acebb, don't fret over these pathetic losers.

Liberals will lie, steal, cheat and even commit murder to advance their radical ideology.

Communism only killed 100 million people - let's give it another chance. w-thumbs!^

 

[BleedingPurple]

You couldn't point to a singular example of me posting any link that "debunks" anything, you pathetic clown. I called you out on this before and your declined to respond, and instead posted idiotic 1 liners such as "did you read that"

The study is a follow-up to one of the two in 2009 that looked at prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, and it confirms that men who receive regular PSA tests do not live longer than men without regular screening. Both the 2009 study and the follow-up, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI), use data from the same Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. But the new study updates the old one, confirming the finding that there’s still no mortality difference between the screened and non-screened groups, even after the roughly 75,000 men in the study have been followed for 13 years.

Here is one on Breast Cancer

Now go ahead and point out how I am "dunked"

Go right ahead. I dare you.

Your posts here are simply pathetic.

This is too easy... From your article

"To begin, it’s helpful to think about when cancer screening works the best. To date, perhaps the most successful cancer screening program is the pap smear for cervical cancer, one of only two cancer-screening tests that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force “strongly recommends” (at least for young and middle-aged women with a cervix). The test is cheap and has virtually no side-effects. It detects cancerous and pre-cancerous cervical abnormalities with reasonable accuracy. And, crucially, it helps people to find potentially lethal cancers long before symptoms appear — the point when patients would otherwise notice something was wrong — thus letting patients take advantage of treatment early, when the chances of success are highest."

"Everyones knows someone who detected a cancer from a screening test, which potentially saved that person’s life. No one is denying that screening can save lives, but when it comes to screening policies for a population, public health officials must weigh the medical and economic costs and benefits across people of different risk levels."

Acebb is denying that screening saves lives. Couldn't get second link to load. But in your first article it says "no one is denying that screening can save lives"

 

[BleedingPurple]

Actually, the Democrats overseeing the Oregon exchange lied to the Federal Government about the progress and there may be criminal charges.

Why are Democrats such liars, anyway?

This is more bullshit, the article doesn't mention any Democrats lying to the Feds. Why are Democrats such liars? Why are you ?

 

[Acebb]

This is too easy... From your article



Acebb is denying that screening saves lives. Couldn't get second link to load. But in your first article it says "no one is denying that screening can save lives"

"Can save lives" is not "will save lives"

That is the level of stupid that is being dealt with here.

Note: the evidence stacks up to provide at best tenuous support for routine PSA testing. Screening leads to a good deal of suffering, and it doesn’t save a lot of lives.

In other words, this rank idiot actually believes that pointing to some tests, means the idea at the aggregate is refuted.

Also note, this is an yet another example where a truncated quote is used by the rank idiot. Specifically: No one is denying that screening can save lives, but when it comes to screening policies for a population, public health officials must weigh the medical and economic costs and benefits across people of different risk levels

The rank idiot can't grasp (or is ignoring) what "for a population" means. Finally, notice the rank idiot can not, will not, respond to the clear conclusion regarding mortality rates.

Nobody reading is at all shocked.

 

[Acebb]

This is more bullshit, the article doesn't mention any Democrats lying to the Feds. Why are Democrats such liars? Why are you ?

Hey idiot: They're all Democrats. The entire state government of Oregon is run by Democrats.

Keep flailing.

 

[Acebb]

T
Acebb is denying that screening saves lives. Couldn't get second link to load. But in your first article it says "no one is denying that screening can save lives"

Hey idiot: there’s still no mortality difference between the screened and non-screened groups, even after the roughly 75,000 men in the study have been followed for 13 years

Hey idiot: "Screening does not clearly save lives and many men who get aggressive treatment clearly do not need aggressive treatment," Dr. Otis W. Brawley said

Hey idiot: Breast cancer screening in “real world” situations is not effective in preventing mortality, says a US case control study. The study, one of the largest completed to date looking at the effectiveness of breast cancer screening, was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2005;97: 1035-43) http://www.bmj.com/content/331/7512/309.1

Hey idiot: In conclusion, our data show that annual mammography does not result in a reduction in breast cancer specific mortality for women aged 40-59 beyond that of physical examination alone or usual care in the community. The data suggest that the value of mammography screening should be reassessed. http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g366

Keep flailing

 

[BleedingPurple]

Note how you can not stop yourself from lying here.

Here is how the rankings were derived

We teamed up with American Institutes for Research, a D.C.-based organization, to evaluate schools in three phases. The first two steps looked at overall student performance on state-mandated assessments, as well as how effectively schools educated their black, Hispanic and economically disadvantaged students. We then used participation in and performance on AP and IB exams to evaluate how well schools prepared students for college-level course work.

http://www.usnews.com/education/bes...news-releases-2014-best-high-schools-rankings

Now why do you think you went ahead and left out the first 2 phases?

I know the answer, of course.

This show exactly how stupid you fucking are? Why did I leave out the first 2 phases? Cause your link and mine do not match, a fucking monkey could figure that out? Do you notice the difference between your link and my link. Can you tell the difference between the two articles and what they are talking about. Would someone please read both links and tell this idiot the difference so it comes from somebody else. Man you are dumb.

 

[Acebb]

Do you notice the difference between your link and my link. Can you tell the difference between the two articles and what they are talking about.

Hey idiot: My link references the actual study used to show Minnesota ranked 33 in their rankings.

Yours did not.

Why did you try and provide a reference that was not used here?

Man, you are stupid.

Keep flailing, idiot.

 

[Acebb]

Do you notice the difference between your link and my link.

My link was relevant and you tried to pretend your link was somehow relevant to the original reference I provided.

Your link was not.

You are trying to misrepresent things here. You've also revealed you are dishonest and stupid.

 

[BleedingPurple]

"Can save lives" is not "will save lives"

That is the level of stupid that is being dealt with here.

Note: the evidence stacks up to provide at best tenuous support for routine PSA testing. Screening leads to a good deal of suffering, and it doesn’t save a lot of lives.

In other words, this rank idiot actually believes that pointing to some tests, means the idea at the aggregate is refuted.

Also note, this is an yet another example where a truncated quote is used by the rank idiot. Specifically: No one is denying that screening can save lives, but when it comes to screening policies for a population, public health officials must weigh the medical and economic costs and benefits across people of different risk levels

The rank idiot can't grasp (or is ignoring) what "for a population" means. Finally, notice the rank idiot can not, will not, respond to the clear conclusion regarding mortality rates.

Nobody reading is at all shocked.

That is your stance is the article says it can instead of it will? Come on.

You are using one test in PSA testing? What about the Cervix cancer. Hey Dave, Did a PSA test save your life?

 

[Acebb]

Would someone please read both links and tell this idiot the difference so it comes from somebody else. Man you are dumb.

Hey idiot: Here is the link I originally provided: Minnesota, however, did not fare well compared to other states in terms of the number of stellar high schools. Overall, it ranked 33rd

Here is the accompanying story from US News. The 2014 Best High Schools rankings, released today,

You either tried to misrepresent this or you are too dumb to follow along.

Which is it?

 

[Acebb]

That is your stance is the article says it can instead of it will? Come on.

No, I'm going by the conclusion regarding there’s still no mortality difference between the screened and non-screened groups,

A point you can not address.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Liberals just want to make the world a better place...so lying is perfectly justified.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Insiders: More Obamacare lies, no one is surprised

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ders-more-obamacare-lies-no-one-is-surprised/

Obamacare's 4 Biggest Lies

http://nypost.com/2014/01/05/4-biggest-lies-about-obamacare/

Obamacare: Lies All the Way Down

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/14/obamacare_lies_all_the_way_down_120954.html

Obamacare: A Tangled Web of Lies of Loss

http://townhall.com/columnists/susa...ngled-web-of-lies-and-loss-n1817436/page/full