You tend to talk this way, as though you are the site's "king of debate."
You're not.
Someone nailed it before; I think it was Darla. Your tend to argue in a cyclic manner - so, when someone makes a point or presents a fact, you shift the foundation of the discussion, to something related but completely different, so that people have to keep adjusting their arguments.
It's frustrating. No one should have to present language that "specifically states" that there won't be a mandate on consultations. We pointed to the clause in question, and you are no doubt aware of it. All it does is provide the option for it, through medicare.
Yet you refuse to call people like meme for their continued lying on this; she continues to assert that consulations - "death decisions" - will be forced, and will be with a government bureaucrat, and not with their healthcare professional. It's completely dishonest, and she knows it; she's even proud of it, and has said several times that the ends justify the means of lying.
Yet nary a comment from you about that dishonesty. You have a whole different standard for people on the right. For lefties? Why, they have to produce language where the legislators specifically forbid mandates, even though nothing can be mandated if it's not legislated.
