Did Obama forget to talk about Obamacare and the microchip for people in the democratic convention?

This is the dirtiest and most misleading campaign of all time. Deception has been absolutely RIDICULOUS!!!! Please read factcheck.org. about what is real and what is not about the healthcare program. http://funadvice.com/r/1699dtd9u5e

Still have nothing to do with FACTCHECK.ORG, I see. Truth hurt

If you want to know bout the healthcare look up obama healthcare plane and you should be able to read bout it.But it is real and it will happen sometime in the future if not real soon.

Here’s a video of Obama in his own words http://funadvice.com/r/1696po0gof1 ….Doesn’t take a Mental Giant to see the blatant deception, DUH !!

I believe that everyone deserves to have healthcare, but planting microchips in ppl is going a bit far.

Absolutely NO microchips are mentioned in the document. NONE, NADA, NEVER. See http://funadvice.com/r/1699dtd9u5e

Both Romney and Obama left out mentioning things during their conventions, but that is normal. Conventions are to energize their people. The upcoming debates will be a better way to judge the two if you are still undecided.

You will have to do better than “I have heard that…” The full text of the Affordable Care Act is at http://funadvice.com/r/butg7ope1v2 Go read it and then tell me when you find the microchip part.

The rumor is based upon language in a prior version of the bill from the House of Representatives; HR3200, that would have required RFID chips to be implemented in all class II implantable medical devices.

This provision along with the criminal punishment for failing to procure medical insurance did not ultimately make it into the final version of the bill.

Though it is far from a benevolent piece of legislation inasmuch as it is simply legalized extortion, written by and for the benefit of major healthcare, insurance and big pharmaceutical companies, and rushed through both houses of congress.

Democrats, who one would think would be adamantly opposed to corporate fascism, have embraced this bill, ironically. The litmus test for good legislation being anything signed into law by a democratic President.

Reading the Factcheck.org. article… I find the language to be a little misleading and contradictory. In regards to the rumor of implanted RFID chips, they say, “No. Nothing like this appears in the new law, or in any of the bills that Congress considered.”… and then immediately follow up with… except for HR3200… lol. To make such a declarative statment and then immediately backtrack lends me to believe that factcheck.org is just another propaganda clearinghouse along the lines of snopes. Relying on its readership to take the sites authority for granted, apparently, without even following up with further reading provided by the site. Seems suspect to me.

I watched it …most taped from Fox news and nothing I saw had anything to do with the topic…Microchipping people. ???? Base your facts girl not your assasinations. I can get plenty of that from the media and PAID FOR ADVERTISING. If you want to believe Romney walks on water and Obama is Satan’s spawn knock your socks off. Personally anyone who believes ether party walks on water and should do it in 4 years….needs a brain transplant.

Sources for the article were mentioned Reynolds, Maura. “Health bills allow some a religious exemption.” CQ Politics. 3 Aug. 2009.

United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252. U.S. Supreme Court, 23 Feb. 1982.

Jaggard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 582 F2d 1189. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8 Sep. 1978.

Droz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 48 F.3d 1120. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 1 Mar. 1995.

Church of Christ, Scientist. “New federal health care reform law and Christian Scientists.” Press release. 25 Mar. 2010.

Pear, Robert. “Coverage Now for Sick Children? Check Fine Print.” New York Times. 28 Mar. 2010.

Ignani, Karen. Letter to Kathleen Sebelius. 29 Mar. 2010.

Lovley, Erika and Patrick O’Connor. “Health bill may exempt top Hill staffers.” Politico. 24 Mar. 2010.

Fox News. “GOP Senator: Health Care Law Will Permit Sex Offenders to Get Viagra.” 6 Apr. 2010.

Condon, Stephanie. “GOP Rolls Out Last-Ditch Efforts to Stop Health Care Bill.” CBS News. 24 Mar. 2010.

Please read this part of fact check

Does the law require all patients to be implanted with microchips?

No. Nothing like this appears in the new law, or in any of the bills that Congress considered. This claim stems from a wild misinterpretation of a provision in the original House leadership’s bill (H.R. 3200) that did not require implantation of anything, and that was, in any case, not part of the final legislation. The part of the original House leadership’s bill that’s usually referenced to support this rather paranoid claim actually would have set up a registry for class III medical devices and class II devices that are “implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.” The Federal Drug Administration’s classifications determine how much oversight and regulation the device has — class III devices (such as, for example, replacement heart valves or artificial hips) need pre-market FDA approval; class I devices (like x-ray film or tongue depressors) need only general quality controls. Class II devices, which need to meet performance standards but don’t need pre-market approval, cover a wide range — blood pressure cuffs are class II, but so are cerebral shunts. That’s why the bill specified implantable, life-supporting and life-sustaining devices.

But the bill did not mandate implantable devices of any kind, least of all microchips. Rather, it said that implantable devices will be registered so that physicians can access data about safety and effectiveness in a way that “protects patient privacy and proprietary information.” And again, it didn’t become law.

…as I acknowledged in my comment, my problem is not in the lack of citations but in the language used in the article itself. In my opinion, to say that “nothing like this appeared in any bill that was considered by congress” contradicts the assertion made further in the paragraph that a similar provision was in fact included in house bill 3200. Why use such a strong statement to deny the assertion if not to rely upon the habits of those people inclined to only read the headers of each point addressed and not take the time to read the full description in an effort to hide the actual truth? This seems disingenuous to me. I would never advocate any site claiming to be a clearinghouse for the truth. People are prone to become lackadaisical in their dependence upon such an authority to determine the veracity of any matter and the site would become a haven for agendas. Citations are great but in and of themselves are not proofs of truthfulness. Like I said… my problem with this particular article was the contradiction between the header and content that followed.