Clinton...Yet another falsehood

Posted by: Clark

Clinton...Yet another falsehood - 04/06/08 10:42 AM

For the past five weeks, Clinton has told the story many times in her stump speeches about an uninsured and pregnant Ohio woman, working for minimum wage at a pizza parlor, is turned away from a hospital because she can't come up with $100. The baby dies, and so does the woman. Clinton talks about how this woman haunts her, and how stories like this show the moral imperative--and the urgency--of fixing a badly broken health care system.<br>The audience never fails to gasp after she tells the story.<br><br>[color:blue]Slight problem with the story is it didn’t happen.</font color=blue><br>The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.<br><br>“We implore the Clinton campaign to immediately desist from repeating this story,” said Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System. <br><br>Another interesting part of the story is the Clinton campaign never contacted the hospital to check the accuracy of the story.<br><br>This is on the heels of Clinton’s false claim that she braved sniper fire during a 1996 trip to Bosnia.<br><br>I wonder why people find her the least honest of the three candidates?<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Clinton...Yet another falsehood - 04/06/08 01:39 PM

O Geeze! <br><br>Is there any chance that there might have been more than ONE? <br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Clinton...Yet another falsehood - 04/06/08 01:46 PM

I would point out that lying and deliberately misstating something are not the same... although I'm not sure what the difference is. <br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: Mike

The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 03:01 PM

Linko <br><br><br><br>[color:blue]"This is all very bizarre. A hospital injecting itself into a story to announce a patient died under its care, all in an attempt to attack Hillary Clinton. But of course, if hating Hillary Clinton is your avocation - the issue of health care reform, the bizarre behavior of the hospital in question and the death of Trina Bachtel are of little importance to you. Get Hillary!!!!! What has happened to the progressive blogs in this election season is simply awful.</font color=blue><br><br>[color:blue][/b]Hodie mihi. Cras tibi.</font color=blue>[/b]
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 03:08 PM

I agree with the final sentence of what you quote. And it's not just the blogs. Olberman has become a paid employee of the Obama campaign over the last couple of months, hasn't he?<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: Lea

Re: The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 03:34 PM

Oh, wow. And here I thought I was the only one. I can't stand listening to KO anymore. Used to love him. Now all I can think is, didn't he used to call sports or something and was his mouth always that puckered up? It's like he's become a Bizarro World BOR. <br><br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:white]xx</font color=white>[color:blue]I always deserve it. Really.</font color=blue><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 04:12 PM

i have never watched his show other than seeing a clip here or there on YouTube -- often from a link here. but if he's pro Obama over HIllary then he's alright with me. if conservatives hate Clinton and KO is hating on her, then maybe she'll eventually get the message that she's just got too many negatives to continue. nah, that'll never happen. <br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 04:15 PM

It gets tiresome, Sean. Seriously tiresome.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: Clark

Re: The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 04:20 PM

The hospital had to make a statement because they were being lied about.<br>Clinton said the hospital denied the woman health care because she didn't have health insurance and she didn't have the $100 fee.<br>She's lucky she didn't mention the hospital by name or she may have been sued for libel.<br><br>[color:blue]"the death of Trina Bachtel are of little importance to you"</font color=blue><br>What's that got to do with the original post? <br>Most of the news sites are keeping Bachtel's name out of the story.<br>For example, here is the ABC News story called "Clinton Drops Another Tale From Stump Speech".<br><br>Clinton likes to embellish her speeches. I call it an out and out lie.<br><br>Maybe she can go back on Leno and make a joke about this like she did the Bosnian sniper fire.<br><br><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ti1zbLC--MQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ti1zbLC--MQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br><br><br>
Posted by: FSM

Re: The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 04:26 PM

i am getting sick of this battle. at least the battle against the republicans gives me a villain i can really dislike because of policies, but Hillary Clinton is not someone i want to dislike. i had favorable feelings towards her and Bill back when this race started and it's slowly dwindling away. i really want to be a fan, but they make it hard and i wonder if her supporters are finding it difficult to think they'll support Obama if he wins just because of the viciousness of this primary??? i'd like to think that Obama hasn't gone nearly as negative as the Clinton team, but at the same time the mere fact that they've been in a heated battle pretty much scars both sides. crummy stuff.<br><br>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Clinton...Yet another falsehood - 04/06/08 04:38 PM

Whether spiteful or not, it remains that Ms. Clinton is beginning to have a real credibility problem.<br><br>
Posted by: Celandine

SHUDDUP ALREADY!!! - 04/06/08 04:47 PM

I agree<br>they've tipped the scale the other way now.<br><br>[color:white]. . . . . . . . . . </font color=white> ALL OF THEM<br><br>Seriously... it's beyond tiresome that ALL the Media<br>have picked up on these "LEAKED" secrets and Squirted<br>it all over the place 24/7/365 like a lawn sprinkler.<br><br>and every goof & gaff spreading & rippling across<br>the air waves until it sounds like a LOOP TAPE!<br>[color:white]. . . . . . . . . . </font color=white> Wotz Wit' Dat?<br><br>and while I'm not ready to switch to FOX Network<br>I'm beginning to yearn for some go old fashion <br> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "FAIR & BALANCED" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <br><br>I don't blame any of the three candidates...<br>I've just grown beyond weary of the media<br>whom I just mentioned to my BF this AM<br>"I feel like the Media itself is running (or at least steering)<br>the entire Election Process. I'm getting "VOTER BURN-OUT"<br>and we're no where near the General Election<br><br>[color:white]. . . . .</font color=white> "GOD HELP US!!!" <br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 04:52 PM

Yeah! The media sure likes to tip-toe around the real issues and go straight for the gossip and rumor mongering. Access Hollywood and the "news" media have way too much in common.<br><br>
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 05:08 PM

So anyone getting sold on the UK model. 6 weeks campaigning then vote?<br><br>I used to think it was terrible that life was unfair. Then I thought what if life were fair and all of the terrible things that happen came because we really deserved them? Now I take comfort in the general unfairness and hostility of the universe.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The Rest of the Story? - 04/06/08 05:32 PM

That wouldn't work here, Llew. Why? Because Britons vote for local politicos, whom they can get to know in 6 weeks, and it's the politicos, presumably the folks who know the major players, who then select the PM. It would be impossible to have a continent-wide election for president in 6 weeks. If we changed to a parliamentary system, then 6 weeks would make sense. But don't hold your breath for such a change. We need our imperator cause we don't have a regina.<br><br>[color:red]&#63743;</font color=red> [color:orange]&#63743;</font color=orange> [color:yellow]&#63743;</font color=yellow> [color:green]&#63743;</font color=green> [color:blue]&#63743;</font color=blue> [color:purple]&#63743;</font color=purple>
Posted by: DLC

Re: Clinton...Yet another falsehood - 04/07/08 05:40 AM

Well this is like Bush hunting for WMDs...<br><br>if they keep searching ALL the hospitals in EVERY city in EVERY State ... I'm sure they'll find someone who was turned down that died. <br><br>Hillary is Incompetent.... she can't even lie as good as Bush !<br>What does that say about her qualifications to fill "tha decider's" shoes ? <br><br>David (OFI)
Posted by: Clark

Re: Clinton...Yet another falsehood - 04/07/08 05:49 AM

[color:blue]"What does that say about her qualifications to fill "tha decider's" shoes ?"</font color=blue><br><br>Actually, I think Bush might be proud of her.<br>Maybe she could be McCain's Veep. <br><br><br>
Posted by: Clark

She did it again! - 04/07/08 10:36 AM

Can Hillary Clinton go a day without riddling her speeches by untruths and fact-twisting?<br><br>In a speech in Oregon on Saturday, Clinton said, "Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "When Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."<br><br>[color:blue]Wrong! Very Wrong!</font color=blue><br><br>ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper did such a good job talking about this in his blog that I am going to quote him just about word for word:<br><br>"Sen. Hillary Clinton attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.<br><br>It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)<br><br>But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.<br><br>Scrambling to support their boss's claim, Clinton campaign officials pointed to a paper statement Clinton issued on Jan. 26, 2005, explaining her vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.<br><br>"The Administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements and misjudgments," the January 2005 Clinton statement said. "From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq."<br><br>But Obama offered criticisms of the war in Iraq eight days before that, directly to Rice, in his very first meeting as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 18.<br><br>Obama pushed Rice on her answers to previous questioners regarding the effectiveness of Iraqi troops, and he criticized the administration for conveying a never-ending commitment to a US troop presence in Iraq.<br><br>"I am concerned about this notion that was pursued by Senator Biden and others that we've made significant progress in training troops," Obama told Rice "Because it seems to me that in your response to Senator Alexander that we will not be able to get our troops out absent the Iraqi forces being able to secure their own country, or at least this administration would not be willing to define success in the absence of such security. I never got quite a clear answer to Senator Biden's question as to how many troops -- Iraqi troops -- don't just have a uniform and aren't just drawing a paycheck, but are effective enough and committed enough that we would willingly have our own troops fighting side-by- side with them. The number of 120,000 you gave, I suspect, does not meet those fairly stringent criteria that Senator Biden was alluding to. I just want to make sure, on the record, that you give me some sense of where we're at now."<br><br>Obama concluded his brief q&a by saying "if our measure is bring our troops home and success is measured by whether Iraqis can secure their own circumstances, and if our best troops in the world are having trouble controlling the situation with 150,000 or so, it sounds like we've got a long way to go. And I think part of what the American people are going to need is some certainty, not an absolute timetable, but a little more certainty than is being provided, because right now, it appears to be an entirely open-ended commitment."<br><br>
Posted by: keymaker

SPELLING MISTAKE!!! - 04/07/08 11:55 PM

It's not shuddup but shaddup... shaddap your face if you must know...<br><br><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vAwH1sl1rE4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vAwH1sl1rE4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object><br><br><br><br>km<br><br>
Posted by: carp

Re: She did it again! - 04/08/08 11:12 PM

Okay maybe I am wrong?<br><br>My understanding is that by Federal law - NO patient can be turned away by a hospital based on racial or financial means. There is or was a system that the federal gov did pay to hospitals that emitted patients that did not have any medical plans or money to pay their medical bill. The problem is that the Feds took forever to reimburse hospitals and when they did it average about 50% of the total cost.<br><br>Bottom line;<br>That hospital did the turn away via employees instructed to do so via bean counters.<br><br>
Posted by: Clark

Re: She did it again! - 04/09/08 06:07 AM

[color:blue]"That hospital did the turn away via employees instructed to do so via bean counters."</font color=blue><br><br>What are you talking about, Carp?<br>The hospital did not turn her away. <br>She had insurance.<br>Her son was stillborn at O'Bleness Hospital on August 1, 2007. She was airlifted to OSU Medical Center in Columbus, where she died two weeks later.<br><br><br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: She did it again! - 04/09/08 06:38 AM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>emitted patients<p><hr></blockquote><p> That carpism stopped me dead in my tracks as I envisioned a hospital on the hill emitting patients to light the world. <br><br><br><br><br><br>