Press and blogs are going crazy relating stories that Hillary's stump speech mentioning of an Ohio woman dying for the lack of $100 is false. The woman's aunt came out yesterday and said it is true. Hillary tells the story of Trina Bechtel and it is riveting.
It seems that reports of this story being false aren't true themselves. They are based on statements from the hospital where the woman died, not the hospital which refused her treatment for preeclampsia. It appears this hospital was the Holzer Medical Center and they refused her treatment unless she paid a $100 deposit. They actually notified her of this requirement by mail according to the aunt.
The reports accusing Hillary of lying about this tale are based on information provided by the hospital which admitted her and did treat her after she obtained health insurance. The story told by Hillary however, stands up. The woman did not have health insurance and was refused treatment for the lack of $100. She and her baby did die because of this. The story is true.
Update: Here's the video I took of HIllary telling this story. This isn't some other person's video, it's one I took personally at the event.
It's interesting that both of the campaigns will address issues like health care and medical security, but for some reason they haven't really addressed any of the problems facing our social security system. In Pennsylvania, the largest demographic of people are under the age of 40.
These stories about the need for health care are fine and dandy, by wh would anyone want to live longer if they're once guaranteed payments from the government wont be there?
It's right wing, I know, thats how I roll, but I think its something that need to be discussed.
Here is the post I stumbled upon that made me think about this: http://www.freedomtalks.org/2008/04/08/will-democrat-candidates-talk-about-retirement-crisis/
Posted by: DC Republican | April 08, 2008 at 03:42 PM
As I've written numerous times, these fear tactics about the "Social Security crisis" are just that: fear tactics designed to con Americans into letting Republicans eliminate the program.
Posted by: John Morgan | April 08, 2008 at 03:46 PM
OK, here is my insensitive comment...
Why was this person who couldnt come up with $100 doing being pregnant in the first place? Did she (and where was the father during all this??) think that a child was free? if you cant pull together $100, you have ZERO business getting pregnant in the first place. You'll burn through $100 in food and diapers in less than a month...unless of course you rely on the government to raise your kid. In which case, go out and breed like rabbits and have the rest of us foot the bill. food stamps, welfare, hud, government checks...gimme, gimme gimme. And then wonder why the kids grow up in a cycle of poverty and neglect.
You can talk about health care reform all you want, but i also see a breakdown in personal responsibility. there's going to be a tipping point where those of us pulling the wagon simply decide to stop and those riding in the wagon are gonna be F*cked with a capital F. Pardon the curse word.
ok, john...tell me i have no humanity.
have a great day :)
Posted by: tyler | April 08, 2008 at 04:12 PM
tyler please don't begin saying people without the right to medical care should be prohibited from having sex. I don't think you want to go there.
Posted by: John Morgan | April 08, 2008 at 04:28 PM
Horrible. I remember when the media tried to do this to John Edwards too.
Posted by: Kevin | April 08, 2008 at 04:44 PM
John, I think you're falling into the same trap that the originators of the supposedly false story fall into.
Recall the tale Hillary told over and over on the stump. Now read what the aunt says (unsubstantiated as it is, let's assume it's true).
The two don't resemble themselves in the least.
To title your thread that Hillary told the truth is wrong. It also doesn't ask the hard questions about the Clinton campaign competence that they didn't do the vetting required to find out IF it was even remotely true or not.
The biggest problem the Clintons have in this is that they could have framed the same story in a less sensationalized way and still hit very close to home for many of us.
This woman was insured but still fell deep into debt for necessary medical care. Because of that, she didn't get the care she needed to save herself and maybe her child. That, in and of itself, is completely true, and completely relevant to the broken medical care system we have today.
But she didn't vet the story, she didn't tell the truth, she went strictly for the most sensationalist anecdote she could. Isn't that the same as GW did with his rush to war, albeit on a much lessor scale?
If Hillary didn't have the Bosra farce, the NAFTA and now Columbian trade messes, the latest Iraq war authorization vote fabrications then this story would be a non starter. But she, and Bill as well, both have one fabrication after another that begin to back the theory they will say or do anything to get a vote.
To me, this is much more about competence than anything else. It's fine to be a great policy wonk but being President is different than being Chief of Staff...being President is about tone and tenor, about not accepting ANY fabrications or exaggerations.
I don't believe Hillary meant to lie about this. I believe she sees health insurance as a huge problem for many of us. I also believe she simply accepted this story at face value and ran with it as a heart wrenching story to hammer home her commitment to her health insurance plan.
We can't afford any more leaders who are willing to accept ANY intel at face value...that don't take the true leadership step of making absolutely sure they have all the facts and present the whole truth to the American people.
Hillary has not shown through all of these lies or exaggerations or *misspeakings* that she would be that true leader.
So is your headline still TRUE?
Posted by: G Davis | April 08, 2008 at 06:30 PM
I actually heard Hillary tell this story and taped it in Millersville and have watched it numerous times (unfortunately I deleted it to make room on my hard drive for other videos). The story I heard her tell matches completely with the one related by the girl's aunt. Completely.
Posted by: John Morgan | April 08, 2008 at 06:56 PM
Why I will not vote for Obama:
1. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Energy policy from an Obama administration?
Answer: NO. Why Not?
Because: Obama voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill (H.R. 6) in 2005.
(which enabled the nuke industry to begin planning to build 29 new nukes (one of them in Pennsylvania)
- after 30 years of no new nukes being built because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky.
The Cheney Energy Bill solved that problem for the nuke industry by guaranteeing taxpayer payback of any of the nuke loans that default ... (with the risk of default rated by the Congressional Budget Office at 50% or greater).
Because: Obama has been IN with the nuke industry for decades. Excelon Corp. of Illinois is the largest nuke operator on earth - ( they own the nuclear power plants in Illinois and they own Con-Ed in NY state). Excelon has been one of Obama's largest contributors since his earliest days in politics.
Because: Obama would not even be IN the race for president IF he was not HEAVILY SUPPORTED by the nuke industry. GE (2nd largest corporation on the planet) & Westinghouse are planning to build many of those nukes.
GE owns NBC & MSNBC. Westinghouse owns CBS. That's the reason "the Mainstreams Media" are PUSHING Obama for President/ slamming & smearing the Clintons. ABSENT BILLIONS of dollars worth of FREE Pro-Obama Advertising/Propaganda provided by NBC/MSNBC/and CBS Obama would not have gotten past the New Hampshire primary.
2. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in the ECONOMY?
Answer: It doesn't look good. Obama's financial advisors include the followng people:
JEFFREY LIEBMAN: SOCIAL SECURITY: In a 2005 policy paper Liebman advocated a mix of benefit cuts, tax increases and mandatory personal accounts.
DAVID CUTLER: HEALTHCARE: He Says High Health Care Costs are Good.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: RICH GETTING RICHER, EVERYBODY ELSE GETTING POORER:
The stagnation of middle- and working-class incomes, and the anxiety this has generated, is, he says, a most pressing problem, but policymakers must be mindful about trying to address its root cause, which Goolsbee says is "radically increased returns to skill." ( i.e. College degrees are paying off more & more --- which is true, BUT Certainly DOES NOT account for the rise of the super rich, nor the increasing poverty of everyone else.)
(Evidently, Goolsbee's not old enough to remember the beginning of that Income Inequality, or to recognize THE CAUSE. It began in 1981. THE CAUSE of it was and is that Reagan cut the top tax rate DOWN from 70% to the low 30% s, AND Corporations all over America BEGAN instituting "THE TWO-TIER WAGE STRUCTURE'. i.e. Pay the people at the top a LOT MORE, Pay Everybody Else a LOT LESS. (If you searched old newspaper archives from the early 1980s you would find newspaper articles about the sudden appearance of the Two-Tier Wage Structure.)
3. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in Foreign Policy?
Answer: Not Likely.
Among a dozen or so Foreign Policy Advisors the most "senior" advisor is:
Zbigniew Brzezinski. Former National Security Advisor to President Carter. Using the CIA & Billions of dollars, he ginned up a War in Afghanistan .... seeking as he said to "give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam.".
He Created the Taliban and Al Queda/ JIHAD/madrassa brainwashing schools for that purpose. Supported the dictator Pol Pol who massacred millions of Cambodian villagers. When asked, if in hindsight, considering that Al Queda eventually attacked America, and Pol Pot slaughtered millions - IF he would change anything he had done .... Zbig answered NO, he was satisfied with the results.
Electing Obama President is not likely to reassure the rest of the world that the U.S. is going to cease having an insane foreign policy; is likely to put Russia on an even more nervous hair trigger than they are now.
The major problem with Obama and his advisiors is they are ACADEMICS who have lived the life of privilege out of touch with the real world --- Better educated and smarter than Bush's gang --- they are still likely to do just as badly at running the government --- for the same reason: OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY ... i.e. insane....people doing insane things.
4. Are we likely to get GOOD CHANGES in: appointing competent qualified people to run the government; instead of cronyism, or good changes that get rid of fraud, payoffs, and corruption in government?
Answer: No.
Because: Obama's friend Rezko was part and parcel of the mafia connected, corrupt, Daley Chicago political machine. Rezko was Obama's chief fundraiser from the beginning of his career in Illinois politics to his election to the U.S. Senate. There is very little coverage of the Obama Rezko/Daley corruption connections on National TV, but the local Chicago papers have a lot of info going back several years ... & it don't look good for Obama. He got IN with the Daley machine when his wife worked as an assistant to one of Daley's higher ups; Obama looks to be part and parcel of the same corrupt Daley political machine as his friend Rezko.
Some of the above is speculation based on facts.. What I KNOW Obama HAS ALREADY DONE makes all the above doubts and questions irrelevant in answering the question:
Is Obama qualified to be, or likely to be, a GOOD President?
Answer: NO. He has already done something so unconscionable, so dirty, so dangerous that no sane American would even consider voting for him. HE played the race card.
Those accusations of racism against the Clintons did not come from any public "Outcry" on the part of black people all over the country - those accusations of racism came solely and directly from the Obama Campaign. Obama was caught red-handed pushing those accusations to the press - in a 4-page Internal Campaign Memo - Listing those accusations & directing them to the press. The Huffington Post obtained a copy & published it on the web.
Shortly thereafter, during one of the debates, Tim Russert (MSNBC) ..... while rustling a copy of the 4-page Memo in his hand .... asked Obama .... your campaign has been pushing accusations of racism to the press (rustles pages) .... in a 4-page campaign memo .... what do you have to say about that?
Obama mumbled a few sentences ....( people in both campaigns get carried away and say things they shouldn't have said ... blah..blah) .... and .... then MSNBC/ the mainstream media .... NEVER MENTIONED IT AGAIN!.
Instead, MSNBC/NBC/CBS and all the rest of the mainstream CORPORATE-CONTROLLED media just went right on endlessly PUSHING the SAME totally ridiculous false accusations of "racism".
Obama made those accusations of racism .... in order to win the South Carolina primary. Obama has continued to make accusations of racism ... every time .... he falls behind in the polls. The question is: What USE of RACISM / inter-racial strife would he NOT stoop to IF elected President.
Which brings us to the Question: Is it likely Obama will TRANSCEND race... .Get Past the Politics of DIVISION;.. .....Unite this Country?
Given the DIVISION he has already created by making false accusations of racism - the answer is a resounding:
HELL NO!
Obama is the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED candidate being PUSHED by the CORPORATE-CONTROLLED Media.
Same Media that sold TOO MANY AMERICANS on Bush/Cheney. Same Media that SOLD U.S. a War.
Posted by: elme | April 08, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Why I will Vote for Hillary Clinton:
1. ENERGY: We know we need to change to Cheaper, Cleaner, DE-Centralized/NOT Monopoly controlled Energy.
Clinton states that her Energy Plan does not include nuclear; nuclear can be considered ... in the future .... IF and when they find a way to MAKE IT CHEAPER and Find a way to safely dispose of nuclear waste.
(Obama and McCain have said they are Pro-Nuclear).
2. ECONOMY: The Clintons are the only candidates with ANY experience in TURNING an ECONOMY around before it slides into economic meltdown .... engendering unprecedented economic growth .... during the 1990's ...following Reagan/Bush 1's wholesale looting of the majority of the public and the public treasury.
3. FOREIGN POLICY: Returning the Clintons to the White House will Return the Rest of The World's Governments and Peoples to the SAME unprecedented High Level of Goodwill, RESPECT, and TRUST for the U.S. Government as they had during Bill Clinton's administration.
4. COMPETENT QUALIFED PEOPLE RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT:
Same as during Bill Clinton's administration.
5. REAL PUBLIC SERVANTS instead of cronyism, payoffs, corruption in Government.
The Clinton administration was investigated far more than any other entity in the history of the world.
Investigated by people who hated them AND desperately wanted to find a way to find them guilty of payoffs, corruption, SOMETHING, anything ..... Following 8 years and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of investigations the Clintons were not found guilty of ANY KIND of political corruption --- (which practically makes them eligible for political Sainthood).
As best I can see the Clintons are the candidates being backed by the GOOD wealthy people. Bill Clinton has spent the past eight years .... promoting and expanding CHARITY - particularly among the rich.
When Clinton was president what kind of legislation did he manage to get passed- despite a Republican Controlled Congress?
Two Examples: The Family and Medical Leave Act .... for the benefit of ordinary American working class people, and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. (The two most essential elements for life on this planet.)
Put the Clintons back in the White House WITH a Democrat-Controlled Congress AND the REAL CHANGES We the People Need CAN get made.
Posted by: elme | April 08, 2008 at 11:28 PM
It's quite simplistic to say anyone "created" The Taliban. They formed in the refugee camps in Pakistan during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. If you're going to blame anyone for them it's the Soviet regime.
Posted by: John Morgan | April 09, 2008 at 06:24 AM
Also elem, please cease leaving these comments all over the blog. I ban commenters for that. One posting is enough.
Posted by: John Morgan | April 09, 2008 at 06:30 AM
John, I didnt say that at all. What I was referring to is that you have two people who cant scrape up $100 bucks between them? That's $50 a piece assuming they do it right down the middle (no pun intended) (ha!..i just re-read that...that is funny!)
What in the world are they doing having unprotected sex in the first place? Condoms are free at practically any elementary school anymore...so my point was...they knew full well the consequences of their actions...
So i am to get worked up over someone who has kids they cant afford? And there in lies the lack of personal responsibility.
The following should not come as news to anyone... Kids cost money. Having unprotected sex can lead to having kids. If you cannot muster $100, then you should not be having kids in the first place.
Thats my point. Bang away like monkeys in the zoo for all I care. However, you are going to have a hard time getting sympathy for me if your actions result in kids you cannot afford...then look to the rest of the world to fix your problems.
I ran a credit card up once...anyone want to give me a hand out to pay it off, or is that my own responsibility? Please make the check payable to Tyler in PGH. What? No takers? How about this then to tug on your heart strings...I am a victim of predatory lending tactics by big oil...er, ah...big credit card companies. They tricked me into giving me more money at inflated rates! All I wanted was that big screen plasma TV that I am ENTITLED to and that i see in all those commercials! Why should all the evil rich have big screen tv's...how about us little guys!!! Sony TV, conspiring with Mastercard made me do it. There...does that elicit sympathy from the masses? Got those pens out now to start writing me a check? What? Still no takers? Where's your humanity????
have a great day :)
p.s. Hey G Davis...you said this "being President is about tone and tenor, about not accepting ANY fabrications or exaggerations."
how about Barrack went to Rev Wrights church for 20 years...yes 20...and never once heard him utter those now famous racist comments. Do you really believe that? or would that be an exaggeration that cannot be tolerated by someone wanting to be president.
Posted by: tyler | April 09, 2008 at 11:39 AM
John, I haven't seen any of Hillary's recent recountings of this story, but the one she had been telling for weeks is NOT the same as what the aunt said. The most glaring problem was the line about her being uninsured and turned away for care...no historical references at all about previous debt, etc. I'll gladly admit I'm wrong if there's another version out there that differs...perhaps you could find me a link that shows the one you're talking about?
The major point remains that 1)the aunt tells one story that is not substantiated at all, 2)even the aunt's story, if true, is a very good example of what's wrong with the system albeit less sensational, 3)the history of exaggeration in nearly every story Hillary has told recently simply makes people disbelieve her.
I don't know about you, but I've had enough of administrations that stretch the truth beyond recognition, outright lie to get to their goals, leave out whole parts of the story to taint their presentation toward their goals.
To that part...tyler, first of all I could care less what church ANY of the candidates go to. I care about the candidates OWN words and actions and I see nothing in Obama, past or present, that remotely resembles racist behavior.
I see a person who's willing to admit that blacks harbor anger and resentments just the same as whites do and all other races do...I see a person who speaks to the electorate like their adults rather than pandering to their lowest common denominator.
But setting that aside even, we have seen 2 minutes of clips out of a 30 year career...it is completely in the realm of possibility that Obama was not present for those particular clips. In the race speech Obama admitted he'd heard Wright say controversial things...much the same as many of us have heard I'm sure from our very white preachers in our very white churches over the years.
Again, I am not willing to judge ANY candidate by their church or their friends...I have many friends that believe very differently on many things than I do. Both McCain and the Clintons have very questionable religious, business and personal connections...that doesn't mean they carbon copies of those outside entities.
I prefer to look at the whole body of work of my candidates, my friends, churches, etc. I prefer to believe we are the sum of all the parts of our lives, we learn perspectives by being around both bad and good, closed and open minds.
You'd rather dwell in the intolerance of dismissing people for parts of their whole?
Posted by: G Davis | April 09, 2008 at 01:09 PM
G, if McCain went to the "Church of the White Brotherhood"...where the preacher talked about black crime, i think the reactions by the press would be a bit different.
Heck, President Bush simply spoke at Bob Jones U and remember the stink you democrats gave him about it? PUHLEEZE...spare me your double standards.
And I have stated in other posts and I will state it again...I HAVE NEVER HEARD ONE PRIEST (Roman Catholic here) EVER UTTER ONE RACIST, BIGOTED OR POLITICAL SPEECH in 30+ years of church service. Not once. And I can say that without hestitation or reserve. So don't give the same moral equilvalency that Barrack used to besmirch his white grandmother...ie, I cant leave Wright because my grandma is a closet racist...remember her? She's the 'typical white person'. (think McCain..hell anyone..would survive the comment 'typical black person'?)
The 'whole' of Barrack tells me he is a border line if not outright socialist. Leftist tax raising, military cutting (want the links?) tree hugging cant drill for our own oil on our own soil, big government spending politician.
His own book shows one of his mentors was a card carrying communist. And there is nothing good about communism. Nothing to emulate, nothing to admire, nothing to want to follow.
have a great day :)
Posted by: tyler | April 09, 2008 at 01:40 PM
tyler you don't understand this because you don't understand the Black experience. You don't understand the plight of the poor either. $100 for a hospital deposit is impossible for many people. Many women cannot afford $30 for a mammogram.
Take someone making minimum wage and do the math. Also recall that up until about a year ago that was $5.15 an hour. For a full time worker that came to $206/week. Deduct FICA, state income taxes and everything else that comes out and the take home is likely to be about $136. Rents around here average about $550 for something barely adequate in bad neighborhoods. That income doesn't even cover the rent. Now factor in food, utilities, clothing and all a person's other basic needs and explain to me where the $100 comes from? It may as well be a million for these poor people.
Posted by: John Morgan | April 09, 2008 at 02:04 PM
I'm going to update the story with the actual video I took of Hillary telling this. The video will speak for itself.
The hospital where Trina died tried to debunk this to defuse the issue. This is NOT the hospital which turned her away though and Hillary didn't say it was. Hillary said the baby wound up dying and the woman later died after being transferred to a trauma hospital. The facts all agree with what Hillary said. Her story is true.
Posted by: John Morgan | April 09, 2008 at 02:14 PM
few things
1) if there is 'black experience' is there a white experience? And if there is a black experience that I just cant seem to understand and relate to...then how can anyone non white relate to whites? Is there a latino experience? An Indian experience? Eastern European experience? A Jimi Hendrix Experience? If so, then Barrack cannot possible represent me as he cannot understand my plight, either as a white person nor as a middle class citizen. He is stinking rich.
We'd better increase the US house of representative then as blacks can only speak for blacks...well, there's rich blacks, poor blacks, urban blacks, rural blacks, suburban blacks,rich whites, poor whites, urban whites, rural white, ....and since no one outside our group can understand the plight of others and since there are about 1000000 groups in the US...we're gonna need more chairs.
Or maybe, just maybe...the idea that we cant relate is just a bunch of hooey.
2) You are actually proving my point...let's suppose she was pulling in minimum wage and doesnt have any cash on hand...it further bolsters my argument why was she having unprotected sex in the first place? SHE CANT (COULDNT) AFFORD IT. But she did anyway. And I am supposed to feel bad?
Lower the taxes, and we'd all have more pocket money. If her taxes for FICA/STATE/LOCAL/GAS etc came down, I'd bet she'd have that $100.
:)
Posted by: tyler | April 09, 2008 at 02:32 PM
you're clueless about all of this. sorry you missed the empathy gene.
Posted by: John Morgan | April 09, 2008 at 02:34 PM
I ran up my credit card once...have any empathy for me? Do we have empathy for drunk drivers?
Or maybe, just maybe, it's someone's own fault and they need to take a degree of control over their own lives?
Or all we all just babies who need cared for from birth until death by a nanny state. Sure, its safe, but it is really what you want?
my empathy gene lies with the victim of the drunk driver, not the drunk driver. big difference. she shouldn't have unprotected sex if she could not even afford the simplist needs for that child. period.
not my fault, not the hospitals fault, not the ambulance, no one but her and the father of that child.
Posted by: tyler | April 09, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Tyler, you may not have heard racist comments in your Catholic experience, but I suspect there are many Catholics that endured anti-gay rhetoric, anti-any other religion but Catholicism rhetoric, etc. I also suspect there were many parishioners that enrolled their children in church programs only to find out their priests were child molestors...does that make them guilty by association or mean they should leave the church forever?
The argument is specious and simply serves to justify an already formed anti-Obama opinion.
If I read you correctly, I suspect you object more to the leftism of Obama than anything else...a perfectly justifiable position. But that's harder to justify as an argument than the made up nonsense about Wright... ;)
Anyway, it's an argument we will never agree on, so I'll bow out of the whole encounter now. I would ask that you try to look at all the candidates through a more complete lens than the simple elimination by one association. There's plenty of room with all candidates for disagreeing with them on policy, we don't need to sink to the personal smearing of them by association and their associates by Hannity level attacks.
John, I'll watch the video. Thanks for posting it.
Posted by: G Davis | April 10, 2008 at 01:39 AM
Sorry for the delay in posting the video as I had to go through a few to find the exact one with the story.
Posted by: John Morgan | April 10, 2008 at 08:29 AM