The Expanding Catalogue of Obamacare Fables


Pages: 1 2

Is there a health insurance horror story disseminated by the White House and its allies that ever turned out to be true? Obamacare advocates have exercised more artistic license than a convention of Photoshoppers. Now, a prominent sob story shilled by President Obama himself about his own mother is in doubt. It’s high past time to call their bluffs.

The tall-tale-teller-in-chief cited mom Stanley Ann Dunham’s deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support his successful push to ban pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. In a typical recounting, Obama shared his personalized trauma during a 2008 debate: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

But there was something fundamentally wrong with Obama’s story. In a recently published biography of Obama’s mother, author and New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham’s health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.

Channeling document forger Dan Rather’s “fake, but accurate” defense, a White House spokesman insisted to the Times that the anecdote somehow still “speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs” — even though Dunham’s primary health insurer did everything it was supposed to do and met all its contractual obligations.

No matter. Expanding government control over health care means never having to say you’re sorry for impugning private insurers. Democrats have dragged every available human shield into the contentious debate over Obama’s federal takeover of health care. Personal anecdotes of dying family members battling evil insurance execs deflect attention from the cost, constitutionality and liberty-curtailing consequences of the law. The president’s Dunham sham-ecdote is just the latest entry in an ever-expanding catalogue of Obamacare fables:

— Otto Raddatz. In 2009, Obama publicized the plight of this Illinois cancer patient, who supposedly died after he was dropped from his Fortis/Assurant Health insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn’t known about. The truth? He got the treatment he needed in 2005 and lived for nearly four more years.

— Robin Beaton. Also in 2009, Obama claimed Beaton — a breast cancer patient — lost her insurance after “she forgot to declare a case of acne.” In fact, she failed to disclose a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately, but had her insurance restored anyway after intense public lobbying.

Pages: 1 2

  • zsqpwxxeh

    It's okay, Mr. President. The Democrat Propaganda Department has got you covered. Tonite on Hardball…"Is Sarah Palin a Racist Fearmonger?"

  • effemall

    Obamacare is probably one of the lesser offensive efforts of this dangerous man who may go down in history as having started with a higher support rating than most presidents and having ended as the most despised man to ever inhabit the White House. Here his heart, if not his head, was in the right place. Some healthcare systems partially work and have become part of civilized cultures in countries like France; certainly not in Canada and England. His socialist naivete in economics would lead to inevitable national bankruptcy. His hatred of whites (and thereby his half-self-hatred) has set American race relations back by 60 years. His romance with America's enemies and contempt for our friends, given enough time, would tear us apart. His love affair with Islam (while ironically they have nothing but contempt for him) in the long term would be immeasurably damaging to America. The fact that he is now experiencing clear rejection on the budget ceiling issue may break his psychic back and affect him physically as well as mentally which would be a blessing to America (to have him spend the rest of his days as president in a psychiatric ward)

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Why would Congress create a pending disaster within a Government organization
    that does not receive one penny in tax dollars and is self funding and was
    financially in the black until Congress put the grab on for dollars. Congress
    passed a law forcing the U. S. Postal Service to prefund retirement health
    benefits and to the tune of 5.5 Billion Dollars yearly. The ongoing funding was
    adaquate with over 100 Billion in overpayment already existant in overfunded
    retirement accounts. Where is all of the 5.5 billion annual grab going, into the
    general fund and covering part of Federal ponzi activity. ………………..

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Now the big rub is as the Postal Serivce is by law nonprofit, just supposed to
    breake even and costs to patrons reflects that demand and are lower than
    what would be if in private hands. The Congress acuses the Postal Service
    of being a diansour though it still provides universal service to every address
    in America at the same cost, i.e., a letter to Hawaii or New York is still 44 cents
    and rural America receives mail service along with large metropolitan areas.
    Congress acuses the Postal Service of looking for a bailout by tax payers and
    this makes it look like financially it can not do the job and should be privatized
    or broken up when what we have is what works. Plundering Postal funds by
    the Congress is and assault against the American public. What do we do when
    we get no mail?………………………………………

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Congress robs the money and the funding shortfall is due to their actions, in private
    life you go to jail doing this. What if privitization and a breakup of the Service takes
    place. Top executives will call for millions in compensation, workers will demand
    benefits seen in the private sector which is higher than Postal Workers receive.
    Congress and not all members are saying the Postal Workers receive to much in
    salary and benefits which is not true, the health insurance is to high and the pay
    is graduated yearly so that a real life sustaining wage is not reached for the
    majority until after many years of toil, with every disadvantage of lets say for
    clerks, crazy scheduling, for City Carriers ever expanding routes, Rural carriers
    the same. At the bottom of the pile are people who come to the service for
    work and receive no benefits, much lower pay and no retirement unless converted
    to a full time position which is extremely hard in most cases to get, and the
    pension is insufficient to retire on…………………….

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Oh the terrible Union, well it keeps pay increases low by any standard, cost of living_is lower than federal workers outside of the service that does not get tax money._The Union does not make the demands you see in Public tax supported Unions,_the difference is extreme. Talk to your Postal workers, go to one of their Union_meetings, the truth is a certain percentage the Union protects but the majority are_thrown under the proverbial bus. __The destruction of the American Postal Service will be replaced by what? a new_Postal Service but who has the Trillion dollars to put down on this new service?,_and what will it cost Americans who are already broke………………William

    • WilliamJamesWard

      The retirement rub is that not many workers last long enough to go for it
      and it is only 1% per year of the avarage of the high three years of base
      pay, a worker would have to work 50 years to get half pay, many municipal
      workers receive half pay at 20 years. How are we to keep our Nation
      together when what works, provides jobs to veterans and non-veterans
      alike, serves the people and is not paid by taxes yet does superior work
      at cost much lower than the private sector is potentially a new victim of
      Congressional villiany. Shovel ready work for a special prosecutor.
      William

      • Amused

        You got that Ward , the postal service is just that , it's not supposed to be for profit , it's like the Military and Customs Service , and yes our taxes pay for it , and well they should ,it is an indispensible service. Only idiots even consider doing away with it . There are millions of people in this country who DONT have computers or E-mail or Wi-fi . I play on a softball team comprised of mainly postal workers , and you dont wanna know what they're going thru on their jobs , where supervisors are pushing them beyond the limits of reason in their tasks . And many will not get SS or medical when they retire. Newer employees get even less .

        • coyote3

          That is not the definition of "nonprofit". Nothing says that the Postal Service cannot, or should not, make a profit. Government organizations are not generally considered to legally be be nonprofit, but even if they were, "nonprofit" does not mean no profit. All it means is that the profit is plowed back in, among other things, and not distributed to the owners.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            The service is set up to break even by law, 1971 Postal Reform Act,
            it also operates only on revenues it receives for postal services,
            and though it is not widely known does not and has not received one
            cent of tax payer dollars in fourty years. The Congress has used it
            for a cash cow forcing billions into funds that do not see the light of
            day. Nothing is safe from political fraud and it is a raging inferno of
            fraud in Washington DC and on this issue Congressman Issa from
            California is leading the charge to destroy what has been working
            except for Congressional interference and dishonesty……….William

  • Asher

    Obama's Presidency is the Deception of the Centuries. Islam knew they would put one of their own in the White House, due to a brain dead out of touch American public. The Health care Bill is Dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations conquered through jihad. Specifically, it is the taxing of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence and as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam. This is exclusively an Islamic concept under Sharia Law. Muslims are exempted from it, and it looks like alot of Donators were exempted who gave to the Obama campaign, while the rest of us get rationed care and higher insurance premiums or are now dependent on Socialized Medicine.

  • Anamah

    Mr Obama reminds me " Third World" stereotype politicians… How America voted this man as President, is beyond comprehension. In Banana Republics, demagogues use his same style to gain power, however people do not believe them too much anymore. Populism have short legs; they can lie but not for ever… He used to blame others for everything, but enough, now he should take responsibility!!! People can be very stupid one time, …but one day they learn: not to repeat the same mistake!!! Michelle, I see 2012 elections from my windows!!!

  • Amused

    Oh gee Obamacare ? Like 'Nixon care " ? that was killed to , just as Clinton Care ….so what do you have in its place ? An aspirin in a hospitol that cst $40 bucks ….elderly who have to choose between medication anf food ? The highest yearly rise in prices of any service in the country …AND STILL RISING ! Scare Tactics ? Like euthanizing grandma which was nothing but pure BULLSHHEEET ! Hypocrites ! The industry spends more on lobbying than anyone except the oil and defense industry . And what the hell have republicans or so called conservatives proposed ? NOTHING ….but Scare Tactics ….HYPOCRITES ! Especially YOU Michelle .

    • coyote3

      Let's see what woud you have in its place? Let's see now? How about government limited to the powers powers delegated by the constitution? You can certainly give government the power to do anything you want. Just pass a constitutional amendment to do so, if you think government should have that power. Don't just commit criminal acts, because of some perceived injustice.

  • StephenD

    This time…Amused has a point. As convoluted as it may be, he has a point. That is, there is a definite need to reform our medical care industry. There are redundant tests run in an effort to avoid a malpractice lawsuit. There are unnecessary, money making surgical procedures, expensive pharmaceutical regimes where a more holistic approach would work as well. So yes, Amused is right that we need reform. OBAMACARE is not it. Socialized healthcare won't work. Tort reform, caps on profit margins for pharmaceutical companies (sounds almost anti-capitalist), tuition reimbursement for doctors that give back to community clinics upon graduation, etc. There are all sorts of ways to improve the system. Let's hear from Congress on it. Don't just tell us what you don't want. Offer something we can all LIVE with.

  • Jim_C

    Thank you Amused and StephenD. The only thing we need less than "government run health care" (yes I agree) is more doing nothing about it. Obama has done OK as far as covering kids and allowing for pre-existing conditions, but we need real, serious reform. I read twits like Malkin and wonder, gee, where were you on health care before Obama came into office? (I think we already know the answer).

    I say: Let private insurers all offer a basic plan–everyone has to buy it. We'll say the government will pay for anything over, say 7% of your income. They can't profit on this basic plan–but they can still offer supplemental products, for profit.

    Consider:
    If the government subsidzes anything over 7%, that means that they've agreed on a goal that health care should essentially cost around 7% of GDP, which is on the high side of per capita health care costs in most of the developed world.

    And HALF what our already average is.

    • coyote3

      Fine, maybe that would be "good". But good, bad, indifferent is irrelevant. Where do you get the "power" to do all this? There is none.

      • Jim_C

        "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty"…?

        • coyote3

          Well that is from the preamble, and it does not delegate any power to the federal government. The only power the federal government has is what congress has. Article I Section enumerates the powers of the federal government, and while there is mention of "general welfare", it talks about the general welfare of the United States, i.e., the states, and it is not the same thing as the "welfare" of individuals.

          • Jim_C

            Well there's no mention of "air force," either, but we understand that falls under defense.

            I don't have the answers for health care, just what I think seems like a good working system that would keep costs down for everyone. If the bureacratic details are handled by each state, so be it, but it is a national problem.Think about what happens if we stay on track–most of us simply won't be able to afford health care. Now as that escalates it quickly becomes a national security problem in a very real sense, so it falls under those three things in the preamble in concrete ways.

          • coyote3

            You miss the whole point. "We understand" doesn't count. The preamble, again, does not confer a power. That is an established fact. The preamble cannot be cited when defending a "power" of the federal government, case after case has stated that. Moreover, case after case have held that "general welfare" does not mean the general welfare of individual, i.e., their well being. It means the welfare of the collective states as the United States. One example is the "duty" of police officers. They owe a duty to protect the general welfare of the state the state, within the statutory framework.. However, they do not owe a duty to protect you, or I, as individuals. Same concept. You can certainly give the federales all this power you speak of, just pass a constitutional amendment to do so, and get it ratified by enough states. You don't even need the president's, any president's, signature for that.

  • Amused

    You know Jim , for all the Hue and Cry I hear about Obamacare especially from people like Malkin , I haven't heard a bloody proposal from the other side . I dont know if our morons in Congress will ever get it off the ground anyway , but before it was passed , I heard NOTHING but LIES , WHINING and SCARE TACTICS from the Republican side of the isle . They complained that they had thousands of pages to read , but they didn't have ANY pages themselves , no plan no nothing , just gripe ,piss and groan is all they did .

    • coyote3

      They, the Republicans, were not the ones claiming there was a problem, but actually they did propose some things.

    • Jim_C

      The funny thing is, I remember when the issue was being discussed, I DID see some ideas from the other side. They were squashed by GOP leadership. Why?

      Because they resembled what Obama was proposing too closely.

  • Amused

    But then again , why should the smucks in Washington worry ? Whatever they pass wont be applied to them , and they've got the best healthcare plan in the WORLD …..for free . And I haven't seen any Teebaggers that were just elected , turning them down ….you know "outta principle " .