« Presidential Candidates To Question Petraeus Today | Home | New Hillary Pollster Garin Wants To Go Positive »

Hillary Partially Vindicated On Story About Woman In Ohio

Hillary Clinton may have been partially redeemed on the story of a woman who didn't get medical care in Ohio — the Associated Press did a detailed fact-check and found that the basic premise was correct, but Hillary had some key details wrong.

The woman was never refused treatment by a hospital for failure to pay $100, as Hillary initially said, but instead didn't seek care at a local clinic because she would have been charged that amount. From the AP's analysis: "Bachtel's medical tragedy began with circumstances very close to the essence of Clinton's now-abandoned account: the lack of insurance created a $100 barrier to needed medical attention close to home."


33 Comments

| Leave a comment

Just so long as she's been corrected and changes the story in her stump speech, then all is right with the world again. Oh, and Hillary, hire some fact checkers.

user-pic

The story is still a tragedy, it's a real shame that stuff like this could happen in the U.S. today.

user-pic

Happens all the time in Canada, people die waiting on MRI's and other tests. That's why the ones who can afford it come down here. It'll be a sad day when US citizens have to seek "quality" medical care in Mexico because it's no longer available here...be careful what you wish for, nothing is free.

The real point of this story is that regardless of the details, we have a health care crisis. Whatever anyone may think of her, no one can dispute that Hillary has been fighting for most of her adult life to expand and improve our nation's health care. Never forget--you may hate her campaign tactics but she is truly a liberal progressive. Health care is a basic moral right.

I think there are two problems here. I agree that the main point to focus on should be the health care crisis and how to fix it. I agree with another_reader in that respect. And I do think Hillary has been fighting for health care much of her adult life. Unfortunately I think she has been fighting badly, losing fights she ought to win. She should have won the democratic nomination--she had more name recognition, and a powerful machine going into the fight-- but like her fight for health care, her tactics were wrong. It's not enough to be a fighter, you have to be a winner. And Hillary, with her constant claims of victimization, is a loser.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. While I agree she should have won the nomination by now, and her initial universal health care fight in the 90s was a mess, there are examples of her having the right tactics to push things through. SCHIP was basically a second shot at her Kid Care program, and she lobbied her husband aggressively to help pass it. Also, she cooperated with Lindsey Graham on the National Guard bill to expand coverage for them. No one's perfect and while I think her track record could be better she is not a loser.

user-pic

No, SCHIP was on the table before before Bill was even elected, it passed congress even but Bush I vetoed it. When after Hillary's healthcare failure, SCHIP was reintroduced and bill signed it. Hillary had nothing to do with it.

Let's fact check you:

The pro-Republican Washington Times newspaper credited (or perhaps more accurately, blamed) Hillary Clinton for the program in a 1997 article. The paper said it had obtained documents from 1993 showing that the White House "plotted" to push a "Kids First" insurance program if Mrs. Clinton's universal health care proposal failed.

Washington Times, Aug. 6, 1997: The plan signed into law yesterday by Mr. Clinton and pushed by the first lady is a duplicate of the 4-year-old health care task force idea, except that it is paid for by a 15-cent tax on cigarettes.

One of the co-authors of the plan, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, credited Mrs. Clinton for her "invaluable help, both in the fashioning and the shaping of the program."

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/giving_hillary_credit_for_schip.html

How about totally vindicated?

I'm a long time Obama supporter, but I tend to agree that she has been fully vindicated in this matter. Yeah, they need to do more fact checking, but I'll give them slack on this one.

Second, I do not think that Hillary has been vindicated by the story. She did not fact check it. She took a story she heard second hand on the trail, embellished it, and put it out there like truth in support of her key argument. It was reckless and irresponsible to use the story. It could have just as easily turned out to be wrong. The core problems with the story are unchanged by the fact that it might turn out to be more true than not. She didn't know it was true when she said it. She should have.

user-pic

But she wasn't.

"I'll tell you a quick story that I heard in Ohio when I was campaigning there," she said. "A deputy sheriff told me about a young woman who worked at the pizza parlor there and she worked for minimum wage, she didn't have any insurance. [SHE HAD INSURANCE AT THE TIME SHE DIED] She got pregnant, went to the hospital — [NOPE, SHE WENT TO A CLINIC IN HER HOME TOWN] and I don't blame the hospital. The hospital said, 'We can't take any more charity care. You have to give us $100 before we can examine you.' She didn't have $100. Went back another time, they told her the same thing."[DOESN'T SOUND LIKE SHE WENT BACK AGAIN]

Sen. Clinton said the woman returned a third time [SHE DIDN'T RETURN TO O'BLENESS; IT WAS HER FIRST VISIT THERE] "in an ambulance. [MAYBE; THE STORY DOESN'T SAY] And they worked hard to stabilize her, and she lost her baby. Then they airlifted her to Columbus to the medical center, and for 15 days they tried to save her life, and she died."

I don't think Clinton should be pilloried for this, but it certainly seems like the story could have been properly vetted and told accurately and still been an effective story for Clinton to use to illustrate her point.

Well, I do think Hillary should be pilloried for this as it is the same type of willfulness to fit the story to her political needs that she has about her war vote. A vote she claims was for diplomacy despite it being entitled Authorization to Use military force.

What Hillary did here was capitalize on a family's tragedy. They didn't just lose their grandchild they loss their daughter as well. Now this family is being pestered about what were obviously horrific events when they occurred all over again. All the heartwrenching facts are being drug up again because of Hillary's desire to tell a gut wrenching story on the campaign trail.

Which is precisely what her sniper fire tale was about as well..having risked personal safety. More importantly it is Hillary's telling of these tales that really calls into question her honesty and integrity. She packs soooo much emotion into the story telling with her pauses, lowering of her voice and just yarn spinning theatrics to draw on the emotions of the listeners. Have you looked at the faces of those young men standing behind her in South Dakota when she is telling this story of the stillborn and mother's death. You can see the pain on those men's faces.

Anyone who capitalizes on the emotions of others to create dread and fear to score politically should be pilloried. This is precisely what Cheney and Bush did with WMD's and 'mushroom clouds'

It is the EXACT same thing.

It should not be tolerated and had this been a one time thing I could see overlooking it. However, this is now a well established pattern for Hillary. She exaggerates and fabricates either the incidence or her ROLE in it. Given power to a person like this can be catastrophic.

Think about it. Bush has not once admitted their were no WMD's. Hillary will not admit it was a mistake to vote for the war. Bush has not admitted that Al-Q was not in Iraq and Hillary will not admit she promoted NAFTA. Both of these folks cherry-pick data to support their political aims without regard for the longterm consequences.

We have seen what these type of character flaws result in. They destroy peoples lives and America's national security is put at risk as people die to pursue totally fabricated goals and objectives all while our liberties are stripped in pursuit of these nebulous aims.

Hillary is dangerous and should not ever be given additional power. She is neither judicious nor does she have the moral courage to do what is best for all even if it does not benefit her politically.

She will abuse the commander in chief power just as Bush has. She will also twist the Constitution to fit her needs. Heck, she even told us during a national debate that she voted FOR the bankruptcy bill while hoping it would NOT pass. She will do the same thing as President. Veto a bill, hoping Congress will overide it.

That is not what this country needs.

Just say no to Hillary back in the WH as CinC.

None of this matters now. Almost true, partially true, virtually true, metaphorically true -- whatever it is, what the public will remember is that it wasn't true and just added to Clinton's growing reputation for dishonesty.

I feel bad for Clinton and the point she was making. But she already had this bad reputation and, if she had any sense, she would be far more cautious about unvetted statements.

Even the meagerist inaccuracy from such sloppy storytelling is fodder for Republicans to mold public opinion in the GE or during congressional debate on reform.

Hillary just tells brazen falsehoods. Look at this Penn was fired from her campaign story. It is a real model for her penchant to mislead and distort and mischaracterize her actions. The headlines proclaim Penn is gone..they even say ousted or fired. Yet, when you read the articles and her campaign statements. It is clear that Penn has not gone anywhere. He is still part of her campaign. Yet the public is to have the 'perception' that he is gone. Penn, is right where he was, chief pollster and strategist, still telling the Clintons what to do. It is just her campaign workers/staff who view it as a shift in power.

So, when Obama says he was conceived because of Selma, which happened four years after he was born...

Or does this only apply to Hillary?

Just askin'.

Hillary claims she was named after Sir Hillary climbing Mt. Everest which didn't occur until after her birth.

Exactly.

We need the WHOLE truth from folks who are CinC.

See? I never lie.
I am so happy I could sing:

Tea on the tarmac for two in Tuzla!
Da-da da-da-da DA-DA!
Tea on the tarmac for two in Tuzla!
Tea in the tarmac.... with you!!

To the person who called Senator Clinton a progressive liberal, she's part of the DLC. Senator Clinton is not a progressive liberal.

I appreciate her work on Healthcare, but let's not give her credit she does not want.

Good grief. The ugliness, that is why so many of us fear the future general election. Pay more attention to Bob Somerby, never let the media go after one of ours even if you detest that person. The media will eventually have a go at your candidate and what will be your defense?

user-pic

Actually the press researched the wrong case. Hillary Clinton knows the story is true cuz it happened to one of her staffers when the campaign left their health insurance lapse.

The real story actually undercuts her talking point that mandated insurance coverage is the same thing as universal healthcare.

user-pic

Also in defense of Clinton's Bosnia gunfire story . . . SOME PEOPLE SAY that she was wipe out on a combination of Prozac and plain wrap vodka cuz Bill was facing legal trouble cuz bearding for tryst with a White House intern at 3:00 AM one evening.

The Deputy Sheriff that told Hillary the story, had no first hand knowledge of any of it, and did not even know the woman who died. He was passing on hearsay, and Hillary just ran with it.

Yes we need to fix the health care system, but we also need to deal in facts.

Was the woman turned away because she did not have a $100.00 or not. What is the truth.

If she did not go, because she assumed she would be turned away because she did not have a $100.00 then that is a far different thing. Is that what happened.

What is her family situation. Did she have other children. She was 35 years of age. Did she have a husband, or was there a father involved. Could she not get $100.00 from any family member or friend for a medical emergency.

Please flesh out the truth, instead of pretending that Hillary was spreading the gospel truth. She was not.
She was telling a bunch of hearsay from a person she never met before, and who did not have any first hand knowledge of what actually happened.

Hillary was very careless in how she choose to accept what a stranger told her, and just run with it.

What next, will she run with a story about a woman finding a finger in her chili at Wendys!

No, sorry. She wasn't vindicated. I don't think its a big deal (cause I hardly believe anything she says anyway) but there is absolutely a difference between being asked for $100 at an emergency room and refusing to go to an emergency room because someone might ask you for $100 dollars.

Truthiness

Sure, the AP thinks she's "partially vindicated" by this completely garbled version of the truth because they've been one of the leading abettors in the Bush Administration's eight year campaign to redefine what the word "truth" means.

The story waqs that the lady, God rest her and her child's souls, died for lack of insurance or a hundred bucks. The truth is that she did not die for lack of insurance and a hundred bucks. Period. Yes, at some point before she died, she she put off getting medical at a nearby clinic because she owed the clinic money from before she had insurance, but there's no actual evidence that that had anything to do with her death.

Seriously, people, this is not about Hillary or her story or any wish to cut her down. Everyone makes mistakes and she got a little sloppy (okay, it is about her a little bit, because it does appear to fit a pattern, but I digress). This is about the MSM.

At what point did the media's definition of "truth" become so flexible that a politician gets a "close enough" pass when the actual facts completely undermine the point of a politicians anecdote? Is this not part and parcel of the same kind of disregard for the difference between objective fact and a "something that some guy said to someone who knows someone I know" story that got them beating the WMD war drums in 2002?

If the Republic is to survive, one of the many things we have to do is roll back acceptance of truthiness as an acceptable substitute for truth, not internalize it just because our favored candidate can now benefit from it the same way the Republicans did.

I submit that the definition of the 'truth' became so flexible when Hillary became the 'inevitable' candidate.

I second that motion.

Everyone who hates Hillary (you know, the blogs, the media) was so quick and gleeful to call her a liar.

But you can watch the video of the guy telling her the story and you can see that she told the story almost verbatim.

And wouldn't you know it? Looks like the story itself was pretty much true.

I really enjoy watching all the anti-Hillary blogs and MSM apologize for taking such pleasure in calling her a liar. It's really refreshing to see them admit they were wrong.

Oh, and check out those pigs flying by my window.

Pretty much true is like a little bit pregnant.

Doesn't work like that.

Sorry, Hillary gets no bonus points for accurately relating the tale as told to her by the Deputy. The story was hearsay (or, actually hearsay within hearsay once Hillary started telling it) and there's a reason hearsay isn't admissible in court. But, oh well, it's not like Hillary is in any position to know anything about the perils of hearsay. It's not like she's a lawyer or anything, much less one with trial experience.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address