GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Shameless President Keeps Lying, Gullible Followers Keep Believing

by

Drudge linked earlier today to a YouTube video of a protester at an Obama campaign stop town hall meeting yelling a-la Joe Wilson “You Lie!” and being drowned out by hoots and yells. Eventually he’s led out of the arena by security, all the while suffering the slings and arrows of the sheep there to hear Big Brother pronounce. The spectacle is uncomfortable. The lone man speaking truth to power, the seemingly glazed-over adorers of The One mercilessly thrashing him (and even stealing his hat at one point) on his way out. Kinda pathetic. Here it is, but before you view it, take a second and carefully listen to what the president is saying:

Notice anything curious? Well, as in any campaign stop health care discussion, it’s a boilerplate speech that’s delivered over and over to audiences regardless of the venue. And yes, you heard the same lame story about the masectomy lady from Texas last week during the president’s stump speech address to the Joint Session of Congress. Here’s what’s actually curious about it: He’s still using it even though it’s a lie.

Check this out:

The woman’s testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist’s chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.

Keep on-a lyin’, Mr. President. The old-school media sure as hell ain’t going to call you on it. Sheesh.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

(P.S., I’m leaving out this doozy: “We are the only nation on earth that leaves millions of people without health insurance.” I’ll give it that he either misread the teleprompter misspoke or was just being a drama queen.)

Comments

  1. I’m leaving out this doozy: “We are the only nation on earth that leaves millions of people without health insurance.”

    I’m pretty sure that at least one of China or India leaves, um, a billion or so without health insurance.

  3. Obama is a demagogue but, as much as it pains me to say this, he has a point on rescission.

    If someone wants their insurance company to pay for a coronary bypass and it turns out the patient failed to to mention on his application a couple of previous heart attacks, stents, and a couple of angioplasties then the insurer has a point.

    But to cancel people because of irrelevant and unrelated conditions (acne?!?!?!) is fraud – plain and simple. How many people put down acne on medical questionnaires? What about skinned knees or a case of the flu?

    That’s like having your car insurance cancelled after an accident because you failed to mention a parking ticket from a couple of years back.

    Acne and minor arrhythmia aren’t uncommon and, in many cases, of no consequence.

  4. I find this post to be downright obscene. CP is actually DEFENDING the cancellation of a woman’s health insurance when she has cancer and needs surgery because she had acne? And underreported her weight?

    And you wonder why lefties have such an easy time of it painting you people as soulless monsters?

  5. And you wonder why lefties have such an easy time of it painting you people as soulless monsters?

    Because it distracts the gullible from the fact that liberals have destroyed the lives and freedom of millions keeping them dependent on Uncle Sugar’s tit.

  6. But to cancel people because of irrelevant and unrelated conditions (acne?!?!?!)

    Sure it seems common place, but had she sought treatment for it and was diagnosed with it? There is an ICD-9 (706.1) for that.Like the guy in the commercial says, it’s a medical condition. A skinned knee (Abrasion-521.20), Flu (Influenza-V04.81).

    An insurance policy is a contract. If you don’t meet the terms of the contract or you falsify or withhold information as part of that contract, guess what? And douchebags like Turdo don’t believe people should be responsible for their actions. It’s always the eeeeeeeevil corporations who are responsible. In his mind, though, the Proles are just too f’ing stupid to be responsible, I suppose.

  7. Bruce called me delusional earlier, for merely reporting some polling numbers (from a FOX poll, no less), that showed an increase in support for Obamacare which seemed to happen between August and now. Backlash against the crazies? Who knows. Maybe OBama’s speech was a winner.

    Anyway, here is an analysis of trend lines on this question, and I gotta say – my take on it, that the crazies have shot their wad and now a more serious discussion will take place (and increased support) still stands.
    LINK

  9. Bruce called me delusional earlier, for merely reporting some polling numbers (from a FOX poll, no less), that showed an increase in support for Obamacare which seemed to happen between August and now.

    And you are delusional for masturbating furiously to a 4% increase. Particularly with a poll that finds a disgraceful number of people think a government mandate is a good idea.

  10. I am also defending the right of the insurance company to cancel the policy on the grounds of the law of contract. Read the real reasons that it was cancelled….:

    1. the skin specialist said she had a pre-cancerous skin condition – that is not acne.

    2. she failed to mention that she had a problem with her heart.

    3. she underestimated her weight

    The cancellation had nothing to do with the breast cancer but had to do with these 3 things… even if they seem unrelated the insurance provider has the right to cancel any policy where people have lied…. it is all about contract law… and since the conditions were breached… well they can rescind the contract.

    I must add that I have never heard of acne being described as pre-cancerous, so that means that she was lying about the issue being “acne”. I have had a skin condition for most of my life, and I hate having the damn condition. It is not a pre-cancerous condition. Skin cancer has nothing to do with having acne…..

  11. By law, hospitals in America cannot refuse people emergency treatment. So noone is dying on the street. And if they are it’s by choice. If Obama really wanted to help people who can’t afford healthcare then he should make sure it covers emergency, and life/death situations like cancer. And that’s it. They can pay for their own chiropractor and dermatologist.

  12. #4: “And you wonder why lefties have such an easy time of it painting you people as soulless monsters?”

    This from an idiot member of a party that believes it’s a moral imperative to use acres of food to power their little cars so they can feel really, really good about themselves while people in third world countries starve to death. Show me an employee of Planned Parenthood who is responsible for disposing of the facility’s “medical waste” at the end of the day, and I’ll show you a “soulless monster.”

  13. Tano, even if you want to argue that reform of the health care system should include prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based upon pre-existing conditions this comes no way near justifying the entire package the Dems are proposing – especially the “public option”. Trying to shame people on one item in order to ram through a monstrosity like this may have worked for libs in the past but Americans have caught on to this tactic. We’re not buying it this time.

  14. The straightaussie, thank you for your post with citations. I had heard that earlier this week.
    I find it esspecially sad that the cases the president cites are so easily refuted. And now he and his wife can’t get their story straight about their own daughter.

  15. #14 – John: well said.

    TGC and straightaussie – I understand the concept of contracts and all that. The issue I have is that her insurance company (which did reinstate her coverage after some pressure from her congressman – a Republican) had no problem taking her word for it and collecting premiums as long as nothing major happened.

    Then, only after she is diagnosed with a fatal ailment and scared to death, they decide to do due diligence and pull the plug.

    In any case, I suspect she would have received treatment (lots of people are treated pro bono or at taxpayer expense).

    I also suspect that rescissions are relatively rare (but they make excellent political theater). An NPR report quotes a study that said about 20,000 rescissions by three large insurers occurred over a five year period. This backs up John’s point that wrecking our system for a very small number of cases doesn’t make any sense.

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105680875&ft=1&f=1001

  17. SoCalRobert: Check out the whole WSJ article I linked. Some salient bits:

    [C]ompanies engage in a certain degree of ex post auditing—conducting more detailed and costly reviews of a subset of applications following policy issue—including when expensive treatment is sought soon after a policy is issued.
    This practice offers substantial cost savings and lower premiums compared to trying to verify every application before issuing a policy, or simply paying all claims, regardless of the accuracy and completeness of the applicant’s disclosure.

    And this should give a little (shockingly absent from an NPR–of all sources–report) context to the 20K recissions item:

    These two cases are presumably among the most egregious identified by Congressional staffers’ analysis of 116,000 pages of documents from three large health insurers, which identified a total of about 20,000 rescissions from millions of policies issued by the insurers over a five-year period. Company representatives testified that less than one half of one percent of policies were rescinded (less than 0.1% for one of the companies).

    I recognize it wasn’t your point to do so, but many have taken these instances out of context to try to demonize insurance companies who are in reality trying to best run their companies without going insolvent thanks to clients of theirs who may be trying to game the system.

  18. Thanks, CP.

    I mentioned that the 20,000 number sounded pretty small given the number of policies issued and the number of claims paid. And it’s worth noting that in these cases, there was recourse (even if inconvenient). Once the gummint starts making decisions (as they will) recourse will be limited (lawsuit in federal court?).

    But it is hard to be sympathetic towards insurance companies when you imagine being a patient with a serious disease reading the letter from the insurance company, which had been happily accepting payments, telling you buzz off.

    My father, a physician, left private practice some years ago (went to work for the gummint) – in large part because he had tired of spending more and more time battling with insurance companies and Medicare (with decreasing reimbursements) which left less time to see patients (which is his first love). He has entertaining stories of arguing with some insurance company doc or nurse, who’d never seen the patient, trying to tell him how to manage a case.

    My position has always been that the problem with our healthcare system is involvement of third-party payers. Health insurance should be like car insurance: pays major claims.

    It’s great that my carrier will pay for a $25 flu shot but my coverage (I pay part of the premium) is sky-high… just as my car insurance would be if they covered oil changes and car washes.

  19. That’s like having your car insurance cancelled after an accident because you failed to mention a parking ticket from a couple of years back.

    More like it was cancelled because you neglected to mention that your tail lights don’t work. And yes they can do that. It’s part of the agreement you sign your name to. What the liberals are demanding is similar to buying car insurance after you had the accident. They’re trying to piss down our backs and tell us it’s going to save money in the long run when it can’t possibly.

    But it is hard to be sympathetic towards insurance companies when you imagine being a patient with a serious disease reading the letter from the insurance company, which had been happily accepting payments, telling you buzz off.

    But they happily accept payments because they assumed the customer was telling the truth. I find it harder to be sympathetic to those who cheat their way in life. Should they keep covering that person and screw over the rest of the customers to make up for it or what?

  21. SoCalRobert:

    I think you’re absolutely right about payments for routine stuff. Health care consumers have become so detached from the actual costs of treatment that they rarely have a problem with spending their insurance companies’ money. Involving the (as you call it) “gummint” is only going to compound that.

    The solution? As I’ve said (and no doubt you agree) many times: More individual choice, freedom, and responsibility. If we were paying out of pocket (or better, out of tax-free HSAs) for more of our health care, we’d all be a LOT more cognizant (and therefore demanding) about how much it costs.

  22. And again… Tano takes the big lie out for a spin and gets crushed. Thank you again for debunking his (and the president’s) lies.

    Audits that can result in rescession can come from a number of places. The insurance company, the plan sponsor, and the state.

    Don’t forget, the insurance company has obligations to the insured, and the plan sponsor, and the providers. Not to mention the stock holders. All of those combine to insure (pun intended) a balancing act.

    Disclaimer: I still don’t speak for my employer, I’m too blunt.

  23. What big lie are you talking about Livewire?
    I merely pointed out, correctly, that CP is defending the insurance companies for this obscene act. And lots of others chimed in to agree with him.
    And I pointed out, correctly, that lefties look at that and accuse y’all of being soulless monsters. And that has traction amongst the general populace because their values are different than yours.

    Where is the lie?
    I sit back with amusement and read all you guys just digging your hole deeper. No doubt you sincerely believe what you write. But to normal people, you sound like monsters. More, please.

  26. Then again, please DO continue to cheerlead for those who would toss a kid with facial trauma out on his ass. You embody everything I’ve ever said about liberals. Very illustrative.

    You’re one sick sonofabitch, Turdo.

  28. I merely pointed out, correctly, that CP is defending the insurance companies for this obscene act.

    The funny part is that liberals like Tano fully support and endorse this.

    One patient in Oregon got a letter that made this all too clear, when in the same letter rejecting her request for life-extending chemotherapy, Oregon offered her “physician-aid-in-dying”.

    So put bluntly, Tano is shrieking about and demanding that insurance companies cover people who flat-out lied about their health conditions, but then supports and endorses telling people to kill themselves so the Obama Party doesn’t have to pay for their chemotherapy.

    Add to that how Tano and the Obama Party support leaving “unwanted” babies to die on the hospital floor, and you see very quickly that moocher Tano doesn’t give a rat’s ass about human life.

  29. Tano, your big lie is the same as the President’s.

    To trot out debunked claims of people losing their insurance for reasons that don’t exist.

    But hey, keep on trotting those lies out, and we’ll keep on swatting them down.