Clinton Caught In A Lie. Again.

[Dari]

When people are arguing over semantics, you know somebody lied.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When I read the NYT story, its still unclear on a crucial fact. Did or did not the woman visit the hospital before she was " in distress " and get turned away because she could not come up with cash up front.

It says she had insurance; so how would that be a possibility?

It also says that she was never refused treatment.

Seems quite clear to me.

that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Deplorable. That's really the only word for it.

This is part of a continued pattern on the part of Hillary and her surrogates. Lie, mislead, spin, deny, rinse, repeat.

Sorry Pabs. You know I'm no Clinton fan, but your link does not support your sensationalist allegation. Based on the NYT story, at least, there is no evidence Clinton or her campaign knew the story was disputed. There isn't even enough information to say with certainty the story is false given that the hospital has provided no documentation to support their denial. There are enough legitimate reasons to criticize Clinton without resorting to such swiftboating.

One thing I don't understand: since it sounds like Clinton never mentioned either the name of the hospital or the victim, how did this hospital know it was the subject of the story and who the victim was? Presumably the Clinton campaign provided other details at some point.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When I read the NYT story, its still unclear on a crucial fact. Did or did not the woman visit the hospital before she was " in distress " and get turned away because she could not come up with cash up front.

It says she had insurance; so how would that be a possibility?

It also says that she was never refused treatment.

Seems quite clear to me.

that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

Fern

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It may be clear to you but its still not clear to me. She may not have had her proof of insurance card with her at the time, or for any number of many reasons, there may be more than a germ of truth in the first part of the story. And from what I see, its not Clinton that is naming names and pointing fingers at a specific target, yet its the hospital that self identifying itself and is saying we are as pure as the new driven snow. And you are willing to buy the hospital line hook line and sinker unquestioned. WHY?

The point is, we don't know the WHOLE STORY YET. Lets get the whole story first before we rush to judgment. And because we may never get the whole story due to medical confidentiality laws, we might have to leave it there. Or there may be a lawsuit coming and we can get the partial greater truth there later.

But for the greater truth, Hillary is right, our health care system is BROKEN, even if she is not totally correct in this one given case.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: M0RPH

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
the narrowest sense, ignoring the broader definition I presented.

I meant that you chose the broadest definition. You know exactly what I meant and the rest of my point still stands. I don't see you refuting any of it.

I didn't chose any definitions though, I simply pointed to one of the commonly accepted definitions which our linguists have compiled into our dictionaries. Again, your argument was nothing more than an attempt to redefine the term in its most narrow sense and exclude usage the broader definition. Well that, and an absurd attempt to cast doubt on the hospital's recount in spite of the fact that Clinton's campaign isn't refuting it. But yeah, you refuted your own argument just fine yourself when you pointed the fact that it is wrong to pigeonhole a term into its most narrow definition.

I am curious to know if your contest is a partisan one, or do you defend Bush's lies with such rhetoric too?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
It's utterly ridiculous that so many of you think that "Ya, but Bush lied bigger, and stuff!" is a valid response.

Apples... oranges... and deflections, OH MY!

My impression is that they are simply pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of those who insist Clinton is lying based on this flimsy story while vehemently insisting the Bush administration never lied about Iraq in spite of dozens (if not hundreds) of well-documented examples. You might have a point if they were suggesting it was OK for Clinton to lie since BushCo did too. I don't see anyone doing that.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

Deplorable. That's really the only word for it.

This is part of a continued pattern on the part of Hillary and her surrogates. Lie, mislead, spin, deny, rinse, repeat.

Sorry Pabs. You know I'm no Clinton fan, but your OP does not support your sensationalist allegation.

Based on the NYT story, at least, there is no evidence Clinton or her campaign knew the story was disputed. There isn't even enough information to say with certainty the story is false given that the hospital has provided no documentation to support their denial.

There are enough legitimate reasons to criticize Clinton without resorting to such swiftboating.

One thing I don't understand: since it sounds like Clinton never mentioned either the name of the hospital or the victim, how did this hospital know it was the subject of the story and who the victim was? Presumably the Clinton campaign provided other details at some point.

Besides why is such P&N Swiftboating necessary when it's clear Obama is going to be the nominee anyway?

 

[WildHorse]

vv

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Lemon law
When I read the NYT story, its still unclear on a crucial fact. Did or did not the woman visit the hospital before she was " in distress " and get turned away because she could not come up with cash up front.

It says she had insurance; so how would that be a possibility?

It also says that she was never refused treatment.

Seems quite clear to me.

that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

Fern

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It may be clear to you but its still not clear to me. She may not have had her proof of insurance card with her at the time, or for any number of many reasons, there may be more than a germ of truth in the first part of the story. And from what I see, its not Clinton that is naming names and pointing fingers at a specific target, yet its the hospital that self identifying itself and is saying we are as pure as the new driven snow. And you are willing to buy the hospital line hook line and sinker unquestioned. WHY?

The point is, we don't know the WHOLE STORY YET. Lets get the whole story first before we rush to judgment. And because we may never get the whole story due to medical confidentiality laws, we might have to leave it there. Or there may be a lawsuit coming and we can get the partial greater truth there later.

But for the greater truth, Hillary is right, our health care system is BROKEN, even if she is not totally correct in this one given case.

I'm starting to think we have a great example of "losing sight of the forest for the trees" thing going here.

Hillary mentioned this woman in the context of a need for UHC.

According to Hillary (or the cop) the woman was uninsured (thus the need for UHC) and for the lack of even $100 she was refused treatment and her and the child died.

The woman HAD INSURANCE.

The story about the woman is no longer relevant to UHC. Losing her insurance card, medical malpractice etc are not things solved with UHC as currently proposed.

Fern

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
It's utterly ridiculous that so many of you think that "Ya, but Bush lied bigger, and stuff!" is a valid response.

Apples... oranges... and deflections, OH MY!

You know its sort like people that bring Clinton (bill) into discussions.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Good but suspect. Hillary is not the President.

And god-willing, she never will be.

Are you saying lies are acceptable so long as it isn't the POTUS?

So much for integrity and character in your world, Dave. :roll:

 

[JJChicken]

tsk tsk hillary tsk tsk

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hospital denying fault in woman's death. No kidding?

senseamp, denying the possibility that hillary might have errored. No kidding?

 

[IGBT]

..such a fibber. so who do ya think taught who to lie?? Bill or Hill??

 

[lupi]

Don't worry, Obama hasn't taken in any money from big oil either.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: senseamp
Hospital denying fault in woman's death. No kidding?

Not quite.

Clinton said 1) the woman didn't have insurance and 2) she wasn't given care.

The hospital said 1) the woman did have insurance and 2) she was given care.

No mention of fault. So who do you trust: Clinton's stump speech, or medical records?

Originally posted by: RY62
Deplorable is the word for your post.

Talk about lying, misleading, and spinning...Did you even read the story? Clinton re-told a story that was told to her by a sherrifs deputy. That makes her a liar?

So we can count on Clinton to continue to Bush tradition of using bad information without confirming it?

ok i hate clinton. BUT to compare hilary's lies (or bills for that matter) to what Bush has done is just stupid.

hillary will lie ot win, get stupid laws passed (or in bills case to get out of trouble even under oath) etc. BUT i have no reason to think she would liek to START A WAR and reduce people srights.