The Times—and the White House— tackle the story of his mother’s fight with insurance companies
[My previous post on Obama’s misrepresentations about his mother’s health insurance problems can be found here.]
Perhaps the NY Times decided to cover this story because the author of the Ann Dunham biography is a former writer for the newspaper, who took a leave of absence to write the book. But still, it’s a bit surprising that they do so at all, and that their treatment seems relatively fair.
The White House has not denied the facts. Its basic position is that Obama doesn’t know:
“We have not reviewed the letters or other material on which the author bases her account,” said Nicholas Papas, the spokesman. “The president has told this story based on his recollection of events that took place more than 15 years ago.”
And of course, even if he was wrong, he was right:
Mr. Papas suggested that even if Ms. Scott was correct, Mr. Obama had not mischaracterized the facts because his mother needed her disability insurance payments to cover unreimbursed medical costs.
“As Ms. Scott’s account makes clear, the president’s mother incurred several hundred dollars in monthly uncovered medical expenses that she was relying on insurance to pay,” Mr. Papas said. “She first could not get a response from the insurance company, then was refused coverage. This personal history of the president’s speaks powerfully to the impact of pre-existing condition limits on insurance protection from health care costs.”
Obama lied. Cynically, and completely. And the media failed to go through his garbage cans and fact check him – something they do for all of his opponents.
Now I’m just a small town hick. I’ve never run for office. But here’s my way of seein’ it. *spits tobacco*
When you’re running for President, and you are telling a personal anecdote to support a policy which will be integral to your potential Presidency, you don’t get to whine that it was, like, 15 years ago and it was your recollections and that’s that.
If the story is important enough to tell, then someone in that position has an obligation to get it right.
And he has a habit of it. Remember that time he tried to use the example of auto insurance to support Obamacare, and only proved he was to stupid to understand insurance?
Fun times:
“Acme Insurance Co.? Meep meep. What Obama is actually saying is that he had liability but not collision coverage. Assuming the story is true, he apparently didn’t know enough to get the other driver’s insurance information to file a claim.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html
But still, it’s a bit surprising that they do so at all, and that their treatment seems relatively fair.
Neo, I think you and I both know why they occasionally publish a piece that is mildly critical of Obama but invariably about some innocuous issue that will not seriously hurt Obama. They have to keep up the appearance of impartiality.
…because, after all, an insurance company isn’t a business already operating out of a government-designed straight jacket that controls how much money they are ALLOWED to make — they should also have open-ended payout policies to deal with every person’s problems, regardless of when they occurred. THAT won’t have the perverse effect of financially ruining all existing insurance companies and discouraging anyone from actually starting a new one to replace the failing ones (since they won’t be failing because of business incompetence on their part, but because success would be rendered impossible under government mandate…).
And, with no private insurance to turn to, of course people will turn to their defacto only option… government-run insurance.
Dog bites man, not Man bites dog.
No new news there, why report it?
*<:oP
I can see the headlines:
Today, in a surprise revelation, the media finally realized Obama is a lying sack of equine excreta. Film at 11.
Stan should’ve gotten herself an attorney.
A competent one, that is. Not an affirmative action pretend one.
He is truly her spawn. She believed that her medical care should be cost-free … to her; that badgering the company which provided disability insurance — not medical insurance — would pay her share after the health insurance company kept its part of the bargain.