Hannity superglued to health-care misinformation
SUMMARY: Referring to a British man who "superglued his tooth together," Sean Hannity stated: "The Democrats have their way [on health-care reform], get your superglue ready." However, a U.S. woman reportedly has also glued in her teeth because of the costs of dental care.
On the July 8 edition of his Fox News show, describing what he called "[a]nother story of universal health care gone awry," Sean Hannity stated that "a 55-year-old man in the U.K. ... ran into trouble when he couldn't find a dentist OKed by the government. So he superglued his tooth together for a period of three years." Hannity concluded: "The Democrats have their way, get your superglue ready." However, according to media reports, a woman in the United States has also glued in her teeth because of the costs of dental care. An ABCNews.com article also reported that low-income people are resorting to pulling their own teeth.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Hannity and guests on his Fox News show have repeatedly fear-mongered and misinformed on the issue of heath-care reform.
From the March 12 ABCNews.com article:
It's 2009, not 1909, but more people are willing to do their own health care and dentistry these days.
"It's one of my front teeth, I had just been supergluing it in," said September Williamson of Grand Junction, Colo.
The mortgage is due, the kids have needs, and the dental insurance doesn't cover a ninth of the cost of your dental work. At that point, applying superglue to your crowns didn't seem too unreasonable for Williams.
But, the superglue was just one of a whole set of tooth troubles. Unable to pay for more expensive treatments, Williamson said she's resorted to just pulling out the problem teeth.
"I've had five teeth total pulled, one of them was a wisdom tooth," said Williamson. "A couple of months ago, I was just frustrated with the whole thing -- I'm not the only person out there."
Emergency room physicians, social workers and advocates for the uninsured or underinsured agree.
Although the poor have always employed questionable home treatments, some health care workers have noticed a recent increase in desperate attempts by people to play doctor out of economic desperation.
[...]
"They'll pull rather than try to fix; that's a huge, huge issue," said Joan Whitaker, director of health services at the Action for Boston Community Development Center in Massachusetts.
While dental insurance rarely covers the cost of more expensive treatment, health insurance doesn't always cut it either, Whitaker said.
"Even if people have health insurance right now it doesn't mean that they have money for their co-payments," she said.
Whitaker works with many low income families in the Boston area. She said that recently time, rather than money can be an issue for patients.
"What's happening with a lot of people is they are putting off finding out about problems, because if they're in low paying jobs, and if they take time off they're afraid they won't have a job when they get back," she said. "They're out here working one or two jobs but they are still marginalized, because one thing could happen to them and they can lose it all."
From the July 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Another story of universal health care gone awry. Now, this one from our vault: Now, a couple of years ago, a 55-year-old man in the U.K., he ran into trouble when he couldn't find a dentist OKed by the government. So he superglued his tooth together for a period of three years.
He said, quote, "Well, you can't really taste it, but you do have to be careful not to use it too much in case you glue your mouth shut." The Democrats have their way, get your superglue ready.
Hannity back in 90 short seconds.















I could think of a couple of other places on him that are worthy of being superglued but I won't go there...
So yeah - Get some super-glue. Put it next to the bottle water you store alonf with your duct-tape and plastic sheeting.
Gott damn, these people are sofa king stupid.
Here, read for yourself: While I spent a few moments of my holiday weekend revisiting the irony of anti-socialism protests taking place on socialized park land, it occurred to me that the proposed government-run public health insurance option probably won't cost nearly as much as the CBO is suggesting.
Because clearly there won't be any Republicans signing up for it.
I mean, no Republican would dare sign up for inexpensive, easily portable health insurance. Not when red, white and blue All American for-profit health insurance is available. After all, free market private health insurance will probably continue to be the more expensive option, so that must mean it's the finest insurance, right? Expensive equals good, no? (No. More on that presently.)
And of course none of the Republicans or Blue Dogs in Congress are covered by a government health insurance plan. Except for all of them.
Please explain, conservatives and wingnuts, why you wouldn't seriously consider switching to the public option if it turned out to be more affordable and portable from job to job -- not to mention the fact that you wouldn't be turned down for a preexisting condition; you wouldn't be randomly booted from the plan as soon as you needed it most; and you would never have to worry about health insurance coverage ever again. Employed or unemployed. Sick or healthy.
This gem, for example...
"thank you Karl Marx for your inciteful evaluation."
Can't even spell 'insightful' but why should I be surprised? Why should I be surprised that wingnuts are not bright people and that they are incapable of thinking and voting with their self-interests in mind?
I read so often that Medicare is given as such a fine example of government run healthcare but I don't read by those same advocates that Medicare is projected to be 28 trillion dollars short over the next 75 years.
If the public option is cheaper and better than what we currently have then great. Let's offer it. But don't come to me later and say that it's running a shortfall like the rest of government programs seem to do.
And what the hell are you talking about, 'unfair advantage?' You don't think private insurers are currently subsidized by the Fed? You don't think that all the people that get denied coverage and have to turn to public clinics are not a form of subsidized care? Didn't insurers just "agree" to forego billions of federal subsidies over the next x amount of years?
Wake up Brucie.
At least it's good to know you're gonna stick to your guns and keep over paying for your insurance even if the public option os better. Good for you. Just stay out of our way.
Well said, bruce...
For many that oppose Pres.Obama's plan for health care...it's not about not wanting cheaper health care...it's about the huge deficit spending that his plan embodies.
One can look at the CBO report and see that Pres.Obama's plan will cost at a minimum, trillions of dollars in deficit spending over the next 20 years.
The hard numbers show a huge deficit...while Pres.Obama's rhetoric about reducing the cost to offset the spending are very soft and fuzzy.
It also states that the man has now found a dentist who will take him under the National Health Service. Compare this to our current U.S. piecemeal mess.
It's much more plausible that this one guy in England two years ago couldn't find a dentist, and that if America has any kind of national health care coverage then everybody in the US will be supergluing their teeth.
Sheesh. Use some common sense...
I would like to follow this up further but I need to go. I have to superglue my license plate to the back of my 1976 ford econoline...
He either couldn't afford that or just wanted it done free.
Being able to get a crown glued for $160 doesn't make a system bad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/6144648.stm
The man had free dental care, then moved, didn't have free dental care and so did his own instead of spending 100 pounds ($160), and now has free dental care, again.
How many people in the US have cosmetic dentistry completed covered by insurance?
A tiny percentage.
1) The UK system of government insurance is not being proposed in the United States. Therefore, you are comparing to disparate things, rather than two similar things.
2) This story is what's know as anecdotal evidence. No thinking person would condemn the entire British healthcare system because of the story of one person under that system. Does that mean if I can find one person with a sad story about the war in Iraq then you will agree it was a bad idea?
3) This story is about dental care, not health care, so, once again, you are trying for an apples-to-oranges comparison.
4) The executives in charge of the UK dental health system agree that there is a problem and are working with dentists to resolve it. From reading this story in the British press and several related stories, it seems as though the dentists are not happy with the compensation proposed by the government insurance agency. Since we would still have private insurance here, we would still have the option of carrying private dental insurance and this problem would not affect Americans.