Hannity demonstrates "bearing false witness" in smear of Obama
On August 20, Sean Hannity misrepresented a statement that President Obama made during a conference call with religious leaders, claiming that Obama "talked about those of us that oppose ObamaCare as, quote, 'bearing false witness.' " In fact, Obama was not calling out opponents of health insurance reform, but rather those who have misinformed about it, stating: "I know there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness, but I want everyone to know what health insurance reform is all about."
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the August 20 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: The president on this conference call with a number of religious leaders had some very harsh language, and he used a lot of religious terms. He talked about those of us that oppose ObamaCare as, quote, "bearing false witness," urging them to speak the truth. He said, "I am my brother's keeper. I am my sister's keeper." He said this is a core ethical and moral obligation.
So if the president views it in those moral terms and that moral light, and he thinks he's that morally superior in his views, it tells me he won't stop at anything to get this done. Am I wrong?
[...]
HANNITY: You know, when the president starts getting on the phone with religious leaders, accusing those of us that disagree of "bearing false witness"; "I need you to speak the truth"; "I am my brother's keeper, my sister's keeper"; "this is a core ethical and moral obligation."
To cloak it in those terms -- I mean, am I allowed to bring Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright back up now that he's -- you know, everyone's like, "Hannity, you talked a lot about that Reverend Wright guy."
SPENCER TILLMAN (CBS Sports reporter): Right. Right.
HANNITY: I found that shocking basically. We're bearing false witness? Last time I checked, that was one of the big ones.
In fact, Obama was criticizing those responsible for "misinformation in this debate"
Obama was referring to those spreading "misinformation" on health care as "bearing false witness." Contrary to Hannity's claim, during his August 19 conference call with religious leaders, Obama was not referring to those that "oppose" or "disagree" with his health care reform plans as "bearing false witness," but to "some folks out there" spreading "misinformation in this debate." Obama reportedly stated: "I know there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness, but I want everyone to know what health insurance reform is all about."
Hannity himself has spread "a lot of misinformation" on health care reform
Hannity has made numerous false claims about the House tri-committee bill. On August 19, after claiming to have "read the entire bill, all 1,018 pages," Hannity falsely claimed that if small businesses "don't go for the public option" under a House health care reform bill, "they're going to be punished," and that end-of-life provisions in the bill would establish "a bureaucrat that is designated to save money talking to an elderly person and offering them end-of-life advice." In fact, the penalty on small business would apply to businesses that don't provide health care, not specifically on those that "don't go for the public option," and the end-of-life provisions would reimburse physicians -- not "a bureaucrat" -- for voluntary counseling sessions.
Hannity echoed GOP in claiming "cooperative plan is basically the same thing with a new packaging." Discussing reports that the Obama administration might support health care cooperatives as an alternative to the public option, Hannity claimed on August 17, "I think the cooperative plan is basically the same thing with a new packaging." He then asserted that "this is still going to be government-run health care." As Media Matters noted, by mischaracterizing cooperatives as identical to the public option, Hannity was echoing GOP talking points and ignoring numerous economists who have argued that cooperatives will be less effective than a public option.
Hannity claimed a government rationing body will "tell[] women with breast cancer, 'You're dead.' " On June 19, Hannity stated that under health care reform, "[W]e're gonna have a government rationing body that tells women with breast cancer, 'You're dead.' They -- it's a death sentence." In fact, insurance companies acknowledge that they currently ration care, restricting coverage of procedures and tests like MRIs and CAT scans and denying coverage for pre-existing medical conditions.
Hannity falsely claimed health care reform will lead to denying treatment to elderly. On the July 17 broadcast of his radio show, Hannity promoted Betsy McCaughey's false claims on "end-of-life counseling," stating: "Now, she [McCaughey] actually uncovered in this bill a particularly outrageous provision -- and by the way, there will be more to come in the ObamaCare plan. According to McCaughey, she's saying under the House provision and the House version, perfectly healthy senior citizens are going to be forced to undergo, quote, 'end-of-life counseling,' apparently to encourage them to check out before their time is up." [ABC Radio Network's The Sean Hannity Show, 7/17/09]
Hannity falsely claimed House bill would ban private individual insurance. Citing a false Investor's Business Daily editorial, Hannity claimed of the House bill on July 16: "The one thing that we do know in the health care bill is that it's gonna literally -- the bill says -- Investor's Business Daily had an article today -- and the bill says that if you don't have your insurance the year this legislation is implemented, you can't have a private insurance company. So that will end -- hang on -- that will end private insurance." In fact, the provision to which the IBD editorial referred establishes the conditions under which existing private plans would be exempted from the requirement that they participate in the Health Insurance Exchange.
He's not allowed to quote the Bible! After all, only conservatives who cheat on their wives and steal from the public can hide behind the Bible, right? I mean, c'mon, if word ever got out that there were liberal Christians around, who believed in God and were for health coverage reform, where would that leave the poor conservatives?
Explain how spending more than $10,000,000,000 per month in a war of choice is moral?
End the war and insure the American people.
And it doesn't get much more immoral than unilaterally invading the wrong country.
You bet your ass I'm moralizing.
As for spending money on a war, the argument proposed by Worrier could be used against any war the U.S. has engaged in since WWII when it chose to go to war with Germany, when it hadn't been attacked by them.
Besides that, the amount of money spent on a war is all relative and really has nothing to do with the morality of going to war. Would Worrier say is it moral to spend $1,000,000 on a war of choice? How about $100? At what spending plateau does a moral war of choice become immoral?
Your framing of the U.S. unilaterally invading the wrong country is not only factually wrong on two counts, you actually implicate your side too, as they voted for it, along with having the U.N.'s approval.
If you want to disregard facts and history in order to moralize, you are free to do so, but if you want to convince anyone, you need to be a little more accurate.
Remember, you can't yell at a cop in your own home because you can't yell at a judge in their courtroom, and calling out an idiot for acting like an idiot is exactly the same as spouting off a racial slur against someone. This is just another in a series of moronic comparisons by AA.
And what U.N. approval are you talking about? When did Bush get that, exactly?
HR Representatives YEA 82 NAY 126
Senate YEA 29 NAY 21
TOTAL YEA 111 NAY 147
Unless a new form of math has been invented, 147 NAYS is greater than 111 YEAS os the Democrats voted AGAINST it.
*** I used that google thingee to get this facts. Now where do the Conservatives get theirs?
Not the wars themselves, no, but whether or not your judgment about them was based on the cost, yeah, that does have something to do with this.
And liberals have no problem with moralizing, and never have. The problem isn't that the Right moralizes, it's that they're HYPOCRITES who wrap themselves up in moral messages then act like greedy, prideful, lusting, lazy, envious, wrathful, gluttonous swine!
If they practiced [the christian messeges] they preached for even five minutes, they'd be liberals!
18,000 dead
90,000 bankrupt
40,000,000 uninsured
avg life expectency in Europe > in US
And all I said was that the avergae doesn't have to go down. And it doesn't, not in any DECENT plan. Beyond that, I've laid out my own proposal to deal with health care - twice now in past week or so, so I won't waste any more space with it, unless you're interested in discussing it.
And in future, please try not to forget my 'elite' status. ;)
Here's my proposal:
GOVERNMENT'S ROLE
1) The Gov't defines coverage terms. Basically? Everyone & everything is covered, either 100% or with a small ~$20 co-pay just to deter some idiot going to the ER for a hangnail. And no, I wouldn't cover elective or non-reconstuctive cosmetive surgery; I wouldn't cover any 'alternative medicine' (which is all BS anyway); and I'd be sorely tempted to exclude lifestyle drugs (Cyalis/Viagra?) but maybe could be persuded to cover those. (We can talk.) Abortion would be covered. (If you don't like that, lobby congress to outlaw it, otherwise it's LEGAL so GET OVER IT.) And mental health would get the same level of coverage as everything else. There's no reason to treat the brain any differently from any other organ that has something go wrong with it. (Currently most Ins.Co shaft mental health drugs big time.)
WHO 'RUNS' IT?
2) The program will be managed by the insurance companies, much the way they do now. They will bid the gov't to cover people, be awarded contracts for blocks of people, and then bill the gov't for this. They will be required to reimburse doctors/hospitals at a level that (for example) insures that any given person will have a choice of at least three doctors within 50 miles of their home (100 miles in rural areas) that will perform a given test or procedure at no additional cost to the patient. Doctors can still charge more, if they think the market will bear it, but the difference would then have to be paid by the patient. But the standard payment will have to be enough to make sure I have at least three Doctors to choose from with no additional expense. BOTTOM LINE: Only the insurance co's ever deal with the gov't, and you will never be refused coverage. (Except as specified by law, summarized in (1).)
HOW TO PAY FOR IT:
3) The gov't will pay the insurance bills through increased taxes. These taxes will be offset by the fact that we're no longer paying premiums. This new tax would then be structured such that most people's take home pay would not be affected + or -. A corprate tax increase will be levied such that the revenue generated will be the same as what is currenlty being paid in premiums. (So revenue-neutral) The differece is that in the form of a tax, it will not have to be paid by stugglig firms (who would otherwiss still have a fixed HC cost) and more of the bill will be footed by companies doing well. (Who could just as easily have a tough year next year, and be in the other boat themsleves.)
WHY DOES THIS WORK?
4) Cost are controlled automatically: Doctors will charge what the market bears, but will have an incentive to be among those that are "free" to the patiant. Insurance comapnies will be in competiton with each other to bid new citizens to cover. Free market principals apply, but will be used to insure coverage, as well as control cost.
HOW DOES IT SAVE MONEY? (this section is new)
5) Worst case, it doesn't. If no one's behavior changes we pay exactly what we pay now, we just share that cost universally instead of bankrupting the sick. The way people's behavior might change that would save money is that they'd see a doctor for a headache/stomach ache/toothache/earache early on, when it could be diagnosed by a PCP and treated with a single course of simple anti-biotics, instead of waiting until the infection spreads, then showing up in the ER on death's door, ending up in the ICU for a week or more, taking exotic antibiotics, IV, running up 10's of 1000's of dollars, possibly DYING or in any case NOT PAYING (because they weren't covered and can't afford it.) THAT COST, which under the current system gets passed onto US, can be avoided. What's more, if everyone gets covered at the same level, hopsitials (etc...) don't have to pass on the costs from losses due to low-ball LTA's with insurers or low-ball medicaid payemnts. ALSO, if they KNOW they'll get paid for EVERYON THEY TREAT, Hospitals won't have to bake all the losses from assuming some people won't pay into the cost for people who will.
5a) In summary: People will get treatment sooner, which would be bet both cheaper and more effective; No low-ball payments driving up eveyone else's costs; No deadbeats failing to pay driving up everyone else's costs. IOW - the rich don't subsodize the poor (which is what happens now, just not efficently or effectively) the HEALTHY subsodize the SICK (which is the only part of the current system that DOES work; and it works a lot better the larger a population you can pool that risk over.)
So... LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.
Also, what about cost containment for Rx/new med advances? Inventors need to still be able to get rich, but we don't want to bankrupt the system either..we at least owe it to those bearing the brunt of the burden of paying for the system to negotiate fair compensation/rewards for Rx/med equipment etc.
Isn't abortion elective unless the health of the mother is compromised?
Do you see any issue with, if there's an acceptable level of healthcare provided for everyone, wealthier people essentially having their own hospitals and doctors, as they see fit? That's what would happen, to a small extent anyway..we might see boutique hospitals, etc (although we have some now in the rich areas of NYC, for example). I don't have an issue with it if people who couldn't afford particular care now were taken care of, but a lot of the debate is about "equality" and "morality" vs. "this is just the best thing for the country overall".
Any monitoring/probation officer service for people who claim they cannot pay premiums, or is it based on household income? What to do with people who should have adequate income but suck at finances?
I assume the insurance companies would essentially act like defense contractors then, bidding to provide a service that the gov. provides? Essentially To put it bluntly, they're bidding on babies to insure, to offset the cost of the old people already in thier case load. Babies (once born) represent 30-40 of very little care (on average) yet they'll get paid the same as they would for the 65+ crowd who cost more. So they WANT to get those babies! And thus they can't gouge in price or their competition (another company) with underbid them and swoop them up.
Isn't abortion elective unless the health of the mother is compromised? The issue with covering other elective procedures is not just that they're elective, it's also a COST issue. The thing about abortion is that doing nothing ends up costing MORE. (Pre-natal care, birth, any complications etc... are all covered 100%) So as long as the procedure is legal (safe, etc...), AND THE MOTHER DOES NOT WANT TO BEAR CHILD (no one's FORCING anything just 'cause it's cheaper so don't start in with that!) the fact is that she asking LESS of the system than if she continues the pregancy. If it's LEGAL (safe, etc...) and COSTS LESS, there's no rational reason to refue it. (I'm not saying we encorage it - I'll never support that - but there's just no reason to refuse it.) (Keep reading, please.)
If you have moral objectons, DON'T HAVE ONE. If your concern is that your enabling others to do so, I have news for you: Chances are you already do that, assuming you belong to a group plan. Many current plans cover abortion today.
Do you see any issue with, if there's an acceptable level of healthcare provided for everyone, wealthier people essentially having their own hospitals and doctors, as they see fit? Nope. That's the free marklet at work. Like you said: there HAS to be a minimum level of acceptable care, and that care should be DARNED GOOD. But if the upper-class wants to pay for special treatment? (Or the 'best' doctor, whatever...) Knock yourself out.
Any monitoring/probation officer service for people who claim they cannot pay premiums, or is it based on household income? This is a good question and obviously one where a lot of politics can get involved. I try to take a principled stance. MOST of use (those who pay an employee's share of a company plan) would pay about the same. Those who are over (for example) median income who's employer's don't offer insurance would pay that same [employee's share] amount: these are people who would happily buy the insurancse if their employers offered it. Those under median income could get a break - pay half, or nothing. And the unemployed would pay nothing. (They pay nothing now, and yet they GET COVERAGE: Medicaid. I can't stop that, but I CAN improve their care, while decreasing the cost impact on everyone else.) Also, you COULD do something where SINGLE PEOPLE pay less that married couples, or take kids/no kids into accout - similarly to how insurance is priced today. The guding pricinpal is to have as little impact as possible, and be close to reveneue netural as possible. The uninsured are ALREADY being paid for by the rest of us. We're ALREADY suibsodixing them - it just COSTS MORE to do it the way we do. I want to give them PROPER CARE, and doing so will COST EVERYONE LESS.
What to do with people who should have adequate income but suck at finances? I'm incluned to say, "Screw 'em," (make 'em pay) but I'm not totally heartless. Can you give me a scenario? (I find it more likely that we'll have some super richies who are so good at creative accounting that they can LOOK like the suck at finances... but maybe that's not who you're talking about.)
Again... let me know what you think. Also - I have some clever ideas (IMHO) regarding bringing malpractice costs down w/o capping damages. If you're interested in bringing THAT into the discussion as well, let me know.
Also, what about cost containment for Rx/new med advances? Inventors need to still be able to get rich, but we don't want to bankrupt the system either..we at least owe it to those bearing the brunt of the burden of paying for the system to negotiate fair compensation/rewards for Rx/med equipment etc.
You're right. And admittedly there's not much in my SYSTEM that controls this directly. Personally I'm not one to begrudge these companies their profits, since they actually provide VALUE to the system. So this is an area that I don't really want to tamper with too invasively.
ONE WAY you could do it, more via marktet forces, would be to STOP TV advirtising (like in the old days) and STOP the handing out of free samples and having the sales people of these companies dealing directly with doctors. (I'll sdmit I haven't put as much thought into this section as I have the others, so bear with me...)
The cost this has to the companies (in lost potential revenue) is obvious... BUT: if you consider how you want doctors making decisions, it WORKS. They will prescribe the drug they think is best for the patient, free of commercial influence. And doctor's READ. So if there's a new drug, and it works wonders, THEY'LL HEAR ABOUT IT. BUT... if that drug has side-effects, interactions, is less effective, etc... they can also take THAT into account, free of commercial (non-medical) influence.
I don't know if that will really lower COSTS, but it WILL make the drugs compete on merit rather than marketing.
And while I am a center-left liberal, I can understand the feelings of resentment on the part of the upper-class, having to pay more in taxes, etc... I don't AGREE with them, but I don't completely dismiss the argument out of hand either. So bottom line: If I don't HAVE to tax the rich? I WON'T. (And for the most part, I don't.) Personally, I think that good health care is something that EVERYONE should be happy to pay for. The burden may shift this way or that over time, but I would strongly caution anyone would move more toward a rich/poor distribution (than I do here) than a healthy/sick one.
However, I would gladly sacrifice search capability for:
1) An EDIT function in the comments. I SUCK at proofreading, as I'm sure you've seen.
2) The ability to see (any nubbner) of my comments that have been REPLIED TO, rather than just my last 15. (Or even just the THREADS in which I have one or more REPLIES in.) This is importnant to me as one of the reasons I post here so much (as opposed to HuffPo, for example) is the great (and sometimes even the awful) back-and-forth that we have. Maybe I need to get out more, but really enjoy having an intelligent debate with you guys. (Of course, I also enjoy locking horns, butting heads and ranting, but whatever...)
3) A page that lists the corporate sponsors of Limbaugh, Savage, O'Rielly, Hannity and Beck. (Or whomever the top 5 are - O'Rielly's been looking pretty clean lately , relative to the other four... Dobbs, maybs?)
#1 & #2 are pretty universal. Nothing partisan there. You can be forgiven if you don't share my enthusiasm for #3 although, to be fair, you could use it to voice your SUPPORT of those companies, and buy from the exclusively. Nothing wrong with that, market forces after all.
NO... I said you had no clue what the "average" is. (That's not quite as bad as saying you have NO CLUE at all.) For my part, I don't have a clue how you even define the average! In terms of what? Coverage? Cost? Quality / Quantity of care? Saying the "average" will go down is hard to defend (or, admittedly, attack) if it's not clearly defined, and if you have have data showing what it is.
Since that is obviously false - there is no reason at all why what's called "health care" can't expand over time as the demand for it (more properly in this case, the access to it) increases - the argument about "average" can go nowhere.
Just so you know, I will in all probability be nicked by the proposed tax increases, I also have excellent health insurance due to my wife having a union job for many years. Furthermore if the right wing crackpots hadn't blown up the economy last year, I would have probably had to pay even more taxes to support universal health care, which i would have done quietly, knowing that my taxes were going to something humane, unlike the right wing crackpots war of choice in Iraq. Which by the way wasn't paid for, you guys charged my credit card.
So if you think I am moralizing, you bet your ass I am !
Simple, really.
Funny how similar the tv propagandists are to the amateur trolls at web sites. Like the wingnut yesterday obsessing that he's been able to have two of my posts deleted for rough language over several years (after who-knows-how-many flagging attempts by him)in the same, single thread where he's caught in four or five blatant lies.
Not only is Hannity still shrieking "God Dam America", he's even digging up "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" on a regular basis. The primitive brains of his audience are more likely to respond to endless repetition of the oldies than to notice the daily creation of brand new lies by Hannity and their other trainers.
I may be accused of being a Pollyanna but, it seems to me that unless health care is readily available and used by all, then there will be problems of spreading disease throughout the whole population. So maybe republicans can separate themselves from the unfortunates in society, but maybe not forever.
Except for one thing: Sean's education being "minimal."
Seeing as he has only a HS diploma, and given the state of of our secondary school system, and the level of knowledge on world affairs displayed by the average teenager, I'd say "non-existant" is more accurate.
I had as much education as he did before I even GOT an education!
(PS: If any teenagers are reading this and thinking, "Hey, I'M well-versed in politics and world affairs," then I suggest you consider whether you are, in fact, average or exceptional.)
But I do kind of expect them them to at least pay lip service to, "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me."
Perhaps I am expecting too much.
Man.
I never Jesus was such a commie!
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
(Matthew 25:41-45)
It was not merely that you should do such to "the least of these," it's that you must not fail to do it. Put another way, it's not just a matter of offering assistance, it's also one of not refusing to offer.
And before someone brings up private charity, let me say private charity is fine for temporary or local conditions. But in a society as large and technologically-developed as ours, government is the only social institution big enough to do the whole job.
I also might take the anti-religious left's comments about Christianity to heart if they practiced what they preached. It is common knowledge that conservatives give lots more to charities than liberals.
The liberal playbook is always, separation of church and state, except when they feel we can guilt the religious into doing their bidding and get them to pay for it.
Being coerced by the government to taking one's wealth in order to redistribute it is not being Christianlike for there is no free will involved.
You shouldn't. Most those that feel the need to proclaim they are "Christians" to everyone they meet know very little about Jesus of Nazareth or even the Bible. They know only that which they are told. Being raised in Christian schools my whole life I can assure you that believing what they teach you about the Bible is not knowing the Bible. Most of those who believe they live a "Christian" life have never actually read the Bible.
"I also might take the anti-religious left's comments about Christianity to heart if they practiced what they preached. It is common knowledge that conservatives give lots more to charities than liberals." - AA
I am sure that you wouldn't take it to heart. But, I am assuming you are basing this belief on surveys or polls. Maybe your "anti-religious left" (whoever that is) just doesn't advertise their charity. I give both of my time and money every month and I never claim any of it for any tax breaks or anything else. And I am part of no organized "Christian" religion.
"The liberal playbook is always, separation of church and state, except when they feel we can guilt the religious into doing their bidding and get them to pay for it."
I have no idea what this means. Perhaps you could explain what this sentence is suppose to mean. The liberals want separation of church and state but they want the church to pay for something? How much does your church pay in taxes?
"Being coerced by the government to taking one's wealth in order to redistribute it is not being Christianlike for there is no free will involved." - AA
See, you have already proven my point about "Christians" and the Bible. You are obviously suggesting that Christ would be against a progressive income tax and you are clearly mistaken. Actually read the Bible. Something about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's....
And much of that money, doesn't go towards Catholic Charities or other well know, religious programs to help the less fortunate, but to people like Pat Robertson and the other charlatans in the god business.
I'd like to see the figures that include only money spent on the teachings of Jesus Christ such as healing the sick, helping the poor and taking care of the least among us.
Another point I'd like to ad is that many conservatives argue against programs that directly help children and according to my religious education, they held a special place in the heart of Jesus.
Without being certain what people "proclaiming not to be Christians" you're referring to, yeah, you're right, it <i>is</i> funny that self-proclaimed Christians often know so little about the requirements of their own faith, isn't it?
<i>It is common knowledge that conservatives give lots more to charities than liberals.</i>
Bzzzt! Sorry. According to surveys, <i>as a portion of income</i>, liberals give more - and according to IRS figures, on the same basis lower-income folks give more than the rich.
<i>Being coerced by the government to taking one's wealth in order to redistribute it is not being Christianlike for there is no free will involved.</i>
So let's see. You're unfamiliar with "do unto others," the story of the poor widow and her two mites, "render unto Caesar," and Acts 4:32-35.
I'd rather count as friends those who profess NO religion and yet out of a good heart observe the Sermon on the Mount.
Well, ya know what? I gotta agree with Sean on this one. 'Cause after all, can anyone name any prominent opponents of health care reform who have not based their arguments on falsehoods?