Wash. Times' Curl claims Obama "cut out" bipartisanship line he actually delivered
In a September 10 article, The Washington Times' Joseph Curl falsely claimed that President Obama "cut out" a line about "bring[ing] the best ideas of both parties together" from his prepared remarks during his September 9 address to the joint session of Congress. In fact, not only did Obama not "cut out" the line about working in a bipartisan manner to achieve health care reform, Curl's own paper quoted Obama as delivering it.
Curl falsely claimed Obama "cut out" line about bringing "both parties together" in health care debate
From Curl's September 10 Washington Times article:
But in the end, it was what Mr. Obama left unsaid.
"Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do," said his prepared remarks, e-mailed to reporters hours before his address.
He cut out the line.
But Obama delivered line exactly as prepared
From CNN's September 9 coverage of Obama's address before the joint session of Congress:
OBAMA: Well, the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.
Wash. Times quoted Obama's remarks in a separate article
From a September 10 Washington Times article:
He warned liberal Democrats not to be obstinate on the public option and extended his hand to Republicans. He praised Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, for contributing an idea to the debate -- while insisting he won't let Republicans spread false political attacks to stop the plan.
"The time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed," Mr. Obama said. "Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do."
UPDATE: After Media Matters for America published this item and requested a correction, The Washington Times removed Curl's false claim from the online version of his article without indicating that the piece had been updated.
I apologize for the Right, Mr. President. I'm afraid stooping to making things up when they have nothing better to offer in the way of criticism is the closest you are likely to come to applause from that side of the aisle. It does at least mean they couldn't find anything substantive to attack you on, and had to resort to what passes for their imagination.
OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."
AP:The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."
OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."
AP:In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change.
Oh yes, trash-taslking troll Wesley, who yesterday deemed Obama's speech a colossal failure--even though a poll shows it a huge success!
As far as your first claim goes, I agree that preventative care will not lower costs--but it will save lives.
Elmendorf explained that, while the cost of a simple test might be cheap for each individual, the cumulative cost of many tests could be quite expensive:
"But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. . . Preventive care can have the largest benefits relative to costs when it is targeted at people who are most likely to suffer from a particular medical problem; however, such targeting can be difficult because preventive services are generally provided to patients who have the potential to contract a given disease but have not yet shown symptoms of having it."
...And a study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society concluded that, while interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease would prevent many strokes and deaths, "as they are currently delivered, most of the prevention activities will substantially increase costs."
Source: PolitiFact
So Wesley, why would you prefer to save a buck and kill mom?
I'm working on medical device to improve survival rates from breast cancer surgery. When patients have earlier detection they have higher survival rates, and I sincerely hope, they would not require invasive surgery but instead chemo might work.
Since they're more likely to live - and therefore be candidates for surgery rather than hospice - we end up spending more money because surgery and chemo are more expensive than hospice.
We, as a society, benefit from more women living longer, contributing to the development of their families and advancing the nation's welfare as Adam Smith defines it. It's quite a reasonable economic tradeoff to me.
But, sadly, Wesley would prefer to kill mom and save a buck.
PROFITS OVER PEOPLE
Right next to this one:
LET 'EM DIE
However, the point of the article is that Joseph Curl, reporting for the Washington Times, claimed that the President left out part of his speech. Specifically: Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.
As noted, Curl's own paper reported Obama as having this line in the speech as he delivered it last night. So, it appears that Curl could find no legitimate criticism of the speech, and chose instead to lie about what was not in it. A lie disprovable within the pages of his own newspaper.
He has little history of bi-partisanship and a long history of only telling the truth half the time...documented by PolitiFact.
Covering the last four statements made by Pres.Obama on healthcare...they found 2 true...1 barely true...1 outright false.
So I won't be holding my breath while waiting for that reach across the aisle.
facts suck don't they?
Yeah, that needs to be amended: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, unless your job-creating employer, Lord of Capitalism and Embodier of the American Ideal, decides in His infinite wisdom that you would be better served by another plan."
ambiguity breeds contempt...
All manner of lying in service to corporations at the expense of the people should result in being ostracized from polite society
money can buy. Their helpers at the Washington Post must get their
share at some point.
I'd also estimate that the WaPo editorisl page pundits have higher salaires than the WashTimes hacks - perhaps with the exception of Tony Blankley.
* for those too young to remember, check out the old Saturday Night Live circa 1985-1990.
He was with his wife ... Morgan Fairchild ... whom he's slept with. :-)
Hell, just make it up to sound good!
That should get more readers!
C'mon, Joe Curl got a bonus for making up that piece of fiction. Get off his back, the guy has bills to pay.
Seeing as he "works" for the Moonie Times, chances are pretty good that Rev. Moon provides a lousy health care plan to his slaves/employees. And he's still paying off his frontal lobotomy..... :-)