Sunday, April 6, 2008

Hillary Clinton and the Media: Health Care Fraud

You would not know it from the Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, AND the mainstream media PROPAGANDA, but we already have "universal health care" in this country.  Medicaid (we would probably be better off without this program at all, except on a state and local level) takes care of the poor.  Medicare takes care of the elderly.  And hospitals re REQUIRED to see all emergency patients, whether they have health insurance or not. 

That is why it is FUNNY that Hillary Clinton has gotten in trouble with her sob story over a pregnant woman who allegedly was denied care at a hospital because she could not afford $100.00.  That story NEVER made any sense, and yet the mainstream media accepted it for probably months.   It turns out that the story was FALSE--as the woman WAS evidently insured and was not denied care.  But there was never any way this story was true (a story that both Hillary Clinton and the media accepted as true because they WANTED it to be true, or did not care whether it was or it wasn't.

I almost put one of those prescient entries in this blog the first time I heard this sob story  Take my word for it that I never believed it.  In fact, see my "Fllying, Fickle Finger of Fate" award as to another totally preposterous myth about Americans going to Asia for health care because they can neither afford healh care in the U.S. nor afford health insurance--allegedly 500,000 of us.  There is NO chance that story is true, either, in that form. 

Think of it.  The POOR get Medicaid.  And there is that requirement that hospitals treat emergency patients.   HOW could it possibly be true that a pregnant woman was denied care because she did not have ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS.  The story, like the Asia story, was TOO GOOD to be true.  Certainly, if anything like it had happened, it would require a LOT of explanation.

Statement of fact:  If the Federal Government takes over health care, there will be MORE people falling through the cracks than there are now.  What is there about your dealings with the Federal Government that makes you doubt that?  And it gets WORSE as we pile more programs on an aready outrageously unaccountable and bloated Federal Government. 

Nope.  The problem here is NOT that Hillary Clinton is a congenital liar (although I think both she and Barack Obama are "truth challenged", and I don't have that much confidence in John McCain or any other politician).   The problem here is that the entire push for "universal health care" encourages DECEPTION.  Much of it is based on DECEPTION.   There is no health care "crisis" in this country.  There is a health insurance affordability problem, which will not be effectively solved by banrupting the country with yet another MASSIVE Federal program.

This DECEPTION is not only illustrated by the Hillary Clinton sob story, accepted uncritically by the media, but by things like that myth about massive numbers of people going to Asia for health care FOR THE REASON THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD EITHER INSURANCE OR HEALTH CARE IN THE U.S. 

Further, this DECPETION means that there is often little coverage about the FAILURES of government health systems in other countries.  For example, many months ago this blog cited you to BRITISH stories about the SCANDAL of the National Health Service in Britain failing to get the newest cancer drugs to patients.  The United States was among the BEST at getting life saving drugs to cancer patients, leading the British press to presume that Britain's National Health Service was, in effect, killing thousands of people each year.  The study in question was a MASSIVE SWEDISH stury. 

The mainstream media, Democrats (of the politician kind), and leftists (that trinity who are ONE) are so committed to PROPAGANDA in favor of a massive new Federal Government "universal" health care program, that you cannot rely on them for anything but propaganda.  You can be sure that ALL of the stories pushing universal health care are SLANTED, with an agenda.  They may not all be as false as the Clinton sob story, but you can be sure they are presenting the issue in a false light.

Is this the only issue were this is occurring?  Of course not.  The media/politician/leftist push for th e Al Gore "global warming" program is eeriely similar.  There is Iraq (where the objective "news" is bad engough, but you don't get objective coverage).  There is Barack Obama.  There is illegal immigration.  In short, the mainstream media does little that is not propaganda at the present time. 

It is hard to get too upset at Hillary Clinton over this one.  She can be excused for thinking that this is the way it isDONE these days:  the old "end justifies the means" philosophy that the left has perfected (far more than conservatives, if only because the left has so much more mainstream media help).  

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I found you through Magic Smoke.  http://journals.aol.com/journalseditor/magicsmoke
You were picked as a guest editor's pick!  Congratulations!  And by the way, I find your entries very interesting.  I particularly found this one interesting.  I agreed with it wholeheartedly.  I don't, however, think that the democrats should have the right to say the ends justifies the means.  Even if the media has been doing it with them for awhile.  They have no excuse.

Krissy
http://journals.aol.com/fisherkristina/SometimesIThink

Anonymous said...

Obama says that small town America hates people who are different. They cling to their guns and religion.

Hmmmmm?

Bit of a generalization there. And even if it is true, was it a wise thing for a presidential candidate to say. I don't think so. I guess we'll see on April 22.

Also, Wikipedia describes Rashid Khalidi as Obama's friend. Obama may even have raised money for Khalidi's charity.

Wikipedia says Khalidi used to work for the Palestine National Authority. So Khalidi may actually have worked for Yassir Arafat.

Khalidi has said a few interesting things too. Like he implied that Ariel Sharon was a terrorist. Or he made both negative and positive comments about Arafat, his supposed former employer.

Khalidi explained that Israel didn't like to talk to Arafat because he was a terrorist.

"But I could say the same about Sharon," said Khalidi.

Indeed, I feel Khalidi is correct but I suspect most American voters would not feel that way, especially those "pro-Israel voters from New York and Florida."

"Pro-Israel voters from New York and Florida" is a quote from Tony McPeek, a foreign policy advisor for Obama. McPeek's statement was "we don't have peace in the Middle East because of those pro-Israel voters from New York and Florida."

I agree with McPeek too but as Mrs. Obama stated, America is basically "ignorant." So most voters would not agree with McPeek, especially those crucial pro-Israel voters.

I agree with McPeek, Mrs. Obama and Khalidi.

But I'm not running for president.