Thursday, August 20, 2009

VIDEO: Hartzler's Problems & Solutions

video
"They're Cutting Medicare To Pay For This"

GOP candidate Vicky Hartzler divided her conversation about healthcare into 2 parts: Problems with the Democratic proposals and potential solutions.

WATCH ABOVE: Hartzler said among her concerns include the cost of the plan, the possibility of the government option and mandating employers to cover employees. She also said those who want simple "bare-bones plans" would lose some choices, and voiced concern about federal money paying for abortions. Most neutral observers have found that abortions would not be directly paid for in the bill because of the Hyde Amendment.

FACT CHECK: POLITIFACT on AUG 7th WROTE: "But while it appears likely the plan would allow for the coverage of abortions, we don't see anything in the plans that would require taxpayers to foot the bill for that. In fact, in a key version of the bill — the one passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee — members went to great pains to include an amendment to ensure that federal money is not used for abortion coverage."

WATCH BELOW: Hartzler's solutions to the healthcare crisis include passing medical malpractice reform, boosting transparency and allowing people to gain access to health insurance plans across state lines.


video

7 comments:

Samantha said...

You don't point out, however, that the Hyde amendment is tied to three specific areas, those being Medicaid spending, military healthcare, and the federal employee healthcare service. It would NOT apply to this new funding stream. Attempts to add the amendment to the bill have also been specifically rejected in committee by the bill's supporters.

David Catanese said...

Samantha,
On Aug. 7th, POLITIFACT wrote:

"But while it appears likely the plan would allow for the coverage of abortions, we don't see anything in the plans that would require taxpayers to foot the bill for that. In fact, in a key version of the bill — the one passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee — members went to great pains to include an amendment to ensure that federal money is not used for abortion coverage."

Here's the full link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/07/john-boehner/boehner-says-democrats-health-care-plan-would-lead/

Caleb Harris said...

David...two points. Number one if there is a public option, where all procedures are funded through tax dollars for those on it, and it provides an option for abortion, taxpayer dollars would be used to provide abortion plain and simple. There is no way around it. Secondly, calling someone a neutral observer is laughable, because if you follow politics it is because you have an opinion. The only neutral folks would be those who do not EVER vote and therefore would not be likely to be an "observer" or member of a "non-partisan" think tank.

David Catanese said...

Caleb,

Maybe the perfect word isn't "neutral." But there are people that try to be objective. They're reporters.

I know, it's an easy punch line to come back at -- the left wing media, or such.

But I respect an organization like Politifact, powered by a respectable Florida newspaper, which thoroughly researches and debunks claims from both sides of the aisle.

So yes, there are some people that can step back and be neutral . . . or objective.

Sometimes the only motive is a good, well-thought out, fair story that people want to read.

Caleb Harris said...

David,
I completely understand what you are saying, as I am a former print journalist myself. However Politifact has been known on a few occasions to be somewhat biased themselves. Now I know the following link comes from a biased source, but essentially it is correct.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/05/28/polifacts-fixers
As journalists we have opinions. What we try to do is keep those opinions from influencing our reporting. What I would suggest is something I used to do. Instead of quoting other so-called neutral sources, I posted the facts, or links to them myself. At least then the blame was on me instead of someone else of it ended up not being correct.
All that said I do believe you and CHad at the News-Leader are the first political reporters in this area that try to get things right...we need that and I appreciate it.

David Catanese said...

Caleb,

Appreciate your point, and your readership/viewership.

Thanks,
Dave

Paul Seale said...

Dave,

An August 21 Fackcheck.org disagrees with your (and poltifact) analysis and point blank says:

"As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a "public plan" and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions"

It goes on to say that NRL was on the spot concerning HR3200.

http://factcheck.org/2009/08/abortion-which-side-is-fabricating/

Samantha, Caleb and Hartzler are right. Unless the bill specifically excludes the measure, Abortion can be included in any base coverage per the HHS director.

Whether the article was published before you posted your story, I do not know.

What I do know, however, is that an update with the added information would have been nice.

Instead, it looks as if you are playing off talking points being issued by Sen McCaskill and Democrats who are looking to hide this, and other provisions unpopular provisions buried inside the bill.

Thanks.