Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
RECENT POSTS
- Who Really Wears the Pants in Russia?
- Malia Obama – Budding Fashionista?
- The Very Latest on the US-Russian Summit
- President Obama Seeks to Build Up Medvedev Over Putin
- President Obama's Proverbial Reset Button
- The Latest from the US-Russian Summit
- Kenya Dig It? President Obama Talks Africa, Chastises Politics in Late Father's Homeland
- US-Russian Arms Negotiators "Under the Gun," Might Temporarily Bypass Senate Ratification for Treaty
- Asked What He Doesn’t Like About Himself, President Obama Cites His Golf Game
- Today's Q's For O's White House
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Is Hillary's Much-Maligned Hospital Story Fundamentally True?
April 07, 2008 3:14 PM
The New York Times had a real attention-grabbing story over the weekend indicating that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, had been irritating an Ohio hospital by telling a false story about a poor, pregnant woman denied health care.
“The hospital said, ‘Well, you don’t have insurance,'" Clinton said. "She said, ‘No, I don’t.’ They said, ‘Well, we can’t see you until you give $100.’ She said, ‘Where am I going to get $100?' The next time she came back to the hospital, she came in an ambulance,” Mrs. Clinton continued. “She was in distress. The doctors and the nurses worked on her and couldn’t save the baby.”
The Times reported that the woman in question was Trina Bachtel.
"Since Ms. Bachtel’s baby died at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, the story implicitly and inaccurately accuses that hospital of turning her away, said Ms. (Linda) Weiss, the spokeswoman for O’Bleness Memorial said. Instead, the O’Bleness health care system treated her, both at the hospital and at the affiliated River Rose Obstetrics and Gynecology practice, Ms. Weiss said."
Because O'Bleness so harsly assailed the story, it has been treated like the whole story Clinton told was false, and it has fed into a meme -- started by her Bosnia sniper tale -- of her being less than truthful.
But a closer examination of the story Clinton was originally told indicates that while Clinton erred slightly in relaying the tragic tale, that doesn't mean it's not fundamentally true. On that, the jury is still out.
**
Clinton was first told the story of Trina Bachtel by an Ohio sheriff’s deputy, Bryan Holman.
The website NoQuaterUSA today pointed out what Holman's full story was -- and his full story is significant.
On Youtube one can watch the video of Holman telling Clinton the story.
“I’d like to tell you the story of a young woman I know that didn’t have health insurance," he says. "She worked in a little pizza place around here and she was pregnant worked for minimum wage. She went to the hospital. And the hospital told her she needed $100 up front, which she didn’t have of course didn’t make a lot of money . So they had billed her a couple of times for it. And uh, after getting pregnant she went back, like I say, she went back again, they told her she needed $100 she didn’t have . So they refused to see her because she had a bill and stuff and been there before."
Here's the key: Holman then tells Clinton that Bachtel (whom he doesn't name) then went to another hospital -- and that one would presumably be O'Bleness Memorial.
"So she went to another local hospital," he says. "And they seen her and stopped her labor and told her to come back in two days. Well, before she got back within those two days her baby died. So they life-flighted her to Co - to a hospital in Columbus and within 15 days she died. And they come to find out that they had misdiagnosed what the problem was. And it was a smaller hospital, didn’t have the needs to take care of what she needed at that time."
In other words, the hospital that denied Bachtel the coverage was not O'Bleness Memorial.
The larger point, says Holman to Clinton: "her family and them think that if she'd had good insurance and stuff and she was taken care of at the first hospital of course that had the medical means to take care of her that her and her baby of course would still be here. Its just you know the health insurance thing really needs to be addressed for people who you know work for minimum wage and different things.”
After which Clinton says, "I hear so many stories like that. People without insurance are more likely to be die than people with insurance."
**
The (Ohio) Daily Sentinel on August 5, 2007, printed an obituary for Trina Bachtel's stillborn son, Tray Dean Hutton, who was stillborn on August 1, 2007 at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio.
Another Senitenl obit shows that Bachtel herself died at OSU Medical Center in Columbus.
The first question is what was the first hospital Trina Bachtel went to? It wasn't O'Bleness -- but Clinton never said it was. She told the story imprecisely -- sloppily, even -- but that doesn't make its general point untrue.
The second question is why was Bachtel denied medical care at that first hospital?
I'm trying to find out more about this story -- it's not always easy when health records are involved, not to mention a grieving family who may already have some issues with the media.
But I will try, and report back to you what I find out.
- jpt
UPDATE: The AP and the Washington Posthave taken a look at this, too. More tomorrow.
April 7, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (354)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Miska - people are going to die with or without healthcare...it's a fact of life. With universal healthcare, different people will die because of rationing.
Posted by: ellsbells930 | Apr 9, 2008 7:27:41 PM
FACT: Obama's health plan would leave 15 million Americans without coverage.
FACT: People have died, are dying, and will continue to die for lack of health care coverage.
There's no excuse for allowing this kind of thing happen again.
Posted by: Miska | Apr 9, 2008 4:01:30 AM
Reposted with corrections:
This story is hilarious because it completely fails to acknowledge something extremely ironic - if Hillary Clinton had not failed so miserably in her attempt at healthcare reform in 1993, this woman may not have been in boat that she was.
Jake and others have completely failed to even mention the fact that in 1992 there was a huge mandate in the country for healthcare reform. Bill Clinton won th election in large part because he promised that he was the best candidate to tackle our healthcare system. And he would bring affordable health insurance to all Americans. It was such top priority that he chose none other than his own own wife, Hillary, to find a solution to America's healthcare crisis. Of course, Hillary had lots of meet and greets on Capitol Hill and many well publicized secret meetings with healthcare consultants. But at the end of the day, her healthcare reform package landed like a flaming pile of pooh! It was universally hated by politicians in both parties and voters alike.
In fact, Hillary's healthcare disaster was the prime reason the Republicans swept the '94 mid-term elections. The first time the Democrats didn't control the House of Representatives in over 40 years. Bill Clinton's approval ratings were never lower than when Hillary completely botched healthcare reform. Amazing, considering the fact that he was impeached.
And as Hillary's recently released records point out, after her healthcare reform debacle, she basically faded away and decided to reinvent herself in the mold of more traditional First Ladies.
So if you think Hillary Clinton is the person to fix healthcare, you're either too young, have an extremely poor memory or you know virtually nothing about Hillary and her absolute biggest blunder (her INEVITABLE nomination being the exception).
Posted by: TJ | Apr 9, 2008 2:55:45 AM
Obama asked Wright to stop? Link?
It's really funny how repeating OBAMA'S OWN WORDS is "bigotry" and "slander".
Posted by: EP | Apr 9, 2008 2:05:55 AM
"Besides, I'm not in Obama's church..."
but you know enough to pass judgement. You know enough to claim 20 years of FAILURE. You know enough to slander the honor of a good an honorable reverend. All to tear down Obama. Throw the kitchen sink at him, you will.
Posted by: Todd | Apr 9, 2008 12:22:03 AM
"So...did Obama actually ask Wright to stop? I didn't think so."
Ah, yes he did, actually. But you think you know better and your certainly not going to give up critizing Obama's character. Obama can't get a break from you, no sir.
Posted by: Todd | Apr 9, 2008 12:15:22 AM
Obama's church is already united and doing just fine in spite of your bigoted opinion. What a horrible sense of hatred you live in. Does it hurt inside?
Posted by: todd | Apr 9, 2008 12:06:40 AM
"the Republicans are going to dismantle Sen. Obama …if he wins the Nomination.."
We've had 8 years of Republican predictions about what will happen in the future. They've been wrong every time. So now they want to brag about how they will dismantle Obama if he wins, so "be scared" and vote for Clinton instead. People, are we really falling for this argument?
Posted by: Todd | Apr 8, 2008 10:47:07 PM
"I simply used Obama's own characterization of Wright's rhetoric. "
to accomplish what exactly? I say it appears you think your quite clever to claim that Obama is "unwilling or ineffective at promoting unity in a church, how can he do so for a whole country and its enemies, foreign and domestic?" You might as well say, "he'll never get me to unite so he is a failure (stomp)." I say Obama is extremely effective at healing the wounds that divide this country. He's much better at it than I am, based upon this thread of conversation. I gave it my best, I did.
Posted by: Todd | Apr 8, 2008 10:30:09 PM
"I have never heard Obama call on Rev Wright to actually STOP his divisive rhetoric."
And I have never heard Clinton call on Mark Penn to actually STOP his divisive rhetoric.
Touche
Posted by: Todd | Apr 8, 2008 10:23:45 PM
Please stop making assumptions and personal attachs. I have never watched Rush Limbaugh. I simply used Obama's own characterization of Wright's rhetoric. Apparently, it is BIGOTED to rely on Obama's JUDGEMENT. OK.
Posted by: EP | Apr 8, 2008 9:03:26 PM
No, I have never heard Obama call on Rev Wright to actually STOP his divisive rhetoric.
"Simply loving his Reverend" did not require that Obama remain silent in the face of divisive rhetoric for 20 years. Obama is running for President and should be accountable for the sincerity of his convictions and ability to promote those convictions.
As President, he will have to be far more active in addressing far more divisive forces. If he was unwilling or ineffective at promoting unity in a church, how can he do so for a whole country and its enemies, foreign and domestic?
Posted by: EP | Apr 8, 2008 8:56:54 PM
Rev. Wright has 100 times more hours logged giving unity sermons but none of those were played during that 30 second soundbite taken out of context which you have used to pass judgement upon him. And then you pass judgement on Obama for standing by him.
Obama's judgement of Rev. Wright is much more credible given his relationship of 20 years than is your judgement based upon the likes of Rush Limbaugh. So can you see why Barack's rejection of Rev. Wrights' statements isn't considered bigoted but yet your judgements are considered bigoted? If so than there's hope still for healing. Please don't be a hater.
Posted by: Todd | Apr 8, 2008 8:44:16 PM
"My stand is based on the notion that if you believe in unity, you stand up for it when it is being attacked by divisive rhetoric."
This is exactly what Obama has done, if you'd bother to listen to him.
Posted by: Todd | Apr 8, 2008 8:21:03 PM
Obama is free to characterize it however he sees fit. So am I and so are you. The difference between Obama and and many who have logged their judgements here is that these bigots FAULT Obama for simply loving his Reverand for 20 years inspite of his divisive comments. You people will condemn Obama for anything. He's damn if he do, damn if he don't with many of you here. I'm all for unity, too. So what one must do against slander like found here when one is committed to "unity"? eh? Turn the other cheek?
Posted by: Todd | Apr 8, 2008 8:19:10 PM
Obama can vote "present" all he wants in the Illinois Senate. A vote "present" is the same as "no" while signalling a willingness to negotiate. Perfectly reasonable thing to do. Of course, you want to mis-characterize it just like you mis-characterize Rev. Wright and his sermons. Rev. Wright isn't even close to being as divisive as many of the bigoted comments on this blog. But since you've based your bigoted position on a 30 second soundbite taken out of context, I can understand your confusion.
Posted by: Todd | Apr 8, 2008 7:33:14 PM
Didn't Obama have that right too? Why didn't he exercise it by walking out during those sermons? By asking Rev. Wright to reconsider and/or stop his divisive rhetoric?
If Obama's only reaction to divisiveness is to vote "present", how sincere or effective is he?
Posted by: EP | Apr 8, 2008 6:34:58 PM
Look, the point is that if there had been universal health care, this woman and her baby may have both survived.
PRIORITIES, PEOPLE.
Posted by: EPO | Apr 8, 2008 6:24:09 PM
A prominent Southern California university has developed a scientific test to determine when Hillary is lying. After exhaustive testing in the field, this test is now 100% accurate. It’s developers have been awarded the Noble Prize for their historic breakthrough in the field of Mendacity Determination. The test works like this: if Hillary’s lips are moving, she is lying.
Posted by: jbate | Apr 8, 2008 6:21:09 PM
To questioner:
If your comment is directed toward my post, you'll notice I said NOTHING ABOUT RACE. Look it up in a dictionary. Bigot does not equal Racist. The group of bigots in this world is a much larger group of people. And the fascists who call Rev. Wright un-american are not racists either, they're fascists.
But of course to you anything about Obama is racist. "See what I mean?"
What apology do you want to hear? I'm sorry that you hate Obama.
Posted by: Todd | Apr 8, 2008 5:14:02 PM
Post a comment

