Obama speech false: Insurance company didn't kill the chemo patient - but he would have

obama joint session biden pelosi.jpgPresident Obama's speech writers apparently relied on the liberal online journal Slate for this false story Obama told during his speech before the Joint Session of Congress last week:

More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day. One man from IL lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.

Now here's what really happened, from the Wall Street Journal, yesterday...

In fact, the man, Otto S. Raddatz [pictured left in undated photo with wife Marie], didn't die because the insurance company rescinded his coverage once he became ill, an act known as recission.

otto raddatz.jpg

The efforts of his sister and the office of IL Attorney General Lisa Madigan got Mr. Raddatz's policy reinstated within 3 weeks of his April 2005 rescission and secured a life-extending stem-cell transplant for him. Mr. Raddatz died this year, nearly 4 years after the insurance showdown.

Obama aides say the president got the essence of the story correct. Mr. Raddatz was dropped from his insurance plan weeks before a scheduled stem-cell transplant....

In fact, the "essence of the story" is incredibly ironic. Raddatz had 3 years added to his life by ADULT stem cell treatment, the very research Obama rescinded funding for on March 24, 2009.

[Top photo via the Associated Press; bottom photo via the Chicago Sun-Times]


Why doesn't the media report the truth about embryonic stem cell transplants...that it causes teratomas, I think they're called. These tumors have TEETH AND HAIR AND BONES in them!!! If that isn't a horrible thought!

If more babies were born than aborted, think of all the cord blood that could be collected and the stem cells harvested from that to save lives! No one would have to die to get those stem cells either. I donated my son't cord blood and I like to think my choosing to carry my unplanned pregnancy to term not only brought a beautiful, smart little boy into the world, but may have restored someone's health to them through the donated cord blood.

Posted by: Sydney M at September 18, 2009 10:21 AM

Sounds like Obama could use some active BRAIN cells...LOL. :)

Posted by: Pamela at September 18, 2009 10:36 AM

I just heard from my friend in the Midwest last night that her pregnant friend (the one that had been considering abortion) might be miscarrying. Apparently, she's cramping and bleeding. I told my friend that she should tell her friend to see the doctor so that they can find out what's going on and monitor the situation as necessary. At least if she does miscarry, she won't have the guilt of her child's death on her own hands. But I do hope the child is going to be OK. The mother is about 9 weeks' pregnant.

Regarding the mention in the above article about adult stem cells, I think the new treatments with adult stem cells are wonderful and I hope they keep researching to find new ones. I think it's a shame that most cord blood in this country is discarded along with the rest of the placental tissue, etc. after a delivery. I believe that every hospital should automatically ask each mother for permission to donate her child's cord-blood to a public bank (free of charge) unless she wants to bank the cord blood herself (for use in her own family).

I would very much like to bank our next child's cord blood for future family use, but the cost of private banking is rather high and we may not be able to afford it. If we can't bank it ourselves I guess I'll be looking into donating it to a cord blood bank - I just don't want it to be wasted when it could prove so valuable as a lifesaving treatment.

Posted by: army_wife at September 18, 2009 11:26 AM

When a president that fancies himself as a down home, folksy type of communicator takes to lying to get across his point, what does that do to his credibiliity? The abortion debate and other concerns aside, the president did himself no favors when he chose to take the route he did.

Furthermore, he used his knowledge of the law to nibble around the edges of the most controversial provisions of the proposals, even as he strained to make the case in laymens talk that these aspects of the proposals were not as they were being made out to be by opponents. This goes way beyond innocent spin.

While the MSM gushed over the style of his delivery, serious analysis concluded as in the example provided by the WSJ article, that the president was not forthright in delivering the full truth of the situations he cited.

The modus operandi of this administration and that of a great many of the efforts being made to ram this legislation down our throats are based in ambiguity, misrepresentations, and downright lies.

This weekend the pres will grace? the airwaves in a full court press in an attempt to pull the unpopular legislation from the flames of a disasterous defeat. He is being told by congressional leaders and private pollsters that the legislation and the democratic party is in freefall, and that it is in his court to resurrect it. Of course he will not appear on Fox News as he might get a serious question, nor would they give him an advance look at the questions they would have posed.

Posted by: Jerry at September 18, 2009 6:05 PM

No mystery here.

B.O. is a liar and he lied......again.

Spinning is lying. Distortions are lying.

Misinformation and disinformation are lying.

Manipulation is lying. Deception is lying.

Withholding some of the truth is lying.

B.O. has surrounded himself with liars who truly appreciate the art, the skill the and the craft of his lying. They are peeing on themselves with euphoric glee and envy.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at September 18, 2009 6:24 PM