FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill

[Immanuel]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
AP – Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.

It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

snip...

I noticed that too and thank you for taking the time to prepare that post.

Immie

 

[Jay Canuck]

How is this for a Death Panel - courtsey of those caring folks in the Insurance corps.

Insurer asks docs to report on new patients with pre-existing conditions - On Deadline - USATODAY.com

Blue Cross of California recently asked doctors to look for pre-existing conditions that could be used to justify the cancellation of insurance policies held by new patients, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Byron Tucker, a spokesman for the Insurance Department, tells the Times that this letter is "extremely troubling on several fronts. It really obliterates the line between underwriting and medical care. It is the insurer's job to underwrite their policies, not the doctors'. Doctors deliver medical care. Their job is not to underwrite policies for insurers."

Here is a link to the same story; from FoxNews:

FOXNews.com - Blue Cross to Doctors: Help Us Get Rid of New Patients With Pre-Existing Conditions - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

 

[Jay Canuck]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
AP – Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.




It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

snip...

I noticed that too and thank you for taking the time to prepare that post.

Immie

maybe you could help me with this then because she took off after I asked her to verify this statement - "This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

 

[Vast LWC]

The "death panel" is hyperbole and had no place in this debate.

That being said, I do believe that government bean counters will be deciding the type of care we can receive and that does concern me. What if a cancer patient is deemed terminal and those same bean counters determine that future taxes coming from the patient will not cover the cost of continued medical services? Cut 'er off!

Granted it can happen now with private insurance, but if it does, we can turn to other services. When everything belongs to the government...?

Immie

get somebody to explain the two eugenicists he appointed as czars..

Willow,

It is still hyperbole.

What the bill states and what its intentions are may very well be two different things. For instance, they state in the bill that private health insurance will be allowed to continue, but reading the bill shows very clearly that the intention is to destroy the industry.

They do not set up a "death panel" yet you might want to place a bet that when this is all said and done, when they sit their own people in the position of determining coverage, they will be people who will limit coverage for unproductive members of society.

Immie

Completely unsubstantiated accusations.

Here, I can make some too:

The Republicans want to sell us all out to Corporations. They want to privatize everything until we are paying for the very air we breathe.

Republicans want to make sure only the rich have access to decent health care and other services. This way they can retain what power they have even as our society becomes more diverse.

There you go, happy now?

 

[Chris]

The right has spun off into outer space.

They have nothing left but outragous lies.

 

[Vast LWC]

Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.

Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill.

No surgery for you.

Name calling and out-of-context nonsense.

More of the same I guess. Do you crazy right-wingers have anything else?

 

[Vast LWC]

get somebody to explain the two eugenicists he appointed as czars..

Or... you could get someone to explain exactly how they are "eugenicists". Did Mr Obama hire Dr Kevorkian?

 

[Chris]

Try a little harder, silly lib apologist.

Here is an interesting (and by interesting I mean pathetically sick) video of your savior, the enlightened and articulate Barack Hussein Obama, telling a poor woman to take a pill.

No surgery for you.

Name calling and out-of-context nonsense.

More of the same I guess. Do you crazy right-wingers have anything else?

No, they don't.

Honestly, I never thought I would see such lies and silliness in America.

FoxNews and the right wing media are shameful.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.




It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

snip...

I noticed that too and thank you for taking the time to prepare that post.

Immie

maybe you could help me with this then because she took off after I asked her to verify this statement - "This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

Contrary to your " then because she took off after I asked her to verify this statement - "This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking." I actually have a life beyond providing you with an education.

Fair warning: I never post anything that I cannot back up.

"Never accuse the Associated Press of being hidebound by journalistic tradition. In a sharp break with past practice, the once-venerable news service is providing its 1,500 member papers with ready-to-run stories produced by "independentÓ reporters and editors.

Earlier this month, the 163-year-old news cooperative announced it would distribute "watchdog and investigative journalismÓ penned not by its own staff or that of member papers, but by four outside groups: the Center for Investigative Reporting in Barkeley, Calif.; New York-based ProPublica; and two D.C. outfits, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) and the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University.

AP, itself a not-for-profit enterprise, identified the four organizations as "civic-mindedÓ nonprofits. They also all have decidedly liberal sponsors. A cursory glance at the "independentÓ news shops reveals their reliance on left-tilting patrons such as the Knight Foundation and leftist donors such as financier Herbert Sandler and currency speculator George Soros."
Ken McIntyre: Associated Press outsourcing to Leftist nonprofits is a bad idea | OpEd Contributor | Washington Examiner

" But providing such information would get in the way of the AP's reason for running that sentence: To tell readers conservatives are people who revile a public figure who is moderate and practical concerning controversial issues.

If you doubt that, read the sentence again:
Conservatives revile O'Connor for staking out moderate and practical positions on controversial issues.
It reads like a cut-and-paste from a Moveon.org attack ad. It does nothing but tell people what the AP wants them to believe about conservatives.

The AP could have told readers of conservatives' recent praise for O'Connor's dissent in Kelo and for much else. But that, as the pols say, "gets off message."

So the liberal journalists at the AP campaigned their way."
John In Carolina: Associated Press liberal bias - 11/1/05

AP Admits Obamacare Will Fund Abortions
Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

This Associated Press headline is a reversal from just a few days ago, when AP falsely reported in a "fact check," that:

"The proposed bills would not undo the Hyde Amendment, which bars paying for abortions through Medicaid... Obama recently told CBS that the nation should continue a tradition of "not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care." The House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the House bill Thursday to state that health insurance plans have the option of covering abortion, but no public money can be used to fund abortions."

AP finally admitted the facts in yesterday's report, which conflict with their earlier report:

"Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue."

The Capp amendment "would allow the public plan to cover abortion" with "dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion."
Full Iran Coverage! AP Check Of Liberal Bias In Associated Press

"In the final poll of a series measuring perceptions of media bias, the Associated Press, local television stations, MSNBC, and CNBC are all perceived as tilting to the left when reporting the news. "
Associated Press, MSNBC and CNBC Seen as Having Liberal Bias - Rasmussen Reports™


And, should you have the class to do so, I will consider accepting your apology.

 

[Jay Canuck]

"Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

you have not defined "administration thinking"..... unless you know what they are thinking?

 

[Jay Canuck]

providing its 1,500 member papers with ready-to-run stories produced by independent reporters and editors somehow allows them to know what the administration is thinking? ......... or .........providing its 1,500 member papers with ready-to-run stories produced by independent reporters and editors allows the administration to know what they are thinking?.....or is it both!!!!! do they both know what each other are thinking?

 

[MaggieMae]

FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill
AP – Tue Aug 11, 3:04 am ET
...Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a "death panel." Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.​

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.

It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

Consider the following:

Slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."

If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?

And the infamous Dr. Emanuel:
"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health Care


And, finally, that could be considered to be a 'Death Panel' as described by George Will:
lipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus - washingtonpost.com

Not surprising... the liberals in this thread just blew past this informative, factual post like a runaway train full of insults.

Okay, this is just downright absurd. A COST STUDY with the sole purpose of REDUCING FUCKING HEALTH CARE COSTS ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and Republicans suddenly have a problem with that? No--not absurd, it's pure partisan horseshit. If the tables were turned and it was REPUBLICANS who devised this cost saving panel and DEMOCRATS opposed it, the goddamned cons would be yelping like little piggies.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

and you will verify that the AP is allied with administration thinking how?

There are only a half-dozen news outlets that the cons trust you know. But wait...I do believe even those get much of their on-the-spot news reports via the AP. Hmmm, 'tis a dilemma. To trust or not to trust.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

you have not defined "administration thinking"..... unless you know what they are thinking?

Any discussions with you have me wondering why I bother.

Your posts remind one of the five year old covering his ears and shutting his eyes and shouting "I can't hear you, so you're not talking."

Be gone.

 

[MaggieMae]

The "death panel" is hyperbole and had no place in this debate.

That being said, I do believe that government bean counters will be deciding the type of care we can receive and that does concern me. What if a cancer patient is deemed terminal and those same bean counters determine that future taxes coming from the patient will not cover the cost of continued medical services? Cut 'er off!

Granted it can happen now with private insurance, but if it does, we can turn to other services. When everything belongs to the government...?

Immie

get somebody to explain the two eugenicists he appointed as czars..

Willow,

It is still hyperbole.

What the bill states and what its intentions are may very well be two different things. For instance, they state in the bill that private health insurance will be allowed to continue, but reading the bill shows very clearly that the intention is to destroy the industry.

They do not set up a "death panel" yet you might want to place a bet that when this is all said and done, when they sit their own people in the position of determining coverage, they will be people who will limit coverage for unproductive members of society.

Immie

Have you really thought through the repercussions if that started occurring? There would be wrongful death lawsuits up the wazoo against the US Government [Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer, remember]. OF COURSE that isn't going to happen. Geezus.

 

[Jay Canuck]

"Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

you have not defined "administration thinking"..... unless you know what they are thinking?

Any discussions with you have me wondering why I bother.

Your posts remind one of the five year old covering his ears and shutting his eyes and shouting "I can't hear you, so you're not talking."

Be gone.

cool.... maybe I can get hired by an insurance company to act like that at a Town Hall meeting.

 

[Immanuel]

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.




It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

snip...

I noticed that too and thank you for taking the time to prepare that post.

Immie

maybe you could help me with this then because she took off after I asked her to verify this statement - "This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

Sorry, I too was away for a bit.

As you probably know, FactCheck.org is a well respected site that reviews claims, such as the one we have been discussing here, and reviewing the claim presents the facts of the case as they are known. I find FactCheck.org to be relatively dependable to present the facts whether good or bad for either side.

The Associated Press has lost much of its credibility, IMHO, in that it no longer presents facts rather it presents opinion. AP is no longer reliable nor are the other "news" agencies. I can't say for sure that they are allied with the administration, although the media of which AP is a part seemed to help push President Obama on America last year.

Is AP in bed with the administration? Probably not... but as a reliable source of information, they are sorely lacking.

Immie

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's begin with a definition of terms, such as 'Fact Check."

This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking.

It is misleading to imply that the AP is objective. In fact, it would have been more inclusive to comment on the kind of thinking of those involved in the compilation, and the essence of ObamaCare. The Stimulus already has a 'death panel' of sorts, the CER.

Consider the following:

Slipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug to save the other eye. It took nearly two years to get that government edict reversed. Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., a Louisiana heart surgeon, warned to no avail that it would lead to "denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care."

If this philosophy is inferred in ObamaCare, can you see where there is reason to tread carefully?

And the infamous Dr. Emanuel:
"True change, writes Dr. Emanuel, must include reassessing the promise doctors make when they enter the profession, the Hippocratic Oath. Amazingly, Dr. Emanuel criticizes the Hippocratic Oath as partly to blame for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Physicians take the "Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others." (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.) Of course that is what patients hope their doctors will do. But Dr. Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their own patient and consider social justice. They should think about whether the money being spent on their patient could be better spent elsewhere. Many doctors are horrified at this notion, and will tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time. "
Defend Your Health Care


And, finally, that could be considered to be a 'Death Panel' as described by George Will:
lipped into the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age.” The CER would identify (this is language from the draft report on the legislation) medical "items, procedures, and interventions" that it deems insufficiently effective or excessively expensive. They "will no longer be prescribed" by federal health programs.” Are you thinking ‘seniors’? George F. Will - How the GOP Should Measure the Stimulus - washingtonpost.com

Not surprising... the liberals in this thread just blew past this informative, factual post like a runaway train full of insults.

Okay, this is just downright absurd. A COST STUDY with the sole purpose of REDUCING FUCKING HEALTH CARE COSTS ALREADY PAID FOR BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, and Republicans suddenly have a problem with that? No--not absurd, it's pure partisan horseshit. If the tables were turned and it was REPUBLICANS who devised this cost saving panel and DEMOCRATS opposed it, the goddamned cons would be yelping like little piggies.

Demonstrably absurd.

Only a liberal would conflate cost cutting for healthcare by reducing services to the ill and the elderly.

If cost cutting is the aim, tort reform would be the first step. And the reason that tort reform is not in the bill? Democrat pocket-lining by lawyers.

Should you actually be interested in cost cutting, consider the following:

1. Tort Reform:
While malpractice litigation accounts for only about 0.6 percent of U.S. health care costs, the fear of being sued causes U.S. doctors to order more tests than their Canadian counterparts. So-called defensive medicine increases health care costs by up to 9 percent, Medicare's administrator told Congress in 2005. "
Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

Now, compare those with these:
"Also, it’s worth noting that while these figures sound like a lot of money — and few would dispute the fact that health insurance company CEOs make healthy salaries — these numbers represent a very small fraction of total health care spending in the U.S. In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending."
FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

The conclusion is that the cost of malpractice suits is equal to the profit of the entire industry.

This may be significant of and by itself, but when we look at the costs of defensive medicine, it alone adds to the costs of healthcare by a factor 15!!!
Once providers don’t have to watch over their shoulders for the lawyers, we should move toward coordinated care networks that take responsibility for their members' medical needs in return for fixed annual payments (called "capitation"). One approach is through vouchers; Medicare recipients would receive a fixed amount and shop for networks with the lowest cost and highest quality.


2. Reform of Insurance Policy Mandates:

Scrap all city, state, federal mandates for healthcare insurance policies. When a statute says policies must “cover mammograms of everyone 35 and over,’ how is this fair for a construction company with all male employees? What about ‘Podiatry,’ or ‘sexual reorientation surgery/? Allow insurance companies to write policies covering exactly what the consumer asks for:
Take two very different states: Wisconsin and New York. In Wisconsin, a family can buy a health-insurance plan for as little as $3,000 a year. The price for a basic family plan in the Empire State: $12,000. The stark difference has nothing to do with each state’s health sector as a share of its economy (14.8 percent in Wisconsin as of 2004, the most recent year for which data are available, and 13.9 percent in New York). Rather, the difference has to do with how each state’s insurance pools are regulated. In New York State, politicians have tried to run the health-insurance system from Albany, forcing insurers to deliver complex Cadillac plans to every subscriber for political reasons, driving up costs. Wisconsin’s insurers are far freer to sell plans at prices consumers want.
The gulf in insurance-premium prices among American states is a sign that too much government intervention—not too little—is what’s distorting prices from one market to the next. The key to reducing health-care costs for patients, then, is to promote competition, not to dictate insurance requirements from on high. Unfortunately, a government-run insurance plan is the core of ObamaCare.
Bigger Is Healthier by David Gratzer, City Journal 22 July 2009
a. NJ has some 68-69 mandates including in vitro fertilization, which adds some 2-2.5% to the cost of the policy

3.. Doctors currently have no ability to re-price or re-package their services that way every other professional does. Medicare dictates what it pays for and what it won’t pay for, and the final price. Because of this there are no telephone consultations paid for, and the same for e-mails, normal in every other profession.
Most doctors don’t digitize records, thus they cannot use software that allows electronic prescription, and make it easier to detect drug interactions or dosage mistakes. Again, Medicare doesn’t pay for it.

4. Another free market idea aimed at better quality is have warranties for surgery as we do for cars. 17% of Medicare patients who enter a hospital re-enter within 30 days because of a problem connected to the original surgery. The result is that a hospital makes money on its mistakes!

5. Walk-in clinics are growing around the country, where a registered nurse sits at a computer, the patient describes symptoms, the nurse types it in and follows a computerized protocol, the nurse can prescribe electronically, and the patient sees the price in advance

6. To reduce healthcare costs, increase the number of doctors. Obama care would do the opposite. Both tax incentives and support of the tuition of medical school.

7. Identify the 8-10 million who need and are unable to get healthcare, including those with pre-existing conditions,and provide debit cards as is done for food stamps:

"Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
Downgrading Health Care

8. Current law provides unlimited tax relief for coverage obtained through an employer but no comparable relief for those who purchase coverage outside their places of work. S. 334 would replace the current tax preference for employer-based health coverage with a new individual-based system. The bill would end the tax exclusion in the personal income tax for employer-based health insurance benefits and instead use a combination of subsidies and tax deductions for health insurance. Ideally, the current employer-based tax structure should be replaced with a fair and equitable universal tax credit. An across-the-board, fixed-dollar health care tax credit, for example, would offer every American federal tax relief for health care.(Wyden-Bennett Bill)

And which of the above are 'partisan'?

 

[Immanuel]

Completely unsubstantiated accusations.

Here, I can make some too:

The Republicans want to sell us all out to Corporations. They want to privatize everything until we are paying for the very air we breathe.

Republicans want to make sure only the rich have access to decent health care and other services. This way they can retain what power they have even as our society becomes more diverse.

There you go, happy now?

Actually, you are very close to being right.

Immie

 

[Jay Canuck]

I noticed that too and thank you for taking the time to prepare that post.

Immie

maybe you could help me with this then because she took off after I asked her to verify this statement - "This is not FactCheck.Org, it is the Associated Press which is allied with administration thinking."

Sorry, I too was away for a bit.

As you probably know, FactCheck.org is a well respected site that reviews claims, such as the one we have been discussing here, and reviewing the claim presents the facts of the case as they are known. I find FactCheck.org to be relatively dependable to present the facts whether good or bad for either side.

The Associated Press has lost much of its credibility, IMHO, in that it no longer presents facts rather it presents opinion. AP is no longer reliable nor are the other "news" agencies. I can't say for sure that they are allied with the administration, although the media of which AP is a part seemed to help push President Obama on America last year.

Is AP in bed with the administration? Probably not... but as a reliable source of information, they are sorely lacking.

Immie

in you opinion? how does this or anthing Wonder Girl has comeup with directly contradict the facts that were laid out in the story?