You're absolutely right that no hospital in America would deny someone treatment over $100. The treatment is certainly going to cost more, after all, and the lawsuit they could get slapped for for not offering treatment would certainly cost them much more.

But again, the telling thing for me here (and, I think for the American people) is the detailed precision with which the account was given, repeatedly, without any regard for whether it was factually true. Same goes for sniper-gate. This is definitely a pattern, and it's one that bothers me quite a bit (and would even if I were a Clinton supporter)... for god's sake.

Uh, it's called "fact-check." It's usually done before going public and making an ass of onesself. When people are rushed they often get lazy.

Not my idea of efficiency. Not my idea of a potential commander in chief. Smacks of carelessness at best, deceitfulness at worst. The truth here is probably somewhere in between given her fast-and-loose approach on BosniaGate.

So what you're saying is that she repeated a story based on hearsay in her stump speech? A story that was so vague (no name of either the woman or hospital) that no one could possibly find out what the truth really was, so why bother?

I question her judgement on two counts:

1. A lack of healthy skepticism when given a random story. (what will she do in intelligence briefings?)
2. The decision to use the flawed information to influence public opinion. (when has this happened before?)

So yes, the error was inadvertent, as many of us conceded. Witnessing nasty Clinton tactics for months led some of us to suspect worse. The rest of us put it down to incompetence.

Either way, you don't want a Democrat whose campaign keeps making such mistakes, or who fails to pay cash-strapped public schools for services rendered, to go up against the Republican attack machine, do you?

To put it in Clintonian terms, we are vetting Hillary's campaign to save her from the big bad Republicans. It's a sign of affection, like Hillary's saying Obama can't win. Just trying to help.

WOW - you really think that is an excuse?

Holy cow - 'hey, I heard from Jack the cop in Podunk, Illinois that he heard about a plot to blow up Chicago two weeks ago from some friends that he heard worked for the FBI. That's it! Lets go bomb the bejeezus out of someone, wait, I need a dart, a map and a blindfold to decide who to send back to the stone age.'

Um, I think we already have that mentality in the WH, how's that working out for you?

Yeah, her campaign is really good at vetting people, isn't it? Like Kase Lawal, see this article from McClatchy that pokes fun at her 'vetting' skills.

"While no vetting process is perfect, our vetting department does extensive vetting in order to catch any issues with donors," he said. "And to our knowledge, Mr. Lawal is an upstanding member of his community in Houston."

However, a simple Google search by McClatchy produced reports of serious allegations about some of Lawal's business dealings in Nigeria and South Africa.

Cripes sake - she can't even VET HER OWN BRAIN - see Bosnia crap.

You know...I hear a lot of stories from friends, family...on my own blog. Some of them are outrageous, some are probable. Unless I can confirm the story, I don't repeat it. Why? Because repeating stories that you can't source makes you look like an ass. I learned that in 6th grade. By the time I was in college, I was tired of hearing urban legends passed on as if they were fact.

Or look at it this way: I'm not running for president (yet). I don't have thousands of bloggers hanging on my every word, I don't have media in my face almost 24 hours a day. Yet, I hold myself to a higher standard than a person with staff running for president.

Oops! She never checked the name of the legislation she voted for in 2002 either!!, Joint Resolution to Aurhorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Sorry Hillarybot, but REGARDLESS of the hospital named, the story is full of shit.

It is against the law to deny a person emergency services, especially a pregnant mother in distress.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/1395dd.html

As a lawyer, I would've expected that Ms. Clinton would've done at least a little fact-checking before telling her story to the 'rubes' to drum up political support by playing on their emotions.

The fact that she didn't use a name or the hospital only points to the fact that she's either making it up out of whole cloth, repeating something made up of whole cloth (meaning she's easily deceived and doesn't use her own discernment) or she's a liar.

Bosnia.
NAFTA.
Ireland.
FMLA.
and this.

She's run out of benefits of the doubt.

She lied again. She got caught again.

And you're trying to justify it.

Did you say, "trying to make her out to be a liar?" Um, turned out the woman DID have health insurance, was a manager, not a minimum-wage earner, was not refused admission to the hospital, and WAS the same person the deputy told Clinton about (see below. She listened to a rumor and repeated (embellished?) it, and ran with it.

"Since neither the hospital nor Ms. Bachtel were named in the speeches by Clinton, in what way would the hospital be implicated? More to the point, how can it be stated that Clinton lied?

If Hillary didn't name the person (didn't know the name?) the story would have been familiar to people in that town, as well as the woman's relatives, and would have damaged the hospital's reputation locally, which is where it matters. After all this was a deputy in a small Ohio town.

Note that even Hillary has not come up with the answer that it was A DIFFERENT WOMAN whose baby died and then she did. OOOPS! If they read this, be prepared for that answer.

Oh, well. Maybe it was just sleep-deprivation from filming all those 3 am phone-call ads.

I don't know whether Hillary was duped or lied, but it seems easy enough to verify. Since Ohio Deputy Sheriff Holman seems to be the origination of the story, he would know which hospital turned away the patient, if in fact she was denied treatment. After all, how many LOCAL hospitals could there be in the specific area where the deputy sheriff was on duty?

Perhaps people were told or either assumed the O'Bleness Hospital was at fault. In that case, the hospital would be justified in setting the record straight. Perhaps it was O'Bleness hospital that was shamelessly violated or smeared.

Either way, IMO, the story should have been validated with facts BEFORE it was used on the campaign trail.

Oh, so once the people of southern Ohio, Meigs County, to be specific, heard this story - don't you think they would be on a witch hunt to find the culprit? The heartless bastards!

So you don't think that once they started to put one + one together (you obviously cannot add) they would demand to know which of their health care providers was guilty of such callous behavior?

The Hospital was implicated by inference, but obviously, you are incapable of following things that are further out that your Hill-crap caked nose.

As an Ohioan, do you think I would want to be associated with such horrible practices?

We already have an administration loaded with reality denying people like you.

Mikeyleighasks:

"Since neither the hospital nor Ms. Bachtel were named in the speeches by Clinton, in what way would the hospital be implicated? More to the point, how can it be stated that Clinton lied? "

Umm, because without specificity i.e. patient name and hospital name it is ENTIRELY fiction.
Completely made up all her vastleftwingconsipracy imagination.

aka...LIEING!!

1) The Clinton campaign got the story from Sheriff who hosted a campaign event (Sheriff didn't know name of hospital)

2) Hillary told story (her staff admits they didn't properly check the story) about a hospital on the banks of the Ohio river.

3) NY Times fact checks the story, discovers name and hospital invovled, bringing the story full-circle

4) Clinton campaign called out for lying.

5) TPM (and dKOS, HuffPo, Fox, MSNBC) discover story.

6) Hillary trolls try to excuse what it, at least, laziness of campaign to fact-check before she puts her already shaky credibility on the line, so close to Tuzla-fiasco

7) You post some good rational advice. We should have a little charity for both candidates, and they all do misspeak from time to time.

8) Now if you could explain what in the hell cr1992 is trying to say, it'd really help. My tool-decoder ring is busted, so he's making no sense to me whatsoever.

Of course we feel sorry, it is indeed a tragedy, Lord knows, my own mom died when she was just 31, leaving behind 6 kids and a cousin that was being raised with us. We had insurance, but oncology in 69 was primitive. In fact, mom was just being suspected of possibly having cancer the last two weeks of her life.

Insurance back then was comprehensive and reliable. Today, insurance companies will squirm out of any coverage responsibility they have, if they can. In fact, they make a point of trying. Health care problems abound even for those with insurance.

What is disgusting is that it is yet another example of how Hillary - without regard for those who truly were involved, and without even conceding that we have laws, here in Ohio, that prohibit such discrimination - tries to make hay for herself.

I am sure I am not the only insulted Ohioan that tried to find the truth of this story when she first tried to tell it - without luck.

What point are you all trying to make, other than you don't like her??

That's the only point they are trying to make, Nan.

I agree that the reaction to this specific campaign mistake is exaggerated. It springs from hard feelings over other things.

I started out supporting and defending Hillary to my kids, who are for Obama, and then got very upset by her campaign tactics. Being upset at Hillary's campaign is what makes people react so strongly to an incident like this - if you think there's been a long pattern of willful misrepresentation, you see this story as one more instance of that, not an innocent mistake.

I don't dislike Hillary but I'm extremely disappointed in her. Before her campaign, I would have been delighted to see her elected president. Clearly you believe otherwise, but I sincerely think she and Bill have shown they are willing to risk handing the White House to John McCain by setting Democrats at one another's throats rather than abide by the legitimate outcome of the Democratic nominating process. That comes as a shock because I thought they cared more about the country than about themselves.

They have also made it clear that they believe politics is all about division. Divide up and fight, and let the tougher and more ruthless side win and try to force its agenda down the other side's throat. In the Democratic campaign, they've said there is no alternative to nominating Hillary, and they've tried to make that view a reality by destroying Obama. That approach is a mirror image of the Republicans and it's the approach that has left our country in sorry shape.

Apparently Clinton supporters think this view of the Clintons is delusional. It would be helpful if you explained away the actions and statements by the Clinton campaign that have left Obama supporters seeing the Clintons as we do.

We didn't want to lose the two of them as Democratic heroes. It's just that this campaign showed them, we think, to be very different from the people we admired.

Of course, that is not what happened.

ELIJAH and BLOWNGASKET

Elijah says:

"If you think she lies, I think you're being stupid too, but that's fine with me. If you need to spread obscene slander about someone, go find someone who's happy to stoop as low as you do."

I don't think she lies I KNOW she lies. History has recorded her lies. I simply pointed out that she INDEED lies. Now, if you want to stoop to name calling I can assert that you are a moron for calling a anyone stupid who points out a factual truth. However, I choose to deal with the facts. The facts are that the front page of my newspaper was plastered with the obscene details of Bill's semen on Monica's dress. The facts are that salacious and lewd sexual details on the front of a family newspaper is because of Bill Clinton's inability to keep his penis in his pants in the oval office. The facts are that Hilliary Clinton went on national TV before the newspaper printed those vile obscene details and assert that the stories about Monica were a and I quote VASTRINGWINGCOSPIRACY...that's the LIE she told to cover up Bill's semen trail.

She told even more lies about Bill's semen trail when she was running for First Lady...when asked about Bill's philandering penis she said that she was NO TAMMY WYNETTE standing by her man...when that is precisely what she was and looking straight into the camera and telling that bold faced LIE to once again cover his semen trails. A habit she had learned being the First Lady of ARK because Bill was such a semen trailblazer throught the state of ARK.

So don't try to give me any of this indignant crap of stooping low about BILLIARY. I am telling the TRUTH and it needs to be SHOUTED from every damn podium in America that these two LIARS think they can once again HUMILIATE the American public by being re-elected to the White House. What they did is a NATIONAL DISGRACE. To point that out is PATRIOTIC.

Furthermore, the semen trail lies are just the most salacious of her lies...then their is her lie about not voting for war and the one about sniper fire and the one about NAFTA and the one about SCHIP and the one about the FAMLA.

So before you accuse me of being stupid and stooping low...check the facts and get it straight. More importantly, focus on the topic and discuss the issues. I am not the topic or focus of this thread. Hillary and her LIES are.

Unlike you, I am a true Obama supporter because I know that in order to take back my government those who have corrupted it and their methods of corruption need to be exposed and repudiated. So, don't go trying to kill the messenger Elijah..focus on the message and dispute it with the facts or recognize the truth isn't about whether you can discern what 'is' is...like Billary wants you to believe.

READYANDBLOWNGASKET:

Focus on the topic and discuss the issues. I am not the topic or focus of this thread. Hillary and her LIES are.

Trolls like you attempt to make posters the topic to cover for their lack of facts to dispute or rebut cogent analysis of the issues.

Either you can rebut the facts that Hillary has been lieing since ARK to cover Bill's semen trails or not.

What you need to understand is, I wouldn't even know about Bill's semen trails or the rapacious lies Hillary tells had Billiary not chosen to make it PRESIDENTIAL news!

The real story is that Hillary has been caught in yet another one of her lies. She thinks the America public is stupid and many of her supporters do as well. Hillary constantly shoots the messenger and so do her supporters.

Shooting the messenger simply means the message cant be refuted.

You can keep buying her lies if you choose. The rest of us will stand up and not allow this country to be dragged back down in the muck and mire of the Clintons pathological ambitions, deceit and corruption.

I agree that the story is very sad, but there are too many unknowns to blame anyone, including the hospital. High blood pressure, diabetes, infections, and many other untreated conditions can lead to fetal loss, as well as maternal death.

Lawyers are not the answer to everything, readytoblowagasket. There are plenty of true stories that could have made her case, and it would have furthered the conversation rather than diverting it. "Hillary hating," as you label it, is just another way to divert that conversation.

Hey readtoblowagasket! Good to see you again.

I, too, am concerned with the rise in maternal deaths. My sister has been an ER obstetrician for 19 years and she has made me very, very sensitive to this issue. However, the numbers you cite illuminate a problem very different from that of HRC's story. It is one thing to illustrate a case on point... it is another to use an unverified anecdotal story -- as tragic as it may be -- which fails to illuminate the actual problem. In other words, rotting oranges do not explain rotting apples.

What the research data shows is an increasing number of at-risk pregnancies among those who have little or no access to health care (thanks to the GOP), especially in terms of pregnancies in the substance addicted and poverty strata. Hence, therein lies the problem. HRC's antecdotal example is not on point vis-a-vis the systemic problem.

First, the woman was not denied care for a lack of $100... so, get your facts straight...

Second, there has been no violation of privacy by the hospital.

Third, the HRC campaign has already acceded to the hospitals account of the event.

Hence, you defense of HRC fails on its face.