Hot Topics. The health care topic, as noted earlier this year, continued as one of the most covered as well as getting the worst PolitiFact (PF) Truth Index ratings. The Republican average was worse than that of Democrats, with labor/union rulings for both parties being the next two in a virtual tie. The largest "spread" between averages was Republicans on the economy at -21 to Democrats at +27, a 48 point variance. The top ten topics shown here broken down between Republicans and Democrats totaled about 55% of all 2011 rulings.
Perry beats Obama by two. While we’ll never see that headline, Texas Governor Rick Perry was Number One in 2011 for PolitiFact fact-checks, perhaps owing to the work of PolitiFact Texas. While Obama is the Number One fact-checked person of all time on PolitiFact, in 2011 he received 59, while Perry received 61.
Pundits. Liberal Rachel Maddow was the most fact-checked of the pundits in 2011, beating out second place Bill O’Reilly by two fact-checks. Her Truth Index was -21.43 (three Mostly True, two Mostly False and two False), while O’Reilly was across the Truth-o-Meter with one each of every rating except for Pants on Fire, translating to a precise zero on the Truth Index.
Liberal columnist Paul Krugman, who some conservatives call a “partisan hack,” had eight fact-checks with an outstanding Truth Index of 81.25 for 2011. If he’s a “pundit” (I’m not sure) then he was actually the most fact-checked (over Maddow).
Ex-Presidents. Previously I’ve reviewed the Truth Index of the remaining Presidential contenders (including some of those who eventually dropped out). Their combined Truth Index for 2011 was -31.11, as compared to the 2011 overall of -14.38. If you took all the presidential contenders’ ratings out (not including Obama) it would improve to -11.74. That’s an almost 22 percent improvement.
Governors' Ball. The Truth Index for governors as a group was -14.23 which is almost equal to the all-time overall of -13.32. Of the 485 rulings, Republicans dominated with 460 (almost 95%) of them and a Truth Index of -16.09, while Democrats got the remaining 25, with a Truth Index of 20. It should be noted that this is said with the caveat that I may possibly have missed one or two when I filtered them because I am not familiar with every governor in every state, and that I did not include those running for governor who lost, for example, Alex Sink in Florida, even though she had a lot of rulings. Beginning in 2012 I am considering recording the person's official position in my database for another filter key.
Cha-cha-chains...chains of Fibs. There were 106 chain e-mails through the end of 2011 with an overall Truth Index of -103.3. Those e-mails of unknown or non-partisan origin, comprising 50 of them, had a Liar, Liar Pants on Fire Truth Index average of -114.00.
Blogs, Dogs and Groundhogs. There were 23 “bloggers” subjected to the Truth Index and they did worse as a group than the chain e-mails, with an overall Truth Index of -110.87. And those of unknown or non-partisan origin scored the very lowest, nine rulings with an average of -133.33.
But the “animals” rated by PolitiFact over its history, Spike the Romney Attack Dog and General Beauregard Lee (who should be presenting himself soon) both scored a Mostly True for a 50 Truth Index. At least they'll tell you the truth.
4 comments:
The waste of time in words, pictures, and charts in this posting displays a laughable bias and general incompetence as liberal elitists try to bend the facts to suit their agenda and ease their conscience.
Hopefully, If I keep writing about the bureaucracy stripping away your freedoms, you brain washed liberal mind might suddenly start thinking for itself, instead of constantly looking for evidence.
Another loss of freedom example:
“Nonprofit employers who, based on RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule.” - Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Jan 20, 2012
Per Secretary’s Sebelius statement, I do not find the word “institution” anywhere, which your silly truth meters spend thousands of words defining. What I do find, in Sebelius’s statement is, “based on religious beliefs”. Government for the first time is starting to set limits on freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom conscience, and financial freedom.
This is an historical ruling.Per Kathleen’s statement, the government now has the right, speaking theoretically, to be in every woman’s bedroom to protect the female species from the cancerous disease of child bearing. Per Kathleen’s statement the government has determined that certain child bearing woman have a right to free birth control from religious organizations, regardless of religion, belief, or conscience: and in addition, the organization must adjust within one year to more restraints on their financial freedom in order that the female species may irresponsibly enjoy their sex encounters.
PS to a former posting:
Since you hate annuities, have you dropped your Social Security annuity? If you would like to add another fact chart to your website, I can show how SS is the worse possible annuity to own, unless your are forced to.
Thanks for the *kind* words, Rich.
As usual, the (Sebelius) decision is far more complex than Fox would have you believe. In August 2011, HHS issued regulations mandating that new health insurance plans "cover women's preventive services such as well-woman visits, breastfeeding support, domestic violence screening, and contraception without charging a co-payment, co-insurance or a deductible." After debating religious concerns, HHS clarified that THE REGULATIONS DO EXEMPT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, but do not exempt religiously affiliated groups that employ members of differing faiths. But the regulations are not an attempt by the administration to attack Catholics; they're intended to rectify discrimination that has existed in the health insurance industry for decades.
In 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found "reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occured [sic] under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in two charges challenging the exclusion of prescription contraceptives from a health insurance plan." The EEOC went on to conclude that health plans "must cover the expenses of prescription contraceptives to the same extent, and on the same terms, that they cover the expenses of the types of drugs, devices, and preventive care identified above." Further, health experts agree that ending discrimination against women's reproductive health in insurance plans "averts maternal morbidity and mortality, improves child health and yields important economic benefits to society."
In addition, the claim that ending contraception discrimination is a violation of Catholic's conscience ignores the fact that, according to a 2009 poll conducted for Catholics for Choice, 63 percent of American Catholics said that health insurance policies -- whether they are private or government -- should cover ... contraception, such as birth control pills."
As for your SS question, I am not SS-eligible for another 2+ years. So, did SS hold a gun to your head and force you to own the worst possible annuity? The SS website specifically says it is only meant to supplement other retirement income. While you may want to publish your retirement investments all over the net, I don't feel mine are anybody's business. I'll just say I don't need SS. Thanks, Karen
President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.
Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.
In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law
For a video explanation:
http://politi-psychotics.blogspot.com/2012/02/fox-news-distortion-of-birth-control.html
Post a Comment