Fudging Facts to Fit the Fallacies

You know the pattern. A news story comes out that makes conservative ideology look bad. Then, like a swarm of angry bees, rightie bloggers go to work on the story, knock out the most damaging parts and fudge the rest, then post the revised version on their blogs with the conclusion “Democrats [or the poor, or liberals, or anybody else they don’t like] are stupid [or corrupt, or just evil].”

Example, the original story: A 24-year-old man in Cincinnati has an infected wisdom tooth. A dentist tells him the tooth needs to be pulled, but the man has no insurance and cannot afford it. The dentist gives him a prescription for an antibiotic and a painkiller. The young man decides he can’t afford both, and he just gets the painkiller. The infection spreads to his brain, and he dies from a treatable tooth infection. The moral is that if he had had health insurance he almost certainly would not have died.

Granted, deciding to fill the pain killer prescription but not the antibiotic, instead of the other way around, was not smart, but it’s not unusual these days for people to not realize that infections really can kill you. Young men in particular tend to think they are invincible.

As for the tooth, the article doesn’t say what the dentist planned to charge to extract the tooth, but a bit of googling revealed that the cost of extracting one impacted wisdom tooth (the tooth was almost certainly impacted if it was infected) runs between $350 -$650, depending on how badly the tooth is impacted, and that does not include the cost of anesthesia, x-rays, or post-operative care, which is sometimes needed.

The cost of antibiotics range widely from almost free to “holy bleep,” and the type of antibiotic prescribed depends on the type and severity of the infection. The cheap ones don’t always work on whatever infection you might have. So without more information we don’t know what the guy might have had to spend on the antibiotic, but it could have been anywhere from $20 (possibly less) to more than $100.

And probably any dentist will tell you that even if that infection had been brought under control the guy would still need the surgery to keep it from returning.

Example, wingnut version: According to Donald Douglas (to whom I do not link, after past experience with DD’s relentless and aggressive hostility to whomever disagrees with him), the infected wisdom tooth could have been pulled for a mere $80. He knows this because the original story also mentioned a 12-year-old Maryland boy who died for want of a tooth extraction that would have cost $80. But that would not have been a wisdom tooth, which cost a lot more to extract. Scared Monkeys repeats the misinformation about the tooth extraction cost.

Then, they all decide the guy could have gotten a $4 antibiotic from Wal-Mart. Again, maybe, maybe not. It depends on what antibiotic was prescribed, and we don’t know that. The doctor might have thought the common and cheap ones like amoxicillin wouldn’t have done the job. This is possible, since the antibiotic was prescribed by an emergency room doctor who saw the young man after his face had swollen and he was getting headaches.

[Update: Add James Joyner to the list of bloggers who assume the young man could have gotten a $4 supply of pills at Wal-Mart.]

Having decided that the young man died because he was too cheap to fork over $84, or ask his family for the money, the bloggers go on to attack his character for wanting government handouts. Well, enough of that.

Back to the example of the boy who might have been saved by a $80 tooth extraction — the original story said,

The Maryland boy underwent two operations and six weeks of hospital care, totaling $250,000. Doctors said a routine $80 tooth extraction could have saved his life. His family was uninsured and had recently lost its Medicaid benefits, keeping Deamonte from having dental surgery.

The family may well have faced a choice of either paying for the tooth extraction or for groceries, and they chose groceries. But the larger point is that the $250,000 no doubt was paid by taxpayers, or else the hospital padded other patients’ bills to cover the loss. It would have been more cost effective for all of us to have paid for the $80 extraction. If righties actually care about the cost of health care and federal budget deficits and such, they might want to ponder that.

Stuff to Read

If you don’t read anything else this weekend, make it Ari Berman, “The GOP War on Voting” at Rolling Stone.

As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots.

“What has happened this year is the most significant setback to voting rights in this country in a century,” says Judith Browne-Dianis, who monitors barriers to voting as co-director of the Advancement Project, a civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. […]

All told, a dozen states have approved new obstacles to voting….Taken together, such measures could significantly dampen the Democratic turnout next year — perhaps enough to shift the outcome in favor of the GOP.

Also at Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi, “GOP Hearts End-Time Insanity.”

Is Rick Perry a mass murderer? Alex Pareene looks at Rick Perry’s questionable executions. See also “Cameron Todd Willingham Execution: Rick Perry’s Role Deserves Scrutiny” by Jason Linkins.

The Republican Jobs Plan

This morning lots of headlines said no jobs had been added to the economy in August. But that’s not the whole story. Matt Yglesias writes,

Looks like we had 17,000 new private sector jobs in August, which were 100 percent offset by 17,000 lost jobs in the public sector.

The striking zero result should galvanize minds, but it’s worth noting that this has been the trend all year. The public sector has been steadily shrinking. According to the conservative theory of the economy, when the public sector shrinks that should super-charge the private sector. What’s happened in the real world has been that public sector shrinkage has simply been paired with anemic private sector growth. This is what I’ve called “The Conservative Recovery.”

As Matt goes on to say, in the whacky world of Republican economics, laying off public workers is supposed to grow jobs in the private sector. I’ve never quite understood how that’s supposed to work, though. I think it’s something like the tooth fairy leaving you money when you lose a tooth.

Matt is right that the loss of government jobs is what’s dragging down overall job growth. Steve Benen wrote almost a year ago,

The monthly employment picture from the Bureau of Labor Statistics is starting to look repetitious. September’s totals were published this morning, and the new report looks a lot like the last few reports — the private sector is slowly adding jobs, but we can’t get our head above water because of the loss in the public sector.

Remembering Sherri Finkbine

Something of a follow up to the last post — some of you younger folk (I assume at least a few younger folk beside my nephew Ian read this blog, although you wouldn’t know it from the comments) might not know about Sherri Finkbine. And the rest of you more mature (ahem) readers might have forgotten.

Back in the 1950s and early 1960s, Sherri Finkbine of Phoenix, Arizona, was one of the “Romper Room” ladies (it’s coming back to you now, isn’t it?). Romper Room was a popular children’s television program that I used to watch, although the only parts of it I remember is the stuff about “do bees” and “don’t bees” and the “magic mirror” segment in which the Romper Room Lady said happy birthday and such to various children watching at home.

Anyway, sometime in the early 1960s, Finkbine was pregnant with her fifth child when she took some tranquilizers. Back then we didn’t know about drugs crossing the placenta and getting into the fetus; pregnant ladies smoked and drank too. It turned out these tranquilizers contained Thalidomide. Thalidomide was a new drug not approved for sale in the U.S.; Mr. Finkbine, a high school teacher, had bought the tranquilizers in London while chaperoning a school trip.

But doctors in Europe had just figured out that Thalidomide was causing a rash of extreme birth defects, including missing limbs, deafness, and blindness. This was actually one of the first big clues doctors had that things women eat and drink might affect a fetus.

Finkbine’s physician advised her to terminate the pregnancy; she and her husband agreed. A local hospital tentatively agreed to do the procedure. But state and local law enforcement got wind of this and told the hospital, the doctor, and the Finkbines that they would all be subject to prosecution under Arizona abortion law if the abortion was performed.

But then Finkbine gave an interview to a local newspaper about her situation, possibly in hopes of gaining public support (although she said later she had expected anonymity) and to warn pregnant women not to take the tranquilizers. And then all hell broke loose.

Finkbine’s pending abortion became global news. Wingnuts from the Atlantic to the Pacific publicly vilified her. The Finkbines appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court to allow the abortion, but lost. And time was passing.

Finally, in August 1962, Finkbine and her husband flew to Sweden and had a late-term abortion performed there. The Swedish hospital confirmed that the fetus was missing both legs and had only one arm.

After the Finkbines returned to Arizona, Mrs. Finkbine was dismissed by the television show and Mr. Finkbine was suspended from his teaching job. “Their children were hounded, anonymous death threats poured in by post and telephone and the press swarmed around their home,” the BBC said. The Finkbines had two more children but eventually divorced in 1973.

Just a reminder of what America was like before Roe v. Wade.

Reproduction Rights News

This week a judge in Texas blocked parts of a new abortion law that requires women to receive sonograms, including trans vaginal sonograms, before an abortion and for physicians to provide a description of the sonogram written by Texas state politicians. As I understand it, the sonograms themselves are not blocked, but the judge said that for the legislature to mandate to a physician what to say to his patients about anything is a violation of free speech rights.

The judge also said that a woman can’t be compelled to look at the sonogram or read the propaganda leaflets the state wants provided to her. As I understand it, this reverses one part of the actual law that says women may refuse to listen to the description of the sonogram only under some circumstances.

However, to receive the privilege of not hearing the propaganda, she would have had to sign an affidavit declaring that she is a victim or rape or incest, or a minor receiving an abortion without her parents’ knowledge but with permission of a court, or that the fetus has an irreversible medical abnormality. The law doesn’t make clear how public those affidavits would have been. I’m also not sure who’s going to pay for all those sonograms.

This law was high on the agenda of Gov. Rick Perry, the current front runner for the Republican nomination. And I suppose I’ll have to change this photo from Holsteins to Longhorns.

In better news, NPR reports that the Obama justice department is more aggressively prosecuting abortion protesters who block access to clinics.

Jobs

President Obama is calling for federal agencies to identify “high-impact, job-creating infrastructure projects” that can be undertaken without congressional approval. The Administration will streamline permits, waivers, and other paperwork to get projects underway as soon as possible.

I have no idea how many actual jobs could be created this way. Federal agencies can’t write themselves blank checks. The point here may be to point to create a contrast with the obstructionist Congress in the minds of voters.

See also E.J. Dionne, “Obama’s Paradox Problem.”

Interesting Maneuvers

I think the scheduling “conflict” between the President’s speech and the GOP debate is a neat bit of maneuvering on President Obama’s part. As Maggie Haberman writes,

Obama ultimately will still be able to cut off some of the free media oxygen of whatever narrative emerges from the debate by speaking to the nation the next day, which was almost certainly the goal of choosing the night of the face-off in the first place.

This little drama played out just as President Obama wanted it to play out. Yes, John Boehner also looks stronger to his base. The right-wing base cannot carry the 2012 election. They need the votes of the mushy, uncommitted middle to carry the election. The more the GOP looks intolerant and petty, the better for Obama.

IMO the discussion of this topic on last nights Last Word is worth watching.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy