Quotation context is key to McFadden health-care hit on Franken

That is what the subsidies and the exchange are all about: increasing the availability of insurance and making it affordable for families and small businesses. That is also what so much of the debate surrounding a public insurance option is about. A public option creates more choice for consumers and more competition in the marketplace. People who are happy with their current plans would not need to change them. But millions of people who did not have health care options before would finally have an affordable choice. This is what the overwhelming majority of Americans want. It is the right thing to do. I would say to anyone who is against the public option, do not choose it for yourself, but do not deny other Americans that choice.

Comments (28)

  1. Submitted by Dennis Tester on 11/04/2013 - 10:32 am.

    McFadden is wrong

    Rather than pressuring Franken to vote for a delay to the individual mandate, he should simply remind people that Al Franken voted for this monstrosity and opposed the republican attempt to shut it down or at least delay it.

    Now that several senate democrats are panicking and trying to get the very delay the republicans were excoriated for, the republicans should refuse to vote for a delay now. “Sorry, we changed our minds. Let the law proceed without any more delays or changes and let the chips fall where they may.” Make Franken defend it.

    • Submitted by Bill Gleason on 11/04/2013 - 01:42 pm.

      So in other words, Mr. Tester

      “republicans should refuse to vote for a delay now.”

      “let the chips fall where they may.”

      In other words, let’s cause the most harm we can. And of course the harm will be disproportionately on the backs of the poor.

      Republicans are making a very bad long term mistake here. Most people realize that at least the Dems tried to do something about our terrible healthcare situation. And if the Repubs really cared about the good of the country they would try to make this successful.

      But of course they can’t. Why? Because it is labelled Obamacare. Even though it could just as easily have been called Romneycare.

      It is late in the day when pygmies cast such long shadows.

  2. Submitted by John Edwards on 11/04/2013 - 11:00 am.

    Quick action!

    Wow! It did not take MinnPost long to jump to the defense of one of its favorite elected official. I hope this self-described “non-profit” website for “nonpartisan journalism” is just as quick to set the record straight for other candidates who say their words have been taken out of context. Let’s keep track.

  3. Submitted by Lance Groth on 11/04/2013 - 11:17 am.

    Curious Strategy

    Running duplicitous ads is rather like saying “Vote for me, I’m dishonest!” (Cue standard joke about politicians…)

    Doesn’t work on me, but I guess it does for many, or they wouldn’t do it. We need to do better at teaching the art of critical thinking.

    • Submitted by jody rooney on 11/04/2013 - 11:51 am.

      My first thought was can we start with

      Mr. Edwards and Mr. Tester.

      I am not sure what Mr. Tester has against the act – not rumors about what is happening. Like how did it impact him. Does it make him better or worse off or about the same. Something like this can only be evaluated on the sum of the individual impacts not on stories.

      I actually somewhat agree with Mr. Edwards not about defending your favorites but I do hope you jump on all ads that are less than truthful.

    • Submitted by chuck holtman on 11/04/2013 - 12:30 pm.

      Under our form of government

      To be a viable candidate one must be corrupt (to sell your influence for the amounts needed to fund a campaign) and dishonest (to fabricate messages that will persuade on the ignorant and emotional level at which the “median voter” functions). There are exceptions but it becomes harder & harder. Quite an indictment of where we are as a civic society.

  4. Submitted by Bill Kahn on 11/04/2013 - 12:29 pm.

    Republicans All Skewed From Reality

    When you live by doctrinaire interpretations of how people should live and govern themselves, you have to keep spinning the web of deceit to support all of the lies.

    It was implied that insurance companies would continue to offer plans should that make sense for their bottom line, but the actual number of grandfathered plans is fairly low, i.e., we basically sign our lives (and policies) away with not a thought when the insurance company asks because the option is always getting another policy. If you don’t like what the insurance companies are doing, you should have supported single payer from the beginning.

    To make the Affordable Care Act out to be some sort of colossal blunder is the mark of those holding a completely bankrupt ideology. This was the only way we could go given the opposition to what made the most sense, and we darn well ought to go this way rather than no where at all as Republicans and cowardly Democrats would have it.

    Expect lies all the way to the end.

    • Submitted by Steve Titterud on 11/04/2013 - 02:23 pm.

      Policy cancellations

      There are many health insurance policies sold over the years that represent an extremely poor value for the policyholder – not just because they can be cancelled or because of exclusions or waiting periods, but because for the money given, even when expenses are covered they don’t make a dent in the health care costs of the individual upon hospitalization or extended illness.

      One of the outstanding features of the ACA is it establishes minimum standards of coverage below which you’re going to have a lot of trouble selling health insurance. In the end, it means far less wasted premium money on coverage which is virtually a waste.

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 11/04/2013 - 05:18 pm.

        And of course

        before the ACA no one’s policy was ever cancelled, or changed to the policy holder’s disadvantage.

      • Submitted by Tom Anderson on 11/04/2013 - 06:32 pm.


        There are plenty of clothes that can be purchased that shouldn’t be worn, cars available that nobody needs to drive, mutual funds that have high fees and low performance. overpriced food and drink at restaurants available for purchase, etc. But the government hasn’t stepped in and stopped them. Why shouldn’t a person be able to purchase the insurance that they want, bad deal or not? The “one size fits all” mentality just doesn’t cut it in this society. And exactly who (name names) decided what the minimum standards were and were these people elected, appointed, or just personal friends of important people? Are these standards subject to change?

        • Submitted by Steve Titterud on 11/04/2013 - 08:14 pm.

          The things you name for comparison don’t wipe out…

          …the financial resources of people.

          Health care costs are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

          But debt from the things you name: clothes, cars, food and drink, even mutual funds (which, BTW, are subject so a certain degree of regulation) are not a threat to economic well-being.

          Your question, ” Why shouldn’t a person be able to purchase the insurance that they want, bad deal or not?” is how some conservatives interpret “freedom”.

          I guess you’d have to include in this idea the “freedom” to have your policy cancelled when you get very sick, and the “freedom” to endure the drastic economic harm that ensues.

        • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 11/05/2013 - 05:18 am.


          You’re missing an important point here, one that’s been discussed at great length for twenty years: health care is a basic service that should be available to all citizens, regardless of their age, their employment status, or their means.

          This is not a “one size fits all” situation, but rather a minimum standard all policies must meet. I’m surprised you didn’t get that distinction seeing as how you pointed it out in your own post. The standards don’t prevent you from going out to get additional coverage if you so choose.

          And yes, the standards are subject to change. All you have to do is get your legislatures to write modifications to the law, get the bill passed, and you’re good to go.

        • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 11/05/2013 - 09:25 am.

          The health insurance industry

          gets a lot of its funding from the government.
          It’s more than just a private industry.

  5. Submitted by Paul Udstrand on 11/04/2013 - 01:05 pm.


    It’s funny when partisans react to their own folks being dishonest. Blame the media for noticing, and hope they notice when someone else lies. Whatever you do, don’t hold your own people accountable, specially when your the party of personal responsibility.

    • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 11/04/2013 - 02:45 pm.


      Yeah, it’s the ol’ “but he’s doing it too!” mentality. They’re not sorry they did it–they’re sorry they got caught so quickly.

  6. Submitted by Todd Hintz on 11/04/2013 - 01:48 pm.

    Political Ads

    This kind of political ad is just bias confirmation. It’s red meat for the rank and file of the party and they don’t really care if it’s true or not as they’re just looking for some information that will support their point of view.

    It’s really just another notch in the stock for low information voters who really don’t care about finding solutions to society’s problems, but just want to say “hooray for our side.”

  7. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 11/04/2013 - 02:40 pm.

    When all is said and done

    The coverage of his little white lie gets Mr. McFadden’s name out in front of the public. I’m sure that’s all he intended: Coverage, and an opportunity to shed some tears over being victimized by the liberal media.
    He got his money’s worth.

  8. Submitted by Logan Foreman on 11/05/2013 - 08:52 am.

    I would prefer hearing

    From McFadden on his positions on regulations and prosecutions for the big bank/Wall Street players who have done incredible harm to this country, especially the middle class.

  9. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 11/05/2013 - 12:10 pm.


    Mr. Henry,

    What was the context of the often repeated Obama health care promises?

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 11/05/2013 - 02:08 pm.

      I must have missed something

      Was the article about something President Obama said? Or is this just another attempt at deflection?

      I think we should all feel a little insulted that you seem to think no one would notice this too-trite tactic.

    • Submitted by Pat Berg on 11/05/2013 - 04:58 pm.


      Well, I can tell you what the context was NOT, It was not single payer, which WAS the context of Senator Franken’s misused statement.

      See, that’s the point of the article. Context matters. (It was in the title – remember?)

      We didn’t get single payer – more’s the pity. If I’m going to criticize President Obama on anything related to the health care overhaul it would be his abandonment of the pursuit of single payer before the fight even got started.

      But you see, that’s not what this article is about. Except insofar as the fact that Senator Franken’s misused quote WAS in relation to single payer.

      So if you’re going to comment on context with an embedded implied criticism, you would do well to make sure you actually understand what that context was.

  10. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 11/05/2013 - 03:43 pm.


    Come on RB,

    Even you should recognize the purpose of this article. It is to provide “cover” for the established DFL Senate candidate and ignore the Presidents obvious lies (can I say that?) concerning health care.

    • Submitted by Pat Berg on 11/05/2013 - 05:03 pm.

      Um . . . . . . . no

      The purpose of this article – as I pointed out in my previous comment – was to point out that what was said by Senator Franken in the clip was in an entirely separate context – as in, it never even got enacted (e.g. “single payer”) than what had been said by President Obama.

      The “lie” comes in the attempt to paint them as being comments on the same thing (context) rather than the truth which is that they were said in relation to entirely different health care frameworks.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 11/06/2013 - 09:33 am.

      Come on, Ron

      Even you should recognize that the purpose of your question was to deflect criticism of a Republican acting in a less-than-honest manner.

      It’s wearing thin.

Leave a Reply