1. Obama closing Vatican embassy
Jeb Bush tweeted:
"Why would our president close the embassy to the Vatican? Hopefully, it is not retribution for Catholic organizations opposing Obamacare."Politifact gives this one a "Pants-on-fire" rating and sums it up thus:
For starters, the United States is not going to "close" its embassy -- it’s relocating it to a place that’s closer to the Vatican and that is more secure, less expensive and more architecturally distinctive. In addition, the move didn’t originate with Obama. It has been in the works since George W. Bush -- Jeb Bush’s brother -- was president. Finally, we found no evidence to support the idea that the relocation was related to battles over Obamacare. We rate Bush’s claim Pants on Fire!2. ACA sets prices on exchanges
Rick Santorum made the claim:
And here’s the thing that, again, no one’s talking about. The networks, in other words the doctors and hospitals that are in these exchange products, are dramatically smaller.
In other words, yes, you’ll be able to get your preventive care from your doctor, but if you want to go to the children’s hospital, sorry, you can’t get that kind of specialized care from specialized doctors. Why? Because the Obama bill set prices at such levels that doctors and hospitals, particularly the ones that are in high demand, do not participate in these programs. So you’re going to see the end result be higher costs, less care, and then as a result, because they’re narrow networks, longer waits and longer lines. This is just beginning, the disaster of Obamacare.According to FactCheck.org:
The bottom line: It appears to be true that some plans sold on the exchanges will restrict access to hospitals and doctors, but contrary to Santorum’s claim, it’s not because the Affordable Care Act sets prices in a way that discourages doctors and hospitals from participating. The plans are being limited by insurance companies seeking to offer more competitively-priced plans.
3. Obama sanctions the killing of eagles
Before It's News makes this claim:
The Obama administration is about to approve a rule that will ensure the death of golden and bald eagles for the next 30 more years.And the right-wing blogosphere is spreading the "news" that Obama will be allowing wind energy companies to kill eagles willy-nilly for the next 30 years. As you might suspect, there's a bit more (and less) to the story:
From Aljazeera America:
1. The new rule will provide legal protection for the life span of wind farms and other projects if companies obtain permits and make efforts to avoid the deaths of protected birds. (italics added)
2. Companies would have to take additional measures if their facilities killed or injured more eagles than they had estimated they would, or if new information suggested that eagle populations were being affected. The permits would be reviewed every five years, and companies would have to submit reports of how many eagles they killed.
Some conservation groups are unhappy with this new rule and there are reasons for concern. However, the right-wingers who have their panties in a wad about it are merely using this as one more excuse to bash Obama. The fact that it also involves wind energy, something they hate because it isn't a fossil fuel, is just a bonus in their book.
If you run across anything you want me to check out, leave me a comment.
Now go forth and share the truth!
~GTS: Google That Shit~