About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

On CNBC, David Goodfriend notes that conservatives have been calling health care reform "socialism" since the 1930s

June 15, 2009 8:34 pm ET

From the June 15 edition of CNBC's Kudlow Report:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Goodfriend's observation is consistent with a March Media Matters for America report in which we documented that

dating as far back as the 1930s -- with respect to at least 16 different reform initiatives -- conservatives have attempted to smear those proposals by calling them "socialized medicine" or a step toward that inevitable result.

These reform efforts include President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's consideration of government health insurance when crafting the 1935 Social Security bill; President Lyndon Johnson's 1965 amendment to the Social Security Act establishing Medicare; President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton's health-care initiative in 1993 and 1994; the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in 1997, as well as its 2007 reauthorization and 2009 expansion; Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's health-care proposals during the 2008 presidential campaign; health information technology provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; and health-care provisions included in President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget blueprint.

Conservatives will undoubtedly persist in using the rhetoric of "socialized medicine" as the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress move forward with health-care reform. As The New York Times' Mark Leibovich reported in a February 28 Week in Review piece headlined " 'Socialism!' Boo, Hiss, Repeat," conservative commentator and Conservative Political Action Conference "celebrity" Bay Buchanan said that " '[s]ocialized medicine' was a great argument for us" in defeating the Clintons' health-care reform effort. Leibovich added that Buchanan "not[ed] that the term will surely gain even more of a hold when the Obama administration unveils its own health care proposal, probably sometime this year" [emphasis added].

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by snoopy (June 15, 2009 9:01 pm ET)
      2  
      That's quite a feat, instilling fear and hatred since 1930. 80 years is like an entire lifetime for most people! That's some powerful christianity at work there, formenting hatred for an entire generation...
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Cheney2012 (June 15, 2009 10:15 pm ET)
          7
        How is opposing policy instilling fear and hatred? That is as dishonest as it is stupid.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by my4cents (June 15, 2009 10:20 pm ET)
          3  
          name calling, labeling = opposing policy?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by loonz (June 15, 2009 10:24 pm ET)
          3  
          The constant attacks and fearmongering by conservatives on a plan they know nothing about.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by snoopy (June 16, 2009 12:40 am ET)
          2  
          Hi fascist fearmongering stalker! Opposing policy is using terms like I oppose because this idea is better. Fearmongering is I oppose because my opponent is a "insert fascist/racist/sexist comment here".
          Report Abuse
    • Author by ram11386 (June 15, 2009 9:38 pm ET)
      2  
      If FDR had not died of heart problems after WW2, I truly believe that he would have passed some kind of health-care reform.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (June 16, 2009 12:12 am ET)
        1  
        He actually died before the end of the War. Truman ordered the big bombs dropped.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by tjmccool2284 (June 15, 2009 10:33 pm ET)
      4  
      Wouldn't you think that conservatives, who champion fiscal restraint, would favor health care that costs 40% of what the US spends? That's the UK plan yet all you hear is "that's socialism."
      Well, then let's get there! Otherwise, Medicare will bankrupt the country in less than 50 years.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by tman418 (June 15, 2009 10:42 pm ET)
        2  
        And not to mention companies. Look at GM. They pay their workers tons of health care, even if they've retired. It will save companies and corporations money.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by GalaHGL (June 16, 2009 6:39 am ET)
          2
        Medicare will banrupt the country in less than 50 years! oh no! We'd better start a new entitlement that costs even more money. I bet we can do it in less than 20 years if we really try.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jonwisby (June 16, 2009 7:50 am ET)
          1  
          we are trying to save money with reform, you seem to believe the current wasteful system is fine. that's cool
          Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (June 16, 2009 12:57 pm ET)
        1  
        You'd think.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by WorldViewer (June 16, 2009 5:24 am ET)
      1  
      Who the hell wears a white suit on a national TV program? Especially with grey hair?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by magnolialover (June 16, 2009 10:08 am ET)
      1  
      They've been calling anything democrats want to do Socialism for a long time now. Goes all the way back to FDR, and probably before that as well. It's always been, or has been, for a long time the chief boogeyman of the right.

      Go back, and read some of the opinions from the conservatives when FDR created social security. We were surely on our way to becoming a commie nation when that one was rolled out.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by casual observer (June 16, 2009 10:21 am ET)
         
      And exactly why is David Goodfriend an authority to be quoted on this subject?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Trideo555 (June 16, 2009 10:35 am ET)
        1
      I'm all for health care reform if it can bring down some of the costs related to it, for both us and the government. But having a national health care system always just seemed silly to me. Your going to pay for it either way, either with payroll deductions, monthly fees or taxes, so why would I want the government to run a health care business that everyone will then depend on? All the Republicans and Democrats care about is tearing each other apart and anything that furthers that goal is good for them.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (June 16, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
        1  
        Do something effective for healthcare reform then.
        The government performs many functions. Internationally socialistic health systems have worked well for their citizens, and with good economics.
        You really enjoy having 30%+ of your medical bills go to overhead?
        There've been democratic bipartisen moves, dems voting with and acting to appease republican talking points. I can't think of any equivelent republican acts. If you can, expose them for our illumination and political pleasure.
        Report Abuse