ABCNews.com uncritically quoted Romney's attack on Clinton health plan
SUMMARY: An ABCNews.com article
quoted Mitt Romney attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care policy, but did not note that Romney was attacking a plan
that he had not yet
seen,
nor that as
governor of Massachusetts, Romney endorsed a law requiring residents to
purchase health insurance.
A September 16 ABCNews.com article quoted Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) then-unannounced health care policy at a campaign event in Iowa, saying: "The last thing we need is Hillarycare," and, "The last thing we need is socialized medicine." The article did not note, however, that Romney was attacking a plan that he had not yet seen, nor that Romney himself, as governor of Massachusetts, endorsed a law requiring Massachusetts residents to purchase health insurance.
Clinton's health care plan was announced on September 17.
From the ABCNews.com article:
According to a recent ABC News poll, health care is the second most important issue to Democratic voters, after Iraq. And most of the Democratic candidates now sound a lot like the former first lady, in their calls for universal health care.
But Clinton's health care record also makes her uniquely vulnerable to attacks, with her name still synonymous in Republican circles with a government takeover of the health care system.
"The last thing we need is Hillarycare," said Republican candidate Mitt Romney at a recent campaign stop. "The last thing we need is socialized medicine."
As a September 16 Associated Press article made clear, however, Romney had attacked Clinton's plan "sight unseen":
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney panned Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care plan sight unseen Saturday, eager to remind voters she failed at "socialized medicine" once before.
Speaking to more than 160 people at a Republican fundraiser, Romney said he didn't expect anything new from the Democratic presidential candidate and New York senator. Clinton is scheduled to lay out proposals for universal coverage in a speech at a Des Moines hospital on Monday.
"She says what we need to do is have the government take over health care," Romney asserted. "The last thing we need is 'Hillary care.' The last thing we need is socialized medicine."
Mark Daley, a Clinton spokesman, brushed off the comments. "Considering Governor Romney's penchant for flip-flopping, he will be the first to endorse it on Monday," Daley cracked.
Clinton said she has learned about the need for consensus since leading the failed reform effort in 1993 and wants to "figure out how we provide universal health care without putting billions more into the system."
"She'll have health care run by Washington," Romney said. "I don't want to have the people who did the Katrina cleanup taking care of my health care."
On September 17, the AP reported that Clinton's plan would "requir[e] everyone to carry health insurance and offer[] federal subsidies to help reduce the cost of coverage." The article went on to note that despite Romney's attacks on "the government [being] in charge of health care," he had signed into law Massachusetts' health care plan, which also requires residents to purchase insurance. From the September 17 AP article:
Republicans have already readied attacks on the Clinton plan. The Republican National Committee sent an e-mail to reporters Monday dubbing it "Hillarycare'' and questioning why she waited months to release a plan.
On Saturday, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney warned it would smack of "socialized medicine'' and said Americans didn't want the government to be in charge of health care.
But as Massachusetts governor, Romney signed into law a health care plan requiring every state resident to purchase health insurance.
"HillaryCare" and Romney's plan (if it was his, I don't know) in Mass. are pretty different plans..Romney's requires everyone to have it but certainly doesn't come close to universalizing health care and having the gov run it.
Hillary should be heard, have a chance to detail the plan, and let the voters decide on election day. Clearly, the majority of people want something done to change the current "system", which really isn't a "system" at all.
Making people carry health insurance has nothing to do with the government RUNNING health care. I'm forced to carry auto insurance but the government here in Illinois isn't the administrator and if i have a claim and call Springfield I don't think they'll send me a check.
Further, do we, Romney or anyone else need to see all the details of hillary's plan before we call it socialized medicine? I'm sure there will be some twists but it's gonna come down to taxing businesses and the wealthy so those "less fortunate" can have benefits.
Great, so now I have to chip in for my buddy Dre's insurance. He's 25. Married with 1 kid. He works through a temp agency. his wife doesn't work. He doesn't make much but he's always got plenty of money every week for weed and drink...
Bottom line...he COULD pay for health insurance if he made different choices. Why should I, you, or anyone else (as nice a guy as he is) pay for his health insurance? Untill someone can provide a good answer to this question I'll never suppoty UHC and I'll oppose any candidate who endorses such a plan.
Conservative code talk:
Any health care plan advocated by a Democrat is "socialized medicine" - regardless of who administers the plan.
And u addressed none of my points because really...what can u say?
liberal code talk. "Anything a "conservative" says(and u assume i'm conservative) is conservative "code"
Dress it up any way u like. Reasonable people not blinded by ideology know socialized programs when they see them. At least have the guts to call it what it is.
Hey Mitt, we didn't want the people in charge of the Katrina clean up there either, but your guy is the one who fired all the competent personnel and replaced them with party loyalist hacks.
And if Romney gets in, he'll replace everybody with Mormons - whether they have experience or not.....
I hear that! And Hillary with a bunch of Athiest Progressssssives.......
Why do you say that? Hillary is not an athiest.
As an athEIst myself, I demand that you spell it properly.
*wink*
Fair enough. Unfortunately, MMFA does not allow you to edit comments after you post them.
Just like he did in Mass. and the companys he has run...oh wait.
Consensus? Hillary thinks building consensus is going to work this time...why?
The Clintons tried to build consensu in1993 and got ripped a new one for their efforts. There's no compromising with market fundamentalists. They will howl 'let the invisible hand of the market handle it' regardless of how long the invisible hand has failed to bring health care to every American.
Well, we can't give all the credit to the Free Marketeers...they had a lot of help and encouragement from the Insurance Industry. Any kind of Universal Government Healthcare program will end their gravy train. It's all about money.
I agree. It's about money.
But I don't make a distinction between market fundamentalists and the industry itself.
Is that wrong of me? ; )
Not necessarily. I'm probably splitting hairs, here. I'm trying to be kind to our libertarian friends and give them the benefit of the doubt. I think some truly believe that we should let the free market reign...a sort of Social Darwinism. On the other hand, I think certain interests within the Insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital industry are operating out of pure greed, not any kind of "market based" ideology.
But then, I'm the cynical type.
" I think some truly believe that we should let the free market reign...a sort of Social Darwinism."
Isn't that the rub? Free markets are not and never have been free. Furthermore the market fundies know it.
Markets are bought and paid for with huge payments from the public in the form of tax breaks, favorable zoning laws (which drive down property values for home owners) and subsidies. There is also research and development grants that the public gives to the private sector. Also, the cost transportation and education is picked up largely by the public, as are the costs of contract enforcement (the courts) and federally insured banking.
These are all the dirty little secrets of hidden profits that are tucked away in less than honest book keeping. And I don't really get pissed-off about corporate welfare until I consider the fact that we the people, treat them so much better than they treat us.
Why not expect fairness in return for our generosity?
Darn right it's about money. And I don't want my money used to buy insurance for those too lazy, addicted, etc, to get their own. Are all the uninsured lazy, etc? Ofcourse not but don't kid yourselved into thinking that a significant portion of the uninsured falls into this category. As an insurance salesman for several years(i've had enough of that now) i've talked to HUNDREDS of people who could have gotten insurance. but other things like new cars were of more importance. And i support their right to make that decision but damn if i'll pay for it.
If Hillary gets the nomination, expect a full court press against her by the Insurance Industry . They killed her first attempt before it ever saw the light of day...they'll try to do the same thing again. They'll lie about it and scare people into opposing it, just like they did fifteen years ago.
"...that Romney was attacking a plan that he had not yet seen,..."
Hmmm...are you sure your not talking about MoveOn.org and the Petraeus report?
I think we all knew what was going to be in the Petraeus report, didn't we? I don't remember any surprises.
Romney is lying again (is that okay in Mormonism?). Hillary's healthcare plan is not "government managed", just government financed.
Romney is lying again (is that okay in Mormonism?).
Only if you're lying about your third wife to your first and second wives. (You can really learn a lot by watching "Big Love" on HBO.)
Romney, bearing false witness? Don't that fella beleive in them there ten commandments? Well, then he's a pol, so the rules don't apply to him, I forgit that.
Poor taste Julia. That might fly on DailyKos, but assuming that all religious people are hicks and talk like you wrote (which is ignorant considering you're talking about Mormonism, which is heavily populated in the MidWest) will win you no friends.
What's wrong? Too close to the truth???
:-)
Actually, quit being so PC. I'm using the Jeter defense in that it was supposed to be funny. No southerners were hurt during the posting of my post. In fact I wasn't even thinking of southerners as being stoopid, but I guess you do. I live in Texas.
Geeze, on rereading what you wrote, I guess you think religious folk are stoopid too. Get a grip. Romney is a Morman and a pol, not necessarily in that order. All pols are liars and GOP slop are especially liars.
Juliajayne, speaking of GOP liars
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/17/the-flyer-mitt-romney-doe_n_64694.html
But Pearlene, Mitt had that position back when he was a "hick". He was fer im before he was agin' im.
Ohhhhhh...that's the 'changing his mind' thing again. I forgot.
Yup. Conservatives "change their minds" - liberals and progressives "flip-flop".
:-)
What's POLS Julia ? ...
Please excuse my ingnorance. I understood most of what you said because in my heart of hearts I'm still a Texan. Go Cowboys, Longhorns and Spurs. And Remember the Alamo!
Are you still there Julia? I enjoy your posts and your southern drawl. I love to hear a girl tawk southern drawls.
Sam I Am
You can really learn a lot by watching "Big Love" on HBO.
Um. No. No you can't.
You're being a dick.
Nerzog,
I am somewhat taken aback at your unprovoked attack on Romney's religion. Nice zinger but it looks a bit on the religious intolerant side to me.
But then again, nobody's perfect. :-)
Well, what can I say? I have a weakness for taking cheap shots at religion. I guess I watched too many Benny Hill episodes as a teenager.
"not government managed, just government financed" That is a good one. I have racked my brain trying to think of something that the government finances but does not manage. Seems to me that everything they finance and manage they seem to screw up. I tend to believe that stems from no accountability. We all know that job scared bureacrats make wonderfully efficient workers. Anyway, do you really think the government will handle universal healthcare effectively? To me there is a difference between "promote the general welfare" and PROVIDE the general welfare. The government should have a role in making sure health care is available to those who need it but to give it free to everyone is just asking for trouble.
"Seems to me that everything they finance and manage they seem to screw up."
Well, if you include the Iraq War in that statement, you may have a point.
My understanding is that most people seem to like Medicare, though I have no firsthand experience with it. I think it is possible to set up a government health insurance program that only manages the payment of claims, and does not dictate any healthcare decisions. Guidelines could be set up in advance to determine what is and isn't covered. Steps would have to be taken to avoid fraud, so it would have to be "managed" to that extent. Now, whether they would actually do it that way is another question.
The Iraq War is a prime example of my statement. I guess the sad thing is that we cold fund programs like medicare and medicaid for years to come with the hundreds of billions we have spent over there. I would agree that there is plausible ways for the government to handle health care, I don't know if medicare is a good example but it is as good any I guess. I guess I would support a happy medium with this issue, in that government should work with and compete with private industry to "promote the general welfare". I just don't agree with GIVING it to everyone. that is a recipe for not only economic but bureaucratic nightmare.
WHy is it that when you disagre with someone, they're 'lying'? Is there no room for disagreement in your world?
And we pretty much know what Hillary's plan will entail, no?
GoodGuy ...
MoveOn and the whole planet Earth knew exactly what the report would be. This general was hand picked by Bush himself.
I for one, agree with the "Over The Top" MoveOn ad! Dems must use the same tactics that Republicans employ and use.
That MoveOn Ad is straight out of the Republican playbook. Have you forgotten the ugly attacks on war veteran John Kerry?
Normal ads aren't expressing the outrage people are feeling about this blunderous war.
So you bet, I hereby officially approve of that ad and call for more of the same. The Dems must lower themselves to the Republicans, disgustingly low level.
I guess I don't get the similarities between the Kerry "Swiftboat' thing and the MoveOn anti Petraeus ad. Swift boat was pointing out Kerry's blatant hypocrisy and MoveOn is claiming - Well, I'm not sure what they're claiming, Petraeus "betrayed us" somehow? He lied? It just seems to me that the leader of the troops on the ground had a small bit of positve news, that the surge was having a positive effect, and EVERYONE on the left was crestfallen by the news.
I do think that the Dems have themselves in a very untenable situation in that they have to hope the war goes badly and in some subconscious way root against our own troops to make Bush look bad. Now - I don't think they mean physical harm to the boys and girls in uniform, but it doesn't help the Dems when there is positive news out of Iraq. I know that's harsh but I don't see it any other way.
Blatant hypocrisy!!!!! Christ alive boy, The man who nearly died said Kerry saved his life. He was there, your boy Bush was home waxing his arse and snorting coke off his daddy's bureau.
"ABCNews.com uncritically quoted Romney's attack on Clinton health plan"
So ABC is supposed to just deliver the Democratic response? Obviously Media Matters wants the media to merely be an arm of the Democratic Party. Much of it already is, but they're trying to turn the entire media into an arm of the Democratic Party.
No they want the media to stop acting as a megaphone for politicians.
The media's role, now more than ever, should be to challenge politicians, not just let them speak.
We have the internet, where politicians can uncritically deliver their messages, unfiltered. If the media was smart, they'd know that the way to compete is to provide context, criticism and real knowledge.
As it is, they think they only have to deliver the messages. That's why they're losing viewers.
Meanwhile, the Internet is the place where you can find both unfiltered messages and critical analysis of these messages. The problem is that the Internet is always heavily biased.
If the networks and other media knew what was good for them, they would start to reclaim their lost credibility by being unbiased and ALWAYS critical and factual. Instead, they try and be more like the Internet - what's the point?
"The media's role, now more than ever, should be to challenge politicians, not just let them speak"
That's the job of commentators who have their own opinion shows. Guys like Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann perform that role. But journalists giving the straight news shouldn't act like advocates. They should merely report what happened without playing devil's advocate. There should be a big distinction between commentators and journalists who are merely reporting the news.
"journalists giving the straight news shouldn't act like advocates"
That true, but is it "advocacy" to challenge a lie? Are reporters required to let people use them to spread lies? Is it true, after all, that facts have a liberal bias?
Romney didn't lie here. He pointed out that Hillary supports socialized medicine, which she does. Although I don't agree with Romney's plan either, his plan is completely different from Hillary's. His plan is much more market based.
RINO,
How is Romney's plan any different than requiring everyone to carry Auto Insurance or House Insurance?
I like his plan better than what I'm afraid we're gonna get from Hillary...Socialized Medicine.
Romney's plan: But as Massachusetts governor, Romney signed into law a health care plan requiring every state resident to purchase health insurance.
"I like his plan better than what I'm afraid we're gonna get from Hillary...Socialized Medicine"
I agree. I like Romney's plan better than Hillary's plan. If we have to have one or the other I would have to go with Romney's plan. But I just don't think that the government should force people to get health insurance. That should be the responsibility of each individual person. Also, with Romney's plan the government had to pay the health care of the people who couldn't afford their own. So it was still socialized to some extent, although not to the extent that Hillary's plan is.
Rino, Mitt was well within his right to say that he didn't want any Hillarycare bull but the reporter was obligated in reporting the facts, to note that Hillary's plan was not publicized and Mitt was commenting on plan he had not seen.
If the reporter had reported what a great health care plan Hillary had and it has not been publicized you'd be complaining about "liberal bias" or something. There is no excuse for not reporting the facts.
It's speculation whether he lied or not. ABC was simply reporting exactly what he said. A reporter, reporting....hmmmm. Go figure. That is what they are supposed to do. The other candidates can challenge Romney on his content and what he has said if they choose to. A reporter needs only to report exactly what was said. Reporting what was said, and not the challenged responses of what he said, is the fair way to report and let people decide. If a reporter critically challenges what someone says, then what is being reported is no longer what Romney said and only what Romney said. Leave the spinning for commentators and political discussions.
"She says what we need to do is have the government take over health care,"
That's a lie.
How is the government not taking over health care when they force the health insurance companies to insure everybody regardless of risk?
Please explain. Hillary will tell you she wants government to take over health care. Is she lying about herself?
Smitty, I don't agree with you on the role and responsibility of the press. It is there job to report critically. They aren't there to just let one side or even both sides spout off unrestricted. If someone makes a false statement it is the responsibility of the reporter to include the correct information. In your world people could just spout off lies at will and unchallenged. It is the job and responsibility of the press to inform and provide factual information. In your world Clinton could go on and say Romney supports public assistance for women seeking abortion and the reporter should just report the statement and not give the public the true facts. It is a very bad thing you seek.
It's a very bad thing not to allow candidates to express themselves in the way the wish to express themselves. If they come off as leaning to right or to the left, that is fine, and it's probably because they support the ideals of the left or the right. You say a reporter should challenge a candidate, or whoever they are reporting, when the "spout" off lies. All too often, reporters and the general public believe that their opinion is fact. So, when reporting on a candidate they don't believe in, they will spin his/her message with their own bias. I don't want a reporter to spin or throw in there own comments. I'm not voting for a reporter. I am voting for a candidate, and I want to hear what the candidate says, regardless of what side they are on. I can figure out for myself what "fact" is and what "lies" are. I don't need a reporter to tell me what they think a candidate said that was untrue. If they want to report, and then move on to segment that states their opinion, that is fine. But I only want to know what the candidate said. We're not stupid Americans who can't figure out what is truth.
Rino,
It's MMFA's clever use of one of their favorite words "uncritically". Bottom line, uncritically is a reporter's job, the criticism is for commentators and pundits.....but many here want to confuse the two and muddy up their responsibilities to haul out the bias charge, baselessly.
Is it your assertion that a journalist should never point out inaccuracies?
No, but in this case all they did was report what Romney said, period. They did not report it inaccurately. What he said may have been Romney-spin, but that's for the reader to decide......he was quoted accurately.
I disagree. Maybe I'm wrong, but when a politician tells a whopper, I think the press has an obligation to at least do a little fact checking. How are we supposed to "decide" if the press doesn't tell us what the facts are?
A good example is how the Washington Post exposed Watergate. To simplify it...Nixon said that he was not a crook; the reporters showed that he was.
Maybe where we differ is on what is true "reporting" and what is just reading the headlines.
Go figure it out for yourself what the facts are. If you're waiting for someone else to feed you the facts, then you're getting skewed facts anyway. Listen to what the candidates say, and then decide for yourself.
Informational Darwinism? If you can't find it out for yourself, you're screwed? Maybe that would work on some issues, but since I can't fly to Iraq and look for myself, that would be pretty difficult, wouldn't it?
By the way, Smit...where do you go to find out for yourself?
You have to decide for yourself. Read their web sites for what they stand for. Listen to what they say and not what reporters say. Again, I'm not voting for a reporter, but a candidate. If a candidate states something as truth, then I can do research. There are many avenues to accomplish your research in order to find out for yourself what the truth is. You can go look on far left web sites and get their spin, then you can go to far right web sites and get their spin. While you're at it, check the main stream media, fox news, msnbc, cnn, moderate web sites, and see it from all angles, and then decide for yourself. I realize you can't go to Iraq and see things for yourself, but you sure can hear reports from a number of sources that can clue you in. I don't want to hear a reporter tell me anything other than what he/she actually said. Those are the candidates words, and they deserve to be left alone. If commentators wish to sit down and discuss their words, that's another thing. But I want a reporter reporting exactly what happened. You say it's difficult to go to Iraq and see what is happening there. It is also difficult to go to DC and hear first hand what a candidate is saying, so I want a reporter to tell me exactly what was said, as if I had been there to hear it and see it with my own eyes. Reporting is reporting what took place. Commentating is discussing what they think should have been said, or what they think candidates meant when they said something.
Smitty you may be omniscient but the rest of us mere mortals like to have the facts reported on to assist us. Although I imagin we could all just go with our gut...that should really provide informed decisions. Maybe you're right who needs stinkin' facts anyway. We can just look at 'em and decide if they look honest...then we can believe 'em. If I remember correctly that is how many made the decision to elect Bush...he looked like the kinda guy you'd like to have a beer with so we should go ahead and just believe him no need for facts. Yup, you are definitly on to something here.
"Smitty you may be omniscient but the rest of us mere mortals like to have the facts reported on to assist us."
Omniscient....no. Just willing to think for myself and allow a candidate to speak for themselves, and then determine whether I agree with their stance on issues.
Nerzog,
I just think that candidate's spin during a presidential election season should be viewed in that context, cute little catchphrases and bumperslogan insults are constantly being put out by campaigns - I hope the public sees it for what it is and doesn't take any of it to the bank, it's all politics - and one's viewpoint is pretty much skewed by who they do or don't support.
I agree that we have to give Political candidates a little bit of latitude. But, when the press lets them lie without consequence, I think that's a disservice. It seems that I remember the press perpetuating Gore's image as an "exaggerator", yet several of George Bush's lies during the campaign went unchallenged.
"I hope the public sees it for what it is and doesn't take any of it to the bank, it's all politics..."
If that's your hope, then you shouldn't have any problem at all with the media pointing out what it is and why people shouldn't take it to the bank. Really, by your standards of journalism, people would never have any idea.
Tommy, don't you think that reporting Mitt was commenting on a plan that had not been released kind of important. Mitt has continued to label Hillary's health care plan as socialized medicine on 9/16 but I heard on the news this morning that she was unveiling her plan today 9/17. Should a reporter report the facts? Isn't the fact that Mitt is talking about something he has not seen a fact?
Hillary has long supported universal health care. We've all known that since 1993. It's only the details of her plan that are now coming out.
I agree. I don't think that Romney "lied" here either. Media Matters is trying to falsely imply that Romney's plan and Hillary's plan are the same when in fact they're quite different. I'm more of a libertarian at least on economic issues and can't support Romney's plan, but the fact is that it's different from Hillary's plan.
Romney said:
"She says what we need to do is have the government take over health care,"
That's a lie.
Tommy, I think you misunderstand what report "critically" means. It has nothing to do with critisism. It basically means we want them to caarefully analyze what is being said for factual accuracy or inaccuracy as the case may be. It does not mean for them to opine but rather to report the facts surrounding what is said and provide those facts supporting or not to the public. Reporting comes with a responsibility to not just let anyone spout off unchallenged by truth. If a claim was made about a plan that in fact was not public and the reporter chose to report on that claim then they should have also provided the fact that the plan he is commenting on didn't yet exist. The viewer can then judge and form an opinion on the value and truth of the candidates statement fully armed with the facts.
That's the job of commentators who have their own opinion shows. Guys like Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann perform that role. But journalists giving the straight news shouldn't act like advocates. They should merely report what happened without playing devil's advocate. There should be a big distinction between commentators and journalists who are merely reporting the news.
Exactly. They should present BOTH sides of every issue - not just the Republicna side.
I suppose you're part of the extremely small minority that actually thinks that the media has a conservative bias. People like you won't be satisfied until every media outlet puts out Democratic propaganda and even refutes Republican arguments themselves.
I suppose you're part of the extremely small minority that actually thinks that the media has a conservative bias. People like you won't be satisfied until every media outlet puts out Democratic propaganda and even refutes Republican arguments themselves.
Hardly, Rino. A large number of people in this country (myself included) think the media has a conservative bias because IT DOES. And I don't want the media to put out propaganda from ANY side - I want it to report the TRUTH.
You remember The Truth, don't you, Rino? It's something the GOP has run away from for years now.
"large number of people in this country (myself included) think the media has a conservative bias because IT DOES"
Right. That 10-15% of journalists who are registered Republicans are simply over shadowing the 80% of journalists who support Democrats.
Political party affiliation does not equal bias in reporting. Your numbers are irrelevant.
Thanks for playing.
Right. Political persuasion doesn't impact judgement or reasoning. As evidenced right here on MMFA.
I bet if the media was 80% red we'd hear a different take. Something like this...
"With 80% of reporters being republican it's obvious there will be a bias..."
Cmon now.
RINO,
If what you propose is true then correct me if I am wrong, but haven't you equated the editorial commentary of Olbermann to evidence of MSNBC's liberal bias? How then would you justify FOX news being "fair and balanced"? As I have said before, I think you would be hard presssed to show liberal bias in hard news reported by NBC, MSNBC, CNN and major print press if one follows your definition of hard news. If just the reporting of facts is the prerequisite for balanced reporting, then by your definition, the omission of an alternative view of a hard news story holds no weight in showing journalistic bias. Thanks, you have helped us all in blowing the "liberal media" myth out of the water.
I guess if Rino agrees with it's it's factual. If he disagrees with it, it's liberal bias. Just another example of intellectual dishonesty from the right wing.
You're probably right. I think that Fox News is fair and balanced when it comes to their hard news coverage, and they lean to the right on their commentary. Overall, I would say that they lean to the right but aren't blatantly partisan. I would say that MSNBC is fair and balanced in their hard news coverage, and they lean to the left in their commentary. Carlson and Scarborough are both conservative, but they have liberal guests on all the time and also go out of their way to be objective. Olbermann, on the other hand, never invites conservative guests and makes no attempt to be objective at all. He uses extreme rhetoric and has no balance at all. Mathews isn't as liberal but still puts out a left wing view most of the time. He bashes the Bush administration quite often as well. The liberal bias on the network news stations that conservatives have complained about over the years has mostly come from the fact that the networks often demonstrate liberal bias by the news stories that they leave out. They can also show bias by how they label things. One example is calling pro life people "abortion opponents" and calling pro choicers by their chosen label.
FOX isn't blatantly partisan? Why, because they hired Alan Colmes? Please.
Outside of that laugher, there is a distinction to be made about your "pro-life" complaint. While I agree that groups should be called as they like, opposition to abortion and "pro-life" are not always the same thing. "Pro-choice" is more specific to abortion, but "pro-life" applies to the issues of euthanasia, stem cell research and sometimes birth control as well (plus the death penalty and unjustified war for some). Since one can be opposed to abortion without opposing anything else I listed, that label doesn't falsely ascribe any beliefs certain people may not hold. Additionally, since "abortion" isn't a positive word, the label of being opposed to it isn't exactly negative, while it remains accurate. In fact, it still carries the connotation that to be the opposite is to be an "abortion proponent", which is both negative and inaccurate, but follows the political framing of "pro-life" quite well. I don't think you lose anything there at all.
Again, if there is no valid reason for using "abortion opponent" instead of "pro-life", then they should go with the self-chosen term. But since there does seem to be a good reason, and the term is just as effective, it's not a very compelling example of left-wing bias.
You make a good argument in regards to the abortion labeling. I never really thought about it that way before. As far as Fox goes, no it's certainly not a partisan network. Their straight news coverage is fair and balanced. It's no different from CNN or MSNBC. O'Reilly is certainly on the right side of the political spectrum, but he often brings in liberal guests to debate him. You always get to hear both sides of the issue on his show. On Hannity and Colmes, you have a liberal host debating a conservative host with both conservative and liberal guests. The show is completely fair and balanced. Greta's show is rarely political. She mostly just talks about law and order issues. So there you have it.
Look up some of FOX's reporters here if you think their straight reporting is non-partisan. Having opposing guests and one host who are liberal doesn't balance anything if their mics get cut off for calling out lies or they are milquetoasts who let people run roughshod over them (notice how surprised everyone is when Colmes actually stands up for himself). I'm quoting from memory, but Al Franken said he asked Alan Colmes why he didn't call Hannity out on lies (I think) and the reply was "that's not how it works". Hannity himself admitted that FOX got involved in the defeat of the immigration bill. Is that news or is that activism?
Another one from memory, but I believe it was Brit Hume who slipped and said "we" when talking about Republicans. Oops, so much for objectivity.
Just because they have liberal guests doesn't mean that they don't make a great effort to skew things to the right. It doesn't magically erase the amount of lies and spin they've engaged in for partisan purposes.
"Another one from memory, but I believe it was Brit Hume who slipped and said "we" when talking about Republicans"
Media Matters was actually wrong on that. They had to correct themselves on that. And O'Reilly usually only cuts a guest's mike when that guest is bashing O'Reilly and Fox News. Why would O'Reilly let someone on the air who simply wants to demean him and his company? That simply doesn't make good business sense. O'Reilly allows liberals on as long as they are respectful, stick to the issues, and don't bash Fox.
You're overstating the case. MMfA ran a correction stating that they were wrong to say it unambiguously, not that they were actually mistaken. The Nexis transcript confirmed what they said. There is a substantial difference, although I take the point it's not a sure-fire example for that reason.
O'Reilly having liberal guests does not make Fox balanced in any way. How many examples of O'Reilly lying do we have on this site? How many of those are done in front of liberal guests? Does O'Reilly correct himself if a liberal points out a lie, or does he cut them off? If they don't point out his lies...why?
O'Reilly loves to demonize "secular humanist" Dems. Does he rail against LGF the same way he rails against Daily KOS? How about FreeRepublic? He's partisan, even if he doesn't toe the hard-right line on every issue.
Even Cavuto is conservative. There are no left-leaning shows, and there are no balanced political shows.
"You make a good argument in regards to the abortion labeling."
I meant to add, I appreciate that. I honestly think most reporters do a good job trying to be objective.
No, I didn't say they should give OPINIONS like O'Reilly and Limbaugh. They aren't interested in the truth, only about supporting their opinions.
Unbiased reporting is to critically question politicians and others. It is NOT about just reporting the facts.
This used to be such a basic tenet of journalism that I'm surprised I'd even have to argue for it.
That's funny. CNN reported on an anti war protest over the weekend. They said that the anti-war protestors got in a shouting match with "pro-troop" protestors. You think the Democrats told them to say that? Wouldn't the Democrats have preferred their opponents be called "pro-war"? Makes more sense to me.
Back in the early 90's, the insurance companies screamed their heads off, "Bureaucrats are going to choose your doctor!"
That program of Hillary's, failed.
Nowadays, we don't have bureaucrats in government choosing our doctors.
We have bean counters in HMO's doing it.
Excellent point. Who would you rather have making decisions on what to pay for...a disinterested government bureaucrat, or a corporate bureaucrat who gets a bonus for denying your claim?
Exactly.
It all boils down to corporate profits, and HMO's are INCREDIBLY profitable.
They get that way by charging high rates, and denying needed treatments.
I can tell you from personal experience that there are no bonuses for denying claims. I know you can pick an article out about some pressure here or there, but the stats reflect something like 99% compliance by health insurance companies.
I work for an insurance company and I constantly hear knee jerk reactions from people about why costs are so high. It's always about large corporate profits and denying claims. Our claims process is scrutinized a million times over by every state that we do business with. Trust me when I tell you that it's a highly regulated system in all states. The number one reason I see for claims being denied is based on a customer having a procedure done that isn't covered under their plan. Most people are extremely ignorant of their policy benefits and therefore assume that everything should be paid for and if it isn't, t must be the insurance companies fault.
People need to start looking at the way doctors and hospitals bill for procedures and services. The billing process is extremely complicated, if the person working at the Dr. office (who is probably paying $8.00 an hour) doesn't bill for the procedure correctly your going to run into problems. I would also add that it's one of the only services you will ever receive in your life were you have virtually no concept of what your going to be charged prior to having the services done. I was just working on a case were a hospital marked up a claim. The R&C amount was $500 dollars for misc emergency charges and they charging over $4000.00.
Any honest discussion on this topic would need to address these issues.
I agree that Hospital costs are part of the problem. I went in a few years ago for an MRI that took about 15 minutes. They billed my insurance company $5000. I know those machines are expensive...but holy crap!
It's not an excellent point and demonstratesto me that you may not have much knowledege of health insurance. HMO's are few and far between. But they're a gret example of how managed care negatively affetcs your medical care.
But I'm sure government involvement will improve the situation. Like it did in...wait I meant the, ...no, just a second...it will come to me....
And one more thing: no socialized medicine is NOT "the last thing we need". The last thing we need is 18,000 Americans dying every year because they can't pay for health care.
Actually, the last thing we need is Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, or any of the other GOP dunderheads.
Here's a point from Hillary's website:
"Insurance companies won’t be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you’re not worth it."
Sounds good. I can't wait to see how the Republicans attack this one. Unfunded mandate, perhaps? Harmful to Insurance CEOs' bonuses? Maybe they'll pretend it's not there.
Now I hate her plan.
Work in the Insurance Industry, do you?
I do, but I'm no investor or CEO. I just have a basic understanding that insurance companies are businesses like every other. If you have a huge problem with something like health care coverage being run by for-profit businesses, I respect your opinion and see value in it, but don't just dump on them because they make money.
It is unfair to dump on all of them, I agree. However, I have trouble sympathizing with them when they regularly hike their rates as much as 50% within a year because a given client is "too expensive", or simply refuse any coverage at all. Maybe that's just business, but it's a little smelly when these same companies can afford to pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars.
I know how you feel, and I think it's a much more sensitive issue since we're dealing with the cost of health care and not a Venti Latte. It's clear that there is a push by the American public for greater gov. involvement, and the gov. should respond effectively and responsibly to that.
It's easy to "attack." insurance companies, health or otherwise, are in the business of assessing risk. What's next? Our leaders will force insurance companies to insure those in dangerous flood zones or areas constantly hit by hurricaines? And when they do that i suppose the insurance companies will only be allowed to charge x when in fact the risk level says they should be charging 3x or 10x?
Make insurance companies cover everyone regardless of risk and watch what happens to premiums. Duh.
If Hillary's plan would mandate how insurance companies operated to the point that companies could not drop or deny initial coverage, she should just outlaw insurance companies. I know that's fine with a lot of you, but insurance companies make money by taking profitable risks, just like all other businesses. They should absolutely be held accountable if they are unfairly denying claims or withholding compensation..but don't dump on them just because they're for-profit.
I don't think Romney's plan is perfect either; most people are seeing an INCREASE in their healthcare costs, if they see a difference at all. The gov. should create a competitor in the industry, one that will cover everyone that uses it; subsidize the care that the premiums don't cover.
I can agree with that. Instead of mandating that the Insurance companies do anything, why not create a government insurance base. Of course, that, too, will put a lot of Insurance Companies out of business, or at least hurt their profits. How many people would choose to pay $1200 a month in private insurance premiums if they can get the government plan for $400?
Exactly. It would be a bit of a check-and-balance system as well...if the gov. got a little slow and red-tapey (trust me, Medicare is already there), some would be willing to pay more (assuming that private insurers were still more expensive after the market correction from gov. competition). I just like that idea the best. I do think that we should acknowledge the wealth and prosperity that maintaining what is basically a free-market has brought us as a whole, and simply be vigilant in order to reign in any abuses that occur.
Dexteritas...
One of the big problems is that we in the U.S. pay twice as much in our GDP for healthcare as the British do, and yet our people are less healthy and less happy with the health care they receive.
On top of that, we have 47 million who can't even go to a doctor.
This is insane! It seriously hurts our businesses; it hurts our people; it may lead to a sicker, more violent society (maybe this is why we have seven times as many people prison as the British)? How many times do we have to get hit over the head before we decide to do the right thing?
$1200.00 a month? Been selling insurance for years and of all the premiums I've seen and quoted (tens of thousands by now), I'd say maybe 1 in a thousand came close to that number. there are plenty of plans out there right now a family could get for $250-400. Will they have a low deductible? No. All the bells and whistles? No. But guess what. Insurance never was and isn't supposed to be for the little stuff. Does your car insurance pay for your oil changes? Get any benefits from your homeowner's insurance?
2 biggest problems with cheap or free healthcare. 1) People abuse it and abuse it bigtime. Don't believe me check out the military or medicaid. Free, unlimited health care. Amazing how much use it gets. 2) It's not cheap or free. Somone still has to pay for it.
Hillary's plan...to FORCE people to BUY health care insurance, whether they can afford it or not. It's not a single-payer taxed system like Europe or Canada. It IS the Romney plan, mandatory coverage, like car insurance. The only ones who will benefit are the health care insurance companies, who will now line up behind Hillary to rake in the dough, as all Americans are forced by law to sign up with a private health care plan. This will bankrupt the already hammered working class. This will destroy so many lives it's not funny at all. And what happens if we refuse to sign up, if we have to chose between food and rent or health care insurance? Do we get punished, jailed or fined? Hillary is showing her right-wing colors yet again. Viva corporofascism, right, Frau Clinton?
Come on Red, get a clue...
You don't even understand her plan.
If it was the Rom-turd plan, why would he be attacking it?
...Even he can't be that dumb, can he?
Of course he can...he has to be dumb, he's a Republican. They'll attack it because it's the other side's plan. It's exactly the same as theirs, but they'll attack it as "socialism"....like how they call conservative right-wing Democrats liberals. They're liars to the core. And yes, her plan is Romney's...to force people to buy health care insurance from private companies. This bad idea is being floated in a couple of states right now and Hillary has just picked it up and called it hers. It's still a crap plan that will impoverish the poor even more.
Media Matters favorite word is "uncritically". Whenever Republicans are involved, it's never critical enough. I guess Media Matters wants blood.
Uncritically is good fun. When we're not being a Hillary,or Obama spin site.
It might be good to branch out into starting a dating sevice. It appears Richard Mellon Scaife is going to be single again. For the third time in his life.