About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

CNN's Bash again airs clip of McCain falsely attacking Dems for health care proposals

April 30, 2008 5:27 pm ET

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

SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, Dana Bash uncritically aired a clip of Sen. John McCain saying of health care plans put forward by Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama: "This will accomplish one thing only. We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly." In fact, neither Clinton nor Obama has proposed a "government monopoly" on insurance coverage; rather, both have called for individuals to choose their own insurance.

119 Comments

On the April 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, congressional correspondent Dana Bash aired a clip of Sen. John McCain stating of health care proposals offered by Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, "This will accomplish one thing only. We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly." In fact, as Media Matters for America repeatedly noted when CNN uncritically aired or repeated similar attacks by McCain, neither Clinton nor Obama has proposed a "government monopoly" on insurance coverage; rather, both have called for individuals to choose their own insurance.

Contrary to McCain's suggestion that Obama and Clinton want the government to have a "monopoly" on insurance coverage, Obama's health care plan allows individuals to keep their private health insurance if they so choose, while he says it also "addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 47 million Americans uninsured." A Q&A released by the Obama campaign says: "His plan will not tell you which doctors to see or what treatments to get. Under the Obama health care plan, you will be able to keep your doctor and your health insurance if you want. No government bureaucrat will second-guess decisions about your care." Likewise, a Clinton campaign summary of her health care program says: "In addition to the broad array of private options that Americans can choose from, they will be offered the choice of a public plan option similar to Medicare." The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog noted on October 24, 2007, that "the Clinton plan does not force Americans to accept 'government insurance.' It offers people a choice. If they are happy with their present health plan, they can keep it. Otherwise, they can switch to the plans offered to members of Congress, or a government-run plan similar to Medicare."

From the April 29 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BASH: Health care: a top issue for voters and, John McCain made clear, one of his most dramatic differences with Democrats, who want to mandate insurance coverage.

McCAIN: This will accomplish one thing only. We will replace the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of the current system with the inefficiency, irrationality, and uncontrolled costs of a government monopoly.

BASH: Instead, McCain's idea is classic Republican credo: move away from employer-based health care to let the market and consumers decide. He would offer families a $5,000 tax credit to buy insurance, individuals $2,500. The estimated cost: $3.6 trillion.

To pay for that, McCain would eliminate the tax breaks employers get for offering insurance.

McCAIN: The health plan you choose would be as good as any that an employer could choose for you. It would be yours and your family's health care plan, and yours to keep.

BASH: McCain advisers insist that would drive up competition and drive down sky-high costs.

But Democrats, like Elizabeth Edwards, who has cancer, say millions with pre-existing conditions would lose insurance.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by wzwriter (April 30, 2008 5:35 pm ET)
         
      The constant mantra from the right wing is that both Clinton and Obama want to give us "socialized medicine".  They are using this lie to scare the voters.  The media needs to start doing its job and calling them on their lies.  Starting with this one.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (April 30, 2008 5:48 pm ET)
           

        Exactly.  Medicare/VA health care is much more efficient than the current private system, which is the MOST inefficient system in the ENTIRE civilized world.

        Yeah, Gramps, we need more of the status quo with 100,000 people dying EVERY YEAR due to lack of basic health care. 

        Report Abuse
        • Author by DeminTX (April 30, 2008 10:06 pm ET)
             

          Fog........ to tag off your post, since when did health care become a privilege for those that can afford it versus a basic right for all?  I believe a society is best judged by how it takes care of its least fortunate.  And, this country does a pretty lousy job of that.

          Those opposing universal health care cry about the costs.  Yet, the admin costs of Medicare are account for only about 1% of its total cost.  Private health care has exorbitant admin costs.  And, which is more expensive for the tax payer; paying for an ER visit for the uninsured mom with the sick kid or paying for wellness checks at a peds clinic?  I think this is a no-brainer.

           

           

          Report Abuse
          • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 8:34 am ET)
               

            Michael Moore said it best on Larry King last night.  People think that France has high taxes.  But actually, our taxes are HIGHER when you factor in that France has FREE medical care, FREE college education, and FREE day care.

            Republicans think government is the problem.  The real problem is they then go out and prove it throught their incompetence and war mongering/profiteering.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by wzwriter (May 01, 2008 10:22 am ET)
                 

              Republicans think government is the problem. 

              Actually, Republicans are the problem.  :-)

              Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (April 30, 2008 5:50 pm ET)
         
      The media is just keeping with the program. Hoping against hope to crown McGee as the new emperor next January. Ignoring anything which might interfear with their political ju ju.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (April 30, 2008 5:55 pm ET)
         

      " But Democrats, like Elizabeth Edwards, who has cancer, say millions with pre-existing conditions would lose insurance."

      Wait, according to McCain, that's a myth, because he "Would Work With Governors To Find The Solutions Necessary To Ensure Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Are Able To Easily Access Care."

      Yeah, OK, John.  You'll somehow convince all the state governors to mandate that anyone with a pre-existing condition can access care, but what about a mandate to make the care affordable? 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by worrierking (April 30, 2008 5:55 pm ET)
         
      And what will the market decide when evaluating the premium for someone who has had Melanoma, twice?

      Mr. McCain has enjoyed cradle to grave health insurance and never had to face being an individual seeking coverage with a prior medical condition.

      I've got to hand it to these Republicans. Most don't believe in Biological Darwinism, but they do love Social Darwinism.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by RINO Hunter (April 30, 2008 10:56 pm ET)
           

        "Mr. McCain has enjoyed cradle to grave health insurance"

        Yeah, except for those five years when he was tortured as a prisoner of war. I guess you forgot about that.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (May 01, 2008 12:07 am ET)
             

          I'm pretty sure McCain got free healthcare from the North Vietnamese, too.  That lucky b*stard!

          Just kidding.

          :)

          Report Abuse
        • Author by open_mind (May 01, 2008 12:08 am ET)
             
          Wait a minute.  What do you got against torture?  I thought you were a Republican?  RINO, hunt thyself.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (May 01, 2008 1:34 am ET)
               

            RINO, hunt thyself.

            Har! pretty good, Open. But I think torture, like all the other bad things in the world, is OK for other people.

            Besides, I'm pretty sure McCain's government health insurance was in effect for those 5 years, it just wasn't "accessible".Was the nanny state supposed to pay for it and deliver it to him on a silver platter?

            Report Abuse
            • Author by nerzog (May 01, 2008 8:34 am ET)
                 
              Didn't you hear? According to the Supreme Court Troglodyte Scalia, torture is Constitutional because ....(wait for it).....it isn't PUNISHMENT. His reasoning is that it can only be punishment if the person has been convicted of something. Therefore, according to Scalia, torturing an innocent person is Constitutional. And Gramps has promised to appoint more judges JUST LIKE HIM.

              And these are the "values" people?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by wzwriter (May 01, 2008 10:02 am ET)
                   

                Didn't you hear? According to the Supreme Court Troglodyte Scalia, torture is Constitutional because ....(wait for it).....it isn't PUNISHMENT. His reasoning is that it can only be punishment if the person has been convicted of something. Therefore, according to Scalia, torturing an innocent person is Constitutional.

                So in other words, we could waterboard Scalia?????

                Report Abuse
              • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 11:22 am ET)
                   
                Hmmm. So you claim to be smarter than Scalia. I'd love to see you try to debate him. He'd clean your clock. He's one of the most brilliant legal minds of our time. And a Supreme Court justices' judicial philisophy has nothing to do with "values." They are simply supposed to interpret the Constitution of the United States without any personal biases, which is what Scalia does. It's only the left wing justices who circumvent the Constitution by replacing it with their radical left wing views.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 1:47 pm ET)
                     

                   It's only the left wing justices who circumvent the Constitution by replacing it with their radical left wing views

                  Please provide examples.

                  Wasn't it Huckabee who wanted to amend the consitution to reflect "God's law", whatever that is.  Isn't it Bush and the righties who wanted an amendment to protect the "sactity of marriage", whatever that is.

                  Torture, by the way, IS unconsitutional, no matter what Scalia says.  Remember, he went hunting with Cheney and that was when he was assimilated.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 1:57 pm ET)
                       

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

                    Those are two examples of left wing justices creating rights that aren't contained in the Constitution. And there's nothing wrong with amending the Constitution. Amending the Constitution is the way to reflect social change in our country; it shouldn't be done through activist judges who replace the Constitution with their own personal policy views.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:03 pm ET)
                         

                      Come on, you can do better than those.  Isn't privacy a right?

                      How about U.S. vs. Florida, or whatever it was called, that installed our Fearless Leader into power?

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:09 pm ET)
                           
                        No, privacy isn't a right. That was invented as well. The word privacy is not contained in the Constitution. In the case you're referring to the Florida Supreme Court forced election officials to count ballots which weren't filled out correctly. The U.S. Supreme court simply ended the insanity of the "hanging chads" and the "dimpled chads."
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:22 pm ET)
                             
                          They didn't end the insanity (which, by the way, was a ruse fulmigated by Republican operatives that you have fallen for, oh gullible one).  They BROKE THE LAW.  They ruled on a case involving a SINGLE PERSON.  That, my constitutionally challenged friend, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:25 pm ET)
                               
                            You're not making any sense. The Supreme Court was asked to take the case. They didn't go looking for it. There was a lot of confusion on the issue and the whole process, and it was up to the Supreme Court to settle the issue one way or the other.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:32 pm ET)
                                 

                              Wrong again - the Florida state courts were deciding it when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.  I'm sure you know they don't take up every case petitioned to them.

                              It was a Republican power grab, pure and simple.  But I'm sure you can be content in your ignorance.

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:39 pm ET)
                                   
                                No, Bush appealed to the Supreme Court after the Florida Supreme Court decision. And the original decision as to whether the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional wasn't even close. It was a 7-2 decision.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:42 pm ET)
                                     

                                  No, they STOPPED the recount.  They made law for ONE PERSON.  That's UNCONSITUTIONAL.  They shouldn't have heard the case in the first place.

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:44 pm ET)
                                       
                                    Your response is so incoherent that it doesn't even deserve a response. Besides we've gotten way off topic by talking about this on this particular thread. And I'll admit part of that's my fault.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:52 pm ET)
                                         
                                      They mad law for one person.  That was George W. Bush.  The Supreme Court, by definition, cannot do that.  Therefore, the decision was unconsitutional.  What's so hard about that to understand?
                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 3:02 pm ET)
                                           

                                        The Supreme Court didn't make any kind of law. They simply ruled that no alternative method for recounting ballots could be established within the time limits established by the Florida legislature.

                                        Prior to that Bush had already been declared the winner of Florida's electoral votes. The Florida Supreme Court then overruled the election officials and forced them to count votes that couldn't even be clearly established as to who the vote was for. The U.S Supreme Court simply allowed the original decision by the Florida election officials to go forward.

                                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 4:18 pm ET)
                                             

                                          Boy, aren't we all glad the Supreme Court overstepped their authority?  I mean, where would this country be without the endless war and looming financial ruin?

                                           

                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
                                               
                                            We aren't going to have a financial ruin. We won't even have a recession. The next quarter we'll probably have flat economic growth, and then the economy will pick up in the third quarter. But in the previous six years before this year the economy was very good in this country. But I do agree with you on the war part.
                                            Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 9:49 am ET)
                             
                          And the ninth amendment SPECIFICALLY says that just because SOME rights are enumerated doesnt mean there are NOT OTHER RIGHTS, that makes your argument ludicrous on the face of it. Your argument is garbage. The word profits isnt in the constitution either. The whole original intent doctrine is stupid. It puts jurists in the position of either holding seances or trying to read the minds of people who have been dead for more than a hundred years.
                          Report Abuse
                        • Author by pete592 (May 02, 2008 2:27 pm ET)
                             

                          "No, privacy isn't a right. That was invented as well. The word privacy is not contained in the Constitution."

                          Yes, privacy is a right specifically defined in the Constitution: 

                          Amendment IV

                          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  

                          Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 9:46 am ET)
                         
                      According to YOU. According to the Supreme court they are interpreting the NINTH amendment to be referring to a right to privacy among others. WHERE did you get your degree in Constitutional law again? You have made this spurious argument before. Its garbage.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RINO Hunter (May 02, 2008 9:57 am ET)
                           
                        It's not garbage. It's the same argument that Scalia makes. Would you like to debate Scalia? He would clean your clock. There's a whole host of originalist jurists out there. It's not just me arguing for originalism. The 9th Amendment doesn't mean that everything is a right. If that were the case you could simply throw away the rest of the Constitution and just have one line that says "Everything is a right and the government can't make laws against anything." My point is simply that if the Constitution isn't clear about something the people should have the chance to vote on the issue. It's called democracy, and it's something that liberals are scared to death of.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by solon (May 03, 2008 12:54 am ET)
                             

                          No I am not a lawyer. Scalia is an intelligent man which doesnt mean he is always right. Whatever argument HE makes he LOST that argument. While the ninth amendment doesnt mean ANYTHING is a right, which is clearly a strawman argument it DEFINITLY says there ARE rights not mentioned directly in the consitution which completely destroys your argument that there is no right to privacy BECAUSE it isnt directly mentioned in the constitution. It shows that the argument IS garbage. Scalia has also shown a complete lack of integrity. He voted against his usual principles, that is states rights in Bush V Gore and no one in their right mind believes he wouldnt have voted in exactly the opposite way if THAT was what would have put Bush in the White House. He shows that at least sometimes politics trumps the law or constitution for him. Of COURSE original intent is ludicrous. Which is it? Are they going for seances? OR are they going for reading the minds of people dead for more than a century? Since neither is possible they should interpret what is WRITTEN, not what their OPINION is about the OPINIONS of people dead for more than a century.

                          Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 9:44 am ET)
                     
                  Your biased nonsense about the judicial left again. Here is a clue you need. YOU repeating stupidity doesnt make it true. Scalia is a well respected jurist but its way more than a stretch to call him one of the most brilliant minds of our time and he DID say torture would be constitional because it isnt punishment. the outright dishonesty of that justification is mind boggling. He is a smart man but he is also a dishonest ideologue. Can anyone in their right mind even CLAIM he wouldnt have voted exactly the opposite way in Bush V Gore if THAT was what it took to put Bush in the White House? THAT is a violation of his oath of office.  It is the rightwing judicial activists who ignore the constitution for political reasons and THAT is why morons like Bush appoint them.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RINO Hunter (May 02, 2008 10:01 am ET)
                       
                    And can anyone really argue that the liberal justices wouldn't have voted the opposite way had the situation have been reversed? They somehow decided to support states' rights in that one case. Quite a coincidence. And in reality terrorists have no rights to begin with. They wear no uniforms and fight for no country and aren't entitled to Geneva Convention protections. They are illegal combatants. We hold the right to shoot them dead on the spot. Scalia was right to say that it isn't unconstitutional to torture terrorists.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by solon (May 03, 2008 1:00 am ET)
                         
                      Your argument is INCREDIBLY stupid. Who was it that decided they were guilty of terorrism? When did THAT trial take place? Are they terrorists by dint of accusation alone? If that is so then there is no justice system at all. YOU think that if you CALL them terrorists that is all that matters. You are also flat out wrong as has been pointed out to you MANY times there are other protections in the Geneva conventions than JUST that of uniformed soldiers. In fact it says DIRECTLY that no one is beyond the reach of the law when detained it also says DIRECTLY that if there is a dispute about whether or not they are POWS a competent tribunal will make the decision. When did THAT happen? Why it didnt happen. Suppose they decided YOU were a terrorist and tortured YOU or YOUR SON. I am betting you wouldnt be so cavilier about taking one for the team if it were YOU OR YOURS being tortured. Scalia showed he has no decency. YOu show the same thing. Torture is evil its that simple. YOU want to discredit this country take all decency FROM our country and cover us with the shame of NOT being a decent people. That should never be allowed
                      Report Abuse
            • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 11:26 am ET)
                 
              Nobody supports torture. It's only the Democrats who are against even the most mild forms of coercive interrogation and are putting our country at risk of letting another terrorist attack happen on our soil.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by wolf kotenberg (May 01, 2008 12:11 pm ET)
                   
                You work for FOX ? because you sure sound like the rest of the water carriers over there. Here and other threads.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 9:52 am ET)
                   
                YOU support torture. It is only the wingnuts who support torture but dont have the GUTS to admit it because it exposes their basic lack of decency. Thats why you call only mild coercion torture techniques WE PUT JAPANESE OFFICERS IN PRISON FOR DOING TO AMERICANS.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RINO Hunter (May 02, 2008 10:03 am ET)
                     
                  Waterboarding is something that our own soldiers go through in their training, and a Fox News reporter even went through it as well. If waterboarding is torture then I guess we torture our own soldiers as well as a Fox News reporter.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pete592 (May 02, 2008 2:35 pm ET)
                       

                    Was that Fox reporter unexpectedly abducted, blindfolded, thrown on a plane and flown to a foreign country, shackled to a floor in a pitch dark room with loud rock music blaring and then taken to another room and repeatedly waterboarded over several days, then held without formal charge for several years with no legal counsel and no contact to the outside world?  

                    Is that what happened to your Fox Reporter?

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 03, 2008 1:03 am ET)
                       
                    You are an idiot. WE called it tortue when we put Japanese soldiers in PRISON for doing it. IF it is a training excersice then they KNOW no harm will come to them and it isnt the same thing. Bottom line we IMPRISONED people for doing it TO us and called it tortue NOW when WE want to do it all of a sudden it isnt. It was considered torture when they used it during the Spanish inqisitions. There isnt any CLAIM to any morality unless you hold yourself and your enemies to the same standards.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (May 01, 2008 8:17 am ET)
             
          Can you please explain how that has anything to do with the question at hand?

          McCain did have health insurance while he was imprisoned. If he had been able to get to a provider whio accepted his insurance, he would have had coverage.

          I never questioned his service to his country. Again, you're trying to divert attention.

          McCain wants each individual to get their own "best deal" for health insurance. The US healthcare system, as bad as some think it is, works only because most people are pooled into groups who purchase insurance for the group, and the groups premiums are calculated and the costs of the plan are spread out so that most people in the group pay the same premium.

          Senator McCain has been diagnosed with Melanoma, twice. Under his proposed plan, someone with a history of Melanoma would have his or her premiums adjusted to reflect the projected costs of long term treatment for Melanoma. Senator McCain might be able to afford a plan, but 99.9 % of those diagnosed with Melanoma would probably not even be offered a policy at any price.

          All of you "free market" types are in for a shock if the "free market" ever determines individuals out of pocket expense for health insurance.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 11:24 am ET)
               
            Your point seemed to be that McCain has had a free ride his whole life when the exact opposite is true. You were trying to claim that he's spoiled. Of course the exact opposite is true. He went through something worse than any of us will ever go through. So of course it's relevant to the question at hand.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (May 01, 2008 11:51 am ET)
                 
              That McCain has had his health insurance provided for him by his father's military service and later, his own military service and now his Senate service was not my point at all.

              My point was that it is hypocritical of him to talk about recommending individual health insurance policies for everyone, when he himself has always been a member of a group plan.

              And being a member of a group plan, his treatment for Melanoma was shared by all members of his group. If an individual, younger than the Senator, and not eligible for Medicare, tried to purchase health insurance as an individual, that person would be looking at premiums that he could not afford, unless he or she were to marry into wealth.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 11:56 am ET)
                   
                I see your point, but one of the rewards of service to one's country is that they get health insurance and other benefits. I'm sure that you're not against free health insurance for the military, veterans, and those in Congress. One of the ways that our country says thanks to those in uniform is by taking care of them when they come back home. McCain has simply come to his conclusion about health care from being in Washington for 20 years. He knows from experience that government usually makes things worse instead of better.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (May 01, 2008 12:02 pm ET)
                     
                  Of course I'm not against health insurance for the military, veterans and congress. I'm a vet myself.

                  I'm also not against the proposed bill in the Senate that would increase benefits for veterans. John McCain is against the bill.

                  He has had the advantages that he would deny others.

                  Today's John McCain isn't the same as John McCain prior to 2000.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 11:51 am ET)
                 

              Oh, I see.  Five years in captivity earns him a free lunch.

              Lost your home and your job to a hurricane?  Sorry pal, I got mine, so screw you. 

              Report Abuse
              • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:02 pm ET)
                   

                The government always gives out millions and sometimes billions of dollars to help out hurricane victims. You have no point there.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 12:08 pm ET)
                     
                  I wasn't referring to the government's official response, I was referring to that of the conservative right.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:16 pm ET)
                       
                    Well, Bush claims to be a conservative Republican and he handed out an enormous amount of money to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 12:23 pm ET)
                         
                      He was an integral part of the government's official response, he had no choice.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:26 pm ET)
                           
                        So who exactly opposes having the government help out hurricane victims? I would like to know.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 1:22 pm ET)
                             

                          Well, I think John McCain is the most significant example, seeing as how he's in the running to be president, of course, he's selling himself much differently than his voting record does:

                          McCain voted against passage of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of 2006. [2006 Senate Vote #112, 5/4/2006]

                          McCain voted against an amendment to provide emergency health care and other relief for survivors of Hurricane Katrina. [2005 Senate Vote #285, 11/3/2005]

                          McCain voted twice against establishing a Congressional commission to examine Federal, State, and local response to devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the U.S. Gulf Region; and making immediate corrective measures to improve future responses. [2006 Senate Vote #6, 2/2/2006; 2005 Senate Vote #229, 9/14/2005]

                          In 2005, McCain voted against allowing up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits to individuals affected by Hurricane Katrina. [2005 Senate Vote #234, 9/15/2005]

                          Report Abuse
        • Author by iowalib (May 01, 2008 9:57 am ET)
             

          Yeah, except for those five years when he was tortured as a prisoner of war. I guess you forgot about that.

           

          Did someone break protocol by not prefacing criticism of McCain without first mentioning his service in Vietnam? Apologies are expected in this case. 

           

          Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 01, 2008 10:12 am ET)
             
          Not sure why that has any relavence, but if there WAS a lesson learned there, it appears to have been long forgotten.  He's got his, so screw everyone else.  Basically the republican mantra on all matters economic.  (Except of course when UNIONS do it.  Then they call it "unabshed greed") Pot? Kettle.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 11:31 am ET)
               
            The fact that McCain wants to keep the government out of health care doesn't mean that he wants to "screw" people over. That's just riciculous. He has simply come to the correct conclusion that the government only makes things worse. He has several good proposals that will make health insurance cheaper; most of them involve tax credits that will help people by private health coverage. People who oppose government run health care aren't out to hurt other people. Most of us simply believe that the system will be even more inefficient will the government involved, and the solution is actually to have less government influence than we have now. Before the government got involved the prices were much lower. 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by DeminTX (May 01, 2008 11:39 am ET)
                 
              Medicare is quite efficient.  However, Bush is managing to dork that up too with his prescription drug give away plan to the drug companies.  So, I don't know how you can possibly say that govt sponsored healthcare is inefficient.  What nobody will argue is that our current system is very expensive to taxpayers; i.e., unnecessary visits to the ER for runny noses.  But, I guess Repos would prefer to line the pockets of the insurance industry versus actually having any concern that everybody had equal access to healthcare.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 11:45 am ET)
                   
                Everybody does have equal access to health care. If you have an emergency in which your life is in danger the hospital won't reject you. You'll just have to pay off the bill later. And people simply have to make priorities with their finances to make sure that they have enough money to buy health insurance. They might have to get rid of their big screen T.V. Today many if not most employers offer health insurance to their employees, and so it's becoming less of a problem than it was before.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by nerzog (May 01, 2008 11:49 am ET)
                     
                  "And people simply have to make priorities with their finances to make sure that they have enough money to buy health insurance"

                  Wow, I never knew it was so easy! Please tell us how somebody working at Wal Mart is going to scrape up $500-$1000 a month for health insurance. Which priority would you suggest that they give up....food?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:00 pm ET)
                       

                    The vast majority of people in this country have things that they don't need. Even most of those who are technically in poverty have a T.V. in their house. Many poor people could also save a little money by not buying that case of beer every month. It's all about priorities and getting rid of the things that you don't need so that you can afford the things that you need.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by worrierking (May 01, 2008 12:07 pm ET)
                         
                      I could sell my LCD TV, Blu-Ray player, TIVO, Stereo, Computers, iPod, microwave, alarm clocks and my cars and would not have enough to pay for more than a few days in a hospital.

                      I've got every gadget I could ever want. Most of the people who you'd have sell their belongings couldn't buy dinner in a nice restaurant for what they'd get from selling their "toys".

                      Try arguing without using the Dittohead play book.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:14 pm ET)
                           

                        Look, I don't support taking away all safety nets for people at the bottom. Those at the very bottom already receive Medicaid payments from the government. I just don't think that middle class people should be getting free health care. Most middle income people can find a way to purchase health care if they manage their income correctly. Those who can't can always get help from their family, friends, churches, etc to help pay for a medical emergency.

                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by worrierking (May 01, 2008 12:18 pm ET)
                             
                          Obviously you've never been handed a bill for emergency medical services.

                          I've received one in the amount of $50o,000. Where in the world would anyone who doesn't have insurance to get that kind of money?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:21 pm ET)
                               
                            I know middle income people who have had to pay off huge medical bills over a long period of time, and they did it without complaining about it and saying the government should help out. They don't have to pay the bill overnight.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by worrierking (May 01, 2008 12:25 pm ET)
                                 
                              How does someone pay off a half a million dollars?

                              Paying a thousand a month would take 41.6 years to pay off.

                              And that doesn't include any interest tacked on by the health care provider.

                              When was the last time you had an extra thousand a month to spare?
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:30 pm ET)
                                   
                                As I said, many people rely on their family members and friends when going through such difficult financial times. I'm sure that there are charities set up to help people in such situations. I realize that it's hard. But it isn't impossible, and you can always file for bunkruptcy.
                                Report Abuse
                                • Author by nerzog (May 01, 2008 2:05 pm ET)
                                     
                                  Or, just don't get sick, ...eh, Rhino? Problem solved. Let the sick, poor people die off, then we can bulldoze their houses and put up luxury condos. Better hurry, though.... the rapture could happen any minute!
                                  Report Abuse
                                • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:14 pm ET)
                                     

                                  But wouldn't it be easier on everyone (except yourself) if we had a SHARED RISK with everyone in the same boat?  Oh, that's right RINO, you're one of those "I've got mine, screw everyone else" king of person.

                                  Why do you hate Americans so much?

                                  And earlier, you said government-run health care would be worse.  That's a lie.  When you take out the profit motive by the greedy HMO's and big pharma, then EVERYONE can afford to be covered.

                                  But you'd prefer to have people DIE or go into bankruptcy rather than keep them healthy.  Why do you hate the human race so much?

                                  Report Abuse
                                  • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:23 pm ET)
                                       
                                    Nice argument. "Either support government run health care or you're an evil person who hates the poor and wants people to suffer." That's a classic.
                                    Report Abuse
                                    • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:25 pm ET)
                                         

                                      I call 'em like I see 'em.  And with views like yours, you are at the very least un-Christian and most likely very evil.

                                      Report Abuse
                                      • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:29 pm ET)
                                           
                                        Yes of course. "Anyone who opposes government run health care and wants the free market to work is evil and un-Christian." Again, nice argument. Are you drunk right now or just intentionally being idiotic?
                                        Report Abuse
                                        • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:35 pm ET)
                                             

                                          Would you say that 100,000 people in America dying EVERY YEAR from lack of access to basic health care is evil?  Or is that just an acceptable number for you?

                                          That's the question.  Since you obviously do not care about those people, you, in my mind, are an evil person.

                                          Report Abuse
                                          • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:42 pm ET)
                                               
                                            I care about everybody. I just don't think that having the government take over health care is the way to go about it. How is that so hard to understand? And do you actually have a link with statistics to back up your claim?
                                            Report Abuse
                                            • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:51 pm ET)
                                                 

                                              18,000 deaths blamed on lack of insurance

                                              By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

                                              WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday. (5/22/2002)

                                              That estimate was later updated by the Urban Institute, which reported that at least 22,000 adults died in 2006 due to a lack of health insurance

                                               Other surveys have found that one of every four families afflicted by cancer, which is projected to kill 560,000 Americans this year, is effectively impoverished by the fight, including one of every five with insurance.

                                              So, do you care about these people?  Would you be willing to have LOWER health care costs and still save lives?  Or are you so blinded by your false belief that govenment can't run anything that you would sacrifice and bankrupt the less fortunate?

                                               

                                              Report Abuse
                                              • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:58 pm ET)
                                                   
                                                That's 18,000 and not 100,000 just to point that out. But I'll admit that's still aweful. Every life is precious. There certainly are problems with our current health care system. I never said there wasn't. My point is that there are other ways to make sure that health care prices get lower and people can afford access to health care. It doesn't have to be done through universal health care, and the millions of Americans who don't want universal health care aren't "evil" for wanting another alternative. One alternative would be for the government to give tax breaks and other incentives to companies who give insurance to their employees. Another alternative are the tax credits that McCain is proposing. Another alternative is to put a cap on the number of lawsuits that are driving prices up. The list goes on and on. But government run health care isn't the only alternative, and those who oppose aren't evil. They simply have a different point of view than you do.
                                                Report Abuse
                                                • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 3:05 pm ET)
                                                     

                                                  All your tax credits/tax breaks are just rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.  Don't you understand that for everyone to have affordable health care you have to remove the profit motive of the insurance companies?

                                                  Or do you love profit more than human life?  That's the basic question.

                                                  Report Abuse
                                                  • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 3:13 pm ET)
                                                       
                                                    Look, you have a difference of opinion on this, and that's fine. But my point is that those of us who are conservatives aren't "evil" for opposing universal health care. You've raised some good points on this thread and I respect your opinion. You should respect mine as well.
                                                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 12:15 pm ET)
                         

                      LMAO!

                      If someone stops buying beer and watching TV, they will magically have the hundreds or thousands of dollars they need to pay for health care insurance premiums every month.

                      It's crazy enough, it just might work. 

                      Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 9:59 am ET)
                     
                  YOU are flat out wrong. The last study I saw said 18,000 people a year in the US DIE from lack of access to health care. An Emergency room has to stabalize you then toss you out on the street. IF you need ongoing care to live, you dont get it and you die. If you NEED a transplant and cant afford it you dont get on the list and you DIE. You are once again repeating the hivemind talking point without knowing what you are talking about.
                  Report Abuse
            • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 9:57 am ET)
                 
              No he only bought into the stupid rightwing TALKING POINT that government always makes things worse. Only the stupidest of the stupid buy that ignorant BS. Healthcare should be a right you have not a commodity you buy like it is in every other industrial country in the world. Conservatives wont support ANYTHING that doesnt include making rich people richer. If it is done ONLY for the good of people and not for PROFIT then its anathema to them. Serving power and privelege is always their first concern.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by RINO Hunter (May 02, 2008 10:08 am ET)
                   
                Doctors offer a service to people. Services aren't a right and aren't free. They take a risk by providing that service and seek a profit for their risk and service. If they didn't receive a profit most doctors wouldn't take a risk and wouldn't provide their services. Doctors and those who provide services to other deserve to make a profit for the hard work that they have put in.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by solon (May 03, 2008 1:06 am ET)
                     

                  Did you think you had a point? Medical care IS a right in every other industrial country in the world. Did you think those doctors worked for FREE? That they couldnt GET people to be doctors in those countries? You were WRONG and ARE wrong. People DIE in this country for lack of access to health care that is a FACT.

                  Report Abuse
          • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 11:35 am ET)
               

            Meant "buy" and "with"

            Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (April 30, 2008 7:31 pm ET)
         
      It would be interesting to take John's medical history as your own and see what kind of deals he would get in todays medical market.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (April 30, 2008 10:40 pm ET)
         
      I can guess reality here when Mccain would be president. old skeletons are stirrin for suddenly paul Wolfowitz made the news last night. I personally don't want four more years of Bush allegiances for it appears nothing was done on healthcare in the last seven years. As a matter of fact, we are heading the other way with gas prices going up cutting into disposable income ( note- under GW Bush's governance ).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 11:40 am ET)
           
        The President has no control over gas prices. You know that as well as I do. The only thing that Bush can do is remove the federal gas tax for a while which I hope he does.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by nerzog (May 01, 2008 11:45 am ET)
             
          "The President has no control over gas prices"

          You mean President Numbnuts lied to us when he said he would just go to his pals in Saudi Arabia and tell them to open the spigot? I'm crestfallen!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 12:10 pm ET)
               
            It just falls into the right-wing line:  Government is always bad, government can never people, government cannot be trusted, etc.... 
            Report Abuse
            • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:18 pm ET)
                 
              Ok, you have me interested now. What exactly can the President do to lower gas prices?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 12:34 pm ET)
                   
                I never asserted that he could.  I just find it pathetic that he repeatedly stands before the American people and whines about his lack of supernatural powers.  We're reaping the effects of his energy, economic and foreign policies right now and all he can do is tell us he's powerless.  His policies and the policies of his predecessors, or lack thereof, have rendered us incapable of dealing with high prices through greater efficiency and alternatives.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 1:52 pm ET)
                     
                  I agree with you on that. Both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration failed in pushing for alternative forms of energy. My point was simply that Bush can't lower the price of gas over night.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by nerzog (May 01, 2008 2:06 pm ET)
                       
                    If we had listened to Jimmy Carter, we might not be in this mess.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:12 pm ET)
                         
                      What did Jimmy Carter do to push alternative forms of energy?
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:23 pm ET)
                           
                        Try the electric car.  And solar power.  But then Reagan came in and we had to occupy ourselves with building space lasers.
                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 10:04 am ET)
                           
                        He did TONS of things all of which Raygun gutted. He gave tax credits for solar water heaters one of my friends bought one and over five years the tax credits paid the entire cost. He gave incentives for savings that hurt OPEC badly. Jimmy was way ahead of his time on this issue.
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:17 pm ET)
                       

                    Yeah, our Fearless Leader has had 7 years to at least START getting the country off fossil fuels.

                    And he's done nothing.  What a collossal failure.  I feel sorry for the next generation that is going to have to clean up this mess.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:47 pm ET)
                         
                      I don't disagree with you on that. Bush hasn't been pushing alternative forms of energy like he should. But again that's something that Clinton failed on as well.
                      Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (May 02, 2008 10:07 am ET)
                   
                He could say that if you want to sell gas in this country you have to run your refineries at say 95% of capacity of have a good reason why you arent. If you fall below that you have 72 hrs to say why and regulatory inspectors will be there to check that out. IF you fail to do this then you will be hit by a windfall profits tax. That is just one thing he COULD do but that wont EVER happen if we keep electing OIL executives to office.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by RINO Hunter (May 02, 2008 10:14 am ET)
                     
                  Did Bill Clinton do that? No he didn't. Gas prices were low in the 90's but it was simply due to supply and demand. When you raise taxes on oil companies they'll simply pass the costs on to the consumers. It's that simple.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (May 03, 2008 1:09 am ET)
                       
                    What was asked was what COULD be done. Why WOULD Clinton do that when as you correctly pointed out gas prices werent that bad. That is NOT a fact. That is your SPIN. By your logic we could never tax bussinesses EVER. Its a dumb rightwing talking point NOT A FACT.
                    Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 11:56 am ET)
             

          The only thing he can do is cut the funding to maintain highways and bridges to protect the windfall profits.

          Cutting the gas tax is a flimsy, short-term gimmick, nothing more.

          "but, but... ANWR!  Supply and demand!  It's the Democrats' fault!" 

          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 12:05 pm ET)
               
            "But... but.... There's no magic wand."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:06 pm ET)
               
            Cutting the gas tax is something that those on both sides support. A Rasmussen poll showed that Democrats and Republicans support it at an equal rate. Even Hillary Clinton supports a temporary break from the federal gas tax. It's not a gimmick at all. It's ridiculous to have such high taxes on gasoline when the price is so high to begin with.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 12:22 pm ET)
                 

              It's ridiculous to have such high prices to begin with.

              It's ridiculous to have auto manufacturers dragging their feet or completely stonewalling efficiency and alternatives.

              It's ridiculous not to have a comprehensive energy policy with the intent of making America self-sustaining.

               

              Report Abuse
              • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 12:25 pm ET)
                   
                I think we should have a comprehensive energy strategy as well. I'm not against going green. But that's a long term strategy that won't change prices until later on down the road. My point was that the President can't lower gas prices RIGHT NOW.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (May 01, 2008 12:33 pm ET)
                     
                  The Democrats proposed a comprehensive energy strategy. That was in the late seventies.

                  The Reagan Revolution ended any attempts to wean America off foreign oil. One of the first things that the bush Administration did was to hold secret energy meetings with the energy industry. We've never found out what went on at the meetings. Under the last seven years of Republican rule gas prices have risen astronomically. And the two top executives of our government are lifelong oilmen.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pete592 (May 01, 2008 12:38 pm ET)
                       

                    One of my favorite quotes.  I refer to it often... 

                    "The crises in Iran and Afghanistan have dramatized a very important lesson: Our excessive dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to our Nation's security. The need has never been more urgent. At long last, we must have a clear, comprehensive energy policy for the United States."  --- Jimmy Carter, 1980 State Of The Union 

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 1:48 pm ET)
                       
                    In my opinion both the Democrats and the Bush administration are wrong on energy. The Democrats are wrong by blocking ANWR, offshore drilling, and building new refineries. The Bush administration is wrong by giving subsidies to oil companies and not pushing alternative forms of energy. I believe that in the short term we should drill for oil, and over the long term we should push for alternative forms of energy. We can do both. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:30 pm ET)
                         

                      blocking ANWR, offshore drilling, and building new refineries

                      Wrong again.  ANWR has enough oil to last us about a few months.  Offshore drilling - who's stopping that (except the rich Republicans in Florida).  Building new refineries - you need to keep up on current events.  Oil execs were asked if they needed new refineries.  They said NO.  The ones operating now are not even at full capacity.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:33 pm ET)
                           
                        Wrong, The reason that no new refineries are being built is because there's so many endless regulations the oil companies have to go through to start builidng them. It's not worth it financially for them to build one because of all the regulations. The problem isn't oil supply; the problem is that we don't have enough refineries to make gasoline. That's a big reason that gas prices are so high.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (May 01, 2008 2:37 pm ET)
                             

                          Did you not read what the oil execs said?  They said they didn't NEED more refineries.  That's a right-wing talking point with NO basis in fact.

                          But then again, you never let the facts get in the way of your "opinions".

                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by RINO Hunter (May 01, 2008 2:51 pm ET)
                               
                            Do you have a link for where they said that? My guess is that if they really don't want to build refineries it's because it costs them money, and with fewer refineries they can drive up the price of gas. But it's obvious to every economist that you talk to that we need more refineries.
                            Report Abuse
    • Author by eniobob2631 (May 01, 2008 9:30 am ET)
         
      Here is a guy who hasen"t paid a doctor bill ever.We (the taxpayers) have been taking care of this guy since he went to the Naval Academy and even now as I type this.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by spooky3 (May 01, 2008 1:23 pm ET)
         

      "Health spending is rising faster than incomes in most developed countries, which raises questions about how these countries will pay for future health care needs.  The issue may be particularly acute in the United States, which not only spends much more per capita on health care than any other country, but which also has had one of the fastest growth rates in health spending among developed countries.  Despite this higher level of spending, the United States does not achieve better outcomes on many important health measures.  This paper uses information from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)1 to compare the level and growth rate of health care spending in the United States with other OECD countries.  In an increasingly competitive international economy, policymakers in the United States will need to be aware of how the health spending and spending growth in the United States compares to that of other nations."

      http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm 

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.