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

















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.
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.
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.
Republicans think government is the problem.
Actually, Republicans are the problem. :-)
" 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?
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.
"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.
I'm pretty sure McCain got free healthcare from the North Vietnamese, too. That lucky b*stard!
Just kidding.
:)
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?
And these are the "values" people?
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?????
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The government always gives out millions and sometimes billions of dollars to help out hurricane victims. You have no point there.
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]
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Meant "buy" and "with"
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!
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
"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