AP reported McCain's "ready response" to Obama on health care, but not that it was false
SUMMARY: The Associated Press' Liz Sidoti reported without challenge several attacks Sen. John McCain recently made against Sen. Barack Obama, including what Sidoti referred to as his "ready response" that a "significant difference between myself and Senator Obama" is that "I am not going to dictate that the government decide what your health care is going to be." In fact, Obama's plan does not allow for government control of health care; rather, it calls for individuals to choose their own insurance.
A May 29 Associated Press article by staff writer Liz Sidoti reported without challenge several attacks Sen. John McCain recently made against Sen. Barack Obama:
- Sidoti wrote: "McCain also had a ready response when pressed about rising health care costs: 'It's another significant difference between myself and Senator Obama. I am not going to dictate that the government decide what your health care is going to be.' " But what Sidoti referred to as McCain's "ready response" was false. In fact, Obama's plan does not allow for government control of health care; rather, it calls for individuals to choose their own insurance. The plan allows individuals to keep their private health insurance if they so choose, while Obama says it also "addresses the large gaps in coverage that leave 47 million Americans uninsured."
A Q&A released by the Obama campaign states that Obama's "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." Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented instances of media outlets uncritically repeating McCain's false assertions that Obama's health care plan is a "big-government takeover of health care" or a "government monopoly."
- Sidoti further reported: " '[Obama] does not have the knowledge or experience to make the judgments' on Iraq and other issues, McCain, a four-term senator, said late Wednesday -- as he does almost daily now." Sidoti also noted that at a May 28 campaign event, McCain "again hammered Obama, who has called for a troop pullout, for last visiting Iraq in 2006," and quoted McCain as saying "This is about leadership and learning. ... We've got to show him the facts on the ground." But in highlighting McCain's attacks on Obama over his "knowledge" of the "facts on the ground" in Iraq, Sidoti failed to mention that McCain has made numerous misstatements during and surrounding the recent trips he has made to Iraq, and during a Senate hearing with Gen. David Petraeus, which have raised questions about McCain's own "knowledge" of the "facts on the ground" in Iraq.
- In addition, Sidoti wrote that "McCain suggested that Obama took a politically expedient position on a veterans bill," without noting that McCain, even while impugning Obama's motives, accused Obama of "impugning" his "motives" with regard to the recently passed GI bill expanding benefits for veterans, which McCain voted against. Indeed, responding to Obama's statement that "I can't believe why he [McCain] believes it is too generous to our veterans," McCain, in a written statement, said: "[I]f Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue, he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent." McCain also stated: "Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."
From the May 29 AP article:
"He does not have the knowledge or experience to make the judgments" on Iraq and other issues, McCain, a four-term senator, said late Wednesday -- as he does almost daily now.
The sweeping claim that Obama is unprepared to lead the country and incapable of making necessary tough decisions reminds voters that the Illinois senator is in the midst of his first term -- and also insinuates that he's too young to be president at age 46.
[...]
During a Memorial Day speech in New Mexico, McCain suggested that Obama took a politically expedient position on a veterans bill. A day later in a nuclear nonproliferation speech in Colorado, McCain slapped at Obama for saying he'd be willing to meet with the leaders of rogue states like North Korea and Iran. He didn't name Obama in either case but the references were clear.
McCain was far more direct Wednesday.
He opened a town-hall style event in Nevada with a lengthy critique of Obama's competency on foreign policy, and questioned his leadership abilities. He again hammered Obama, who has called for a troop pullout, for last visiting Iraq in 2006.
"This is about leadership and learning," McCain said. "We've got to show him the facts on the ground."
[...]
Additionally, McCain raised Obama's chairmanship of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee and said: "He has not held one single hearing on Afghanistan where young Americans are in harm's way as we speak. My friends, this is about leadership."
Taking questions, McCain sprinkled other jabs at Obama in his responses.
"One of the differences between me and Senator Obama is that he wants to continue this spending spree," McCain said, dinging the Democrat for voting in favor of a farm bill that included billions of dollars for special projects.
Asked about education, McCain went off topic and used the opportunity to lecture Obama again on leadership: "Listen and learn. Listen and learn. That's what great commanders do. That's what great leaders do. You listen and you learn."
McCain also had a ready response when pressed about rising health care costs: "It's another significant difference between myself and Senator Obama. I am not going to dictate that the government decide what your health care is going to be."
Zing, Jawill.The health care issue always brings up memeories of the days when a national health care plan was first being discussed. I was in my 20s, working for myself, and uninsured. The Republicans were terrifying other uninsured guys I worked with with this threat; "The government will decide which doctor you get to see!"
Never mind that these guys hadn't seen a doctor in years (for financial reasons),and never mind that most good plans and HMOs had a limited list of doctors you could choose from, I saw these pinheads vote Republican so they wouldn't be forced to see one of a specific list of doctors, as opposed to not being able to see a doctor at all.
People will shoot themselves in the foot if you tell them the government wants to put a trigger lock on their foot-shootin' gun.
Yeah, people never cease to amaze me with how stupid they can be sometimes (I count myself in there also, I have been known to amaze myself in that category). I always go back to my favorite Carlin quote,
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and then think that half of them are dumber than that!"
Facts ? One can only dream what governance would be like when facts and integrity drove our representatives to run for office.
Please show me where the following chain of logic breaks down. It obviously does, but I don't know where:
Here's where I think it breaks down: people who actually care about the future of their companies would be in favor of Democratic policies that strengthen the economy and ensure an educated, healthy workforce. People who only care about their own short-term financial gain by stealing as much as possible and not paying any taxes would be in favor of Republican policies.
So, another way of putting it is that Dems are smart, rational, and forward thinking, and Republicans are stupid, greedy, and short-sighted.
Your post brought to mind for me an issue that's bugged me for decades. There are many policies of the Democratic Party that make solid economic sense in an impersonal, dispassionate way. Among these are a reasonable minimum wage, universal health care, properly funded Social Security, unemployment and worker's compensation programs, good public education, safe environment regulations, safe workplace regulations, welfare programs and many other programs.
All of these help serve to make the US a more stable, prosperous nation. The fact that they are good for people is an laudable side aspect of them. So why don't Democratic candidates sell these programs at least partially on their economic merits? Why do they always refer almost entirely to how the policies help individuals, making them sound like the touchy-feely parody of liberals that the conservatives dish out?
Ok, so it was only slightly related to your post, but it IS something that's bugged me for a long time.
Very relevant, Bill.The Repooplicken national pastime is projection, and one of the pet areas is emotion vs. pragmatism. Cons love to frame social issues as "touchy-feely", when in actuality, they are very rational approaches to establishing what are practical models for society.
But the " serious, unemotional" conservatives are too worried about evildoers and their fears of looking weak, about scary pastors, to even consider that having the government provide some basic foundations for making our country strong, that they'd rather give their taxes to the war con men.
There is no rational reason to be a Republican, only irrational, emotional ones.
this conveys an incorrect meaning, in the context of the entire sentence
( he flew to a Baghdad market for a photo-op )
should read
" and he also flew , in the past, to Baghdad for a photo-op "
the original post implied he was in Baghdad while the GI bill was beinng voted on and that is not true.
Behind only the Clintons, Global Warming, and Evolution there is nothing conservative lie about more than health care. Among the myths that the want you to cling to:
1) CHOICE: They want you to belive that you can choose your doctors and insurance. YOU CAN'T. Your insurance comapny limits your choice of doctors (try going out of network - I did: YOU GET SCREWED!) and your employer chooses your insurance plan.
2) FREE MARKET: A truly free market is an efficient market. If I have to change jobs to get a better insurance plan, then that's not a free or an efficient market. What's more, supply & demand is not really a good way to price out health care. Why? Your demand curve is almost flat. Basically supply & demand work because in most thing you have completing choices (Potato Chips vs Tortilla Cips, Coke vs Pepsi, Roast Beef or Baloney) but with health care your choice is: Health and Long Life or Disease, Disability and Death. WELL WHO'S NOT GOING TO PAY FOR HEALTH/LONG LIFE?! Demand is simply to high to leave it to the free amrket. It MUST be managed differently. Besides: Supply & Demand is what made health care so expencive that we needed insurance in the first place (and why every other ocnuntry on earth has the gov't pay) and it's also why insurance is now so expeneiv that even hug corotation (GM, for example) are now saying that they can't even afford it.
3) GOV'T = BAD: This is my favorite one, and the one that trluly scares me. If the Democrats did ever implimet a systems that worked, you can bet that the first thing the Republicans would do (because these thigns are cyclical, and they'll be in poweragain, let's be realistic here) is underfund the hell out of it (to give tax breaks to the rich) make it into a big mess and then turn around and say "SEE, WE TOLD YOU IT WOULDN'T WORK!" They could give you REAL choice, but then they'd have to pay. And that ain't going to happen with the Pub's in power.
Basically the Republican plan for health care & insurance can be summed up in eight words: I GOT MINE, SCREW THE REST OF YOU.
(And don't even get me started on Prexsisting cxondition, COBRA, Autism (although some progress has finally been made there), mental illness, etc...)
But the biggest myth (and they use this one a lot) is THAT WE CAN'T DO ANY BETTER. It's the republican cop-out for anything & everything. That we shouldn't try, because anytime we try to solve a problem, there might be unitended consequenses. So rather than TRY TO SOLVE anything, and TRY TO MANAGE the unitended stuff, they say we should just give up and accept the continually deteriorating status quo.
I only hope that the next generation of republican's to come to power are more from the Abraham Lincoln / Teddy Roosevelt school and less from the Herbert Hoover / George W. Bush School.
Anyway, I like Jim Hightower's response to that mumbo-jumbo. He points out that those who say we can't need to get out of the way of those who can.
I GOT MINE, SCREW THE REST OF YOU.
The mantra of most conservative posters on this site.
"without smart rules, it's very easy for companies to manipulate consumers with fine print and confusing jargon. If you can't make an informed choice, you're not in control, which means the choice is ultimately not in your hands.
With health care, we do need choices -- a guarantee that everyone has a choice between high-quality, affordable plans, which the Health Care for America plan provides.
Expect to hear more conservative talk hyping the joys of "consumer-driven health care." But conservative proposals leave insurance companies driving the bus, leaving us with nothing but bad choices."
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/when-insurance-companies-control-your-choices