Following network's lead, CNN.com uncritically aired McCain's false attack on Obama's health care plan
SUMMARY: CNN.com's Political Ticker blog uncritically repeated the false claim by Sen. John McCain that Sen. Barack Obama favors "hav[ing] the government take over the health care system in America." In fact, Obama has called for individuals to choose their own insurance and has not proposed that the "government take over the health care system in America." CNN has repeatedly uncritically aired -- or repeated -- similar attacks by McCain.
In a July 17 post on CNN.com's Political Ticker blog, producer Peter Hamby uncritically repeated the false claim by Sen. John McCain that Sen. Barack Obama favors "hav[ing] the government take over the health care system in America." Hamby wrote: "McCain's strongest denunciation of Obama came when discussing the Democrat's health care plan, which would cost $50-65 billion per year but would not mandate insurance coverage for all adults, only children. 'My friends, we've seen this movie before,' McCain said. 'It was called 'HillaryCare' back in 1993, and we're not going to do it again. We're not going to have the government take over the health care system in America.' " In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted when CNN uncritically aired -- or repeated -- similar attacks by McCain, Obama has not proposed that the "government take over the health care system in America"; Obama has called for individuals to choose their own insurance.
The New York Times reported in a May 3 article that McCain has repeatedly "inaccurately described the Democrats' health care proposals, using language that evokes the specter of socialized medicine" and quoted McCain claiming that Obama favors a "government massive intervention and takeover of health care in America." The Times wrote that McCain's "suggestion is incorrect" and that Obama "would maintain the existing private insurance system, providing government subsidies or tax credits to help the low-income uninsured afford premiums. And they would give consumers a new option to buy insurance from the federal government, with policies along the lines of Medicare."
In contrast with CNN.com, Wall Street Journal reporter Laura Meckler challenged McCain's false attack on Obama's health care plan in a July 17 post on the newspaper's Washington Wire blog, writing of Obama's plan that that "most outside observers agree it is far from a government takeover of the health care system."
From CNN.com's July 17 Political Ticker post:
McCain's strongest denunciation of Obama came when discussing the Democrat's health care plan, which would cost $50-65 billion per year but would not mandate insurance coverage for all adults, only children.
"My friends, we've seen this movie before," McCain said. "It was called 'HillaryCare' back in 1993, and we're not going to do it again. We're not going to have the government take over the health care system in America."
At a later moment in the town hall, when stressing his own bipartisan record, McCain accused Obama of generally having "the most extreme record of any member of the United States Senate."
From Obama's own site "My plan begins by covering every American". This does come off rather bold and sounds like he wants the government to take over. It also discloses “If you already have health insurance, the only thing that will change for you under this plan is the amount of money you will spend on premiums. That will be less”.
Very presumptuous to assume from day one everyone will have cheaper out of pocket healthcare costs. The proof is in the results not the presented plans…we shall all see.
Versus the Repo plan to change nothing and ensure that the insurance companies (lobbyists) dictate how health care is provided in this country? I think I'd rather take a chance with Obama's plan.
First, how is it even morally conceivable that market forces should dictate whether somebody can afford health insurance that may determine whether they receive life-saving treatment or not. There is something inherently wrong with that. Next, do the Repos even realize they are already paying taxes to support Medicaid? And, that the cost of that is probably much greater than universal healthcare would cost? The administrative costs for Medicare are as inexpensive as you can get; I believe it's around 1%.
Preventative healthcare saves everybody in the long run. It'll save employers because the employees would actually get regular check-ups versus getting care after the fact when the issue has already escalated meaning more time away from the job. Productivity increases, the employer makes more revenue and the economy benefits as a whole. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of the Repo strawman talking points.
“Versus the Repo plan to change nothing and ensure that the insurance companies (lobbyists) dictate how health care is provided in this country? I think I'd rather take a chance with Obama's plan. “
That is your choice as an American.
“First, how is it even morally conceivable that market forces should dictate whether somebody can afford health insurance that may determine whether they receive life-saving treatment or not. There is something inherently wrong with that. Next, do the Repos even realize they are already paying taxes to support Medicaid? And, that the cost of that is probably much greater than universal healthcare would cost? The administrative costs for Medicare are as inexpensive as you can get; I believe it's around 1%. “
Like it or not medical care is not solely based on “Morality”. You stipulate your distaste for an insurance company determining whether life saving treatment is given or not. Are you then saying you trust the government to do this instead? And yes, all Repos are to rich to look at their pay stubs and none of them know what they pay in taxes….shhh don’t tell them.
“Preventative healthcare saves everybody in the long run. It'll save employers because the employees would actually get regular check-ups versus getting care after the fact when the issue has already escalated meaning more time away from the job. Productivity increases, the employer makes more revenue and the economy benefits as a whole. But, let's not let the facts get in the way of the Repo strawman talking points.”
I agree preventative care is important. Which taking points are we disputing today?
Mike:
"That is your choice as an American."
That's why I'm for removing the insurance industry as "the decider" in who gets care and who doesn't.
"Like it or not medical care is not solely based on “Morality”. You stipulate your distaste for an insurance company determining whether life saving treatment is given or not. Are you then saying you trust the government to do this instead? And yes, all Repos are to rich to look at their pay stubs and none of them know what they pay in taxes….shhh don’t tell them."
I've never heard any of parents or grandparents that are on Medicare tell me that they've ever been prevented from receiving coverage or the care they need for a variety of ailments. And, last I can tell, the government runs Medicare. So, to answer your question, yes I trust the government to issue universal healthcare to those who choose to take it and run it efficiently. Those who don't wish to have it can always opt for private insurance. Why not let the doctor decide what is necessary treatment or not versus some nebulus insurance company with no real knowledge of the patients condition?
Your pay-stub doesn't tell you what portion of your taxes goes towards Medicaid coverage. But, I can guarantee our tax liability would be much less for universal coverage for all then "after the fact" coverage for Medicaid where the pre-dominance of visits is usually a trip to the Emergency Room, which is far more costly than a preventive check-up at a local clinic.
"I agree preventative care is important. Which taking points are we disputing today?"
The talking point I'm disputing is the Repo claim that Universal Healthcare is far too expensive and that their taxes shouldn't go towards covering everybody. My dispute is you already are covering everybody that's on Medicaid and that it would actually be less expensive with Universal Healthcare. But, don't let the facts get in the way of any of that.
I guess you need to look at your pay stub.
Mine does show what I pay to OASDI...that is where all this comes from. Which by the way is more than my current medical insurance coverage and pension plan.
So how is his plan any cheapier?
From Obama's own site "My plan begins by covering every American". This does come off rather bold and sounds like he wants the government to take over. - mikerhyner8202
It doesn't sound that way to anyone with basic comprehension of the English language.
Bill... Here we have a Senator (Govt employee – Leg branch), vying for the job of President (Govt employee – Exec branch) stating his “PLAN BEGINS BY COVERING EVERY AMERICAN”.
Plan…scheme, proposal, perspective.
Begins…to take the first step, come into being.
Covering…to protect, something that covers.
Every…being all possible, constituting each and all.
American…people of this country.
Using basic comprehension, this statement dictates his thoughts on how he wants healthcare done in this country; A “government” plan, that takes the first step to cover all people. This, as previously stated is rather bold and sounds like he wants the government to take over.
The idea that Obama would have "government take over the health care system in America" clearly indicates that government would "take over" and run the whole "system." Obama's plan also clearly does not have the government take over and run the entire health care system, it simply makes sure all Americans are covered. That is done without taking over the health care system as a whole. Ergo, you and McCain are either mistaken or lying.
I can see where your reading comprehension problems come in. Taking individual words and cherry picking from a variety of possible meanings to string together a message that fits your desired conclusion is a poor method of divining the actual intended meaning of the speaker. It can also be used by someone who's trying to be dishonest.