Examiner.com falsely claimed Obama proposing "nationalized health care"
SUMMARY: An Examiner.com article falsely characterized President Obama's health-care reform proposal as a "nationalized health care plan[]." Obama has not proposed a "nationalized health care plan[]" either as a candidate or as president.
In an April 12 Examiner.com article headlined "Obama nationalized health care plans debated," Watchdog Politics Examiner Martha R. Gore falsely characterized President Obama's health-care reform proposal as a "nationalized health care plan[]." As Media Matters for America has documented, Obama has not proposed a "nationalized health care plan[]" either as a candidate or as president.
In addition, Gore wrote: "According to the Christian Science Monitor (04/08/2009) interest groups on the right and the left have already opened the battle lines with each side trying to shape the public's perception of how nationized [sic] medicine will effect [sic] individual Americans." But the April 8 Christian Science Monitor article that Gore referred to at no point used the term "nationalized health care" or any similar term. Indeed, when comparing Gore's language to a similar paragraph from the Monitor's article, the phrase "nationized [sic] medicine" is noticeably absent. The Monitor wrote: "But interest groups on the right and left have already begun a fierce ideological battle, with each side trying to shape the public's perception of a public insurance plan" [emphasis added].
As Media Matters has documented, media figures and outlets have also advanced the false characterizations of Obama's health-care reform proposal as "government-run health care" or "socialized medicine."
From The Christian Science Monitor's April 8 article "Healthcare battle brewing: political groups gear up":
The Obama administration hopes to give all Americans the option of buying into a public, Medicare-style health insurance plan. That is now shaping up to be the biggest flash point in the emerging debate about healthcare reform.
Advocates of a Medicare-style plan say it would give consumers a lower-cost alternative to private insurance, forcing those private insurers to become more responsive to consumer needs. Opponents counter that it would undermine the private health insurance market by prompting millions of businesses to switch to the cheaper, public alternative. In the long term, they argue, that would undermine consumer choice in healthcare.
Lawmakers and their staffs are currently hammering out the details of reform legislation that is expected to go to the floor in June. But interest groups on the right and left have already begun a fierce ideological battle, with each side trying to shape the public's perception of a public insurance plan.
From the April 12 Examiner.com article "Obama nationalized health care plans debated":
Americans are becoming uneasy about the Obama and Democrats nationalized health care plans which is causing a debate among politicians as to whether the timing is wrong as the 2010 election approaches.
According to the Christian Science Monitor (04/08/2009) interest groups on the right and the left have already opened the battle lines with each side trying to shape the public's perception of how nationized medicine will effect individual Americans.
[...]
Most likely, Democrats in Congress will prevail upon Obama to delay any action on the nationalized healthcare plans until after the 2010 election. If not, it could become an issue in the political battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate if Republicans can convince Americans that it is the beginning of socialized medicine.
They'd better hold off until after the 2010 elections. I'll be damned if I'll let anyone ram affordable health care down my throat.
"Obama has not proposed a 'nationalized health care plan' either as a candidate or as a president."
Too damned bad, too. It's only what we need, and will have, eventually, when enough people find the guts to get behind it and push it through.
jjam,
Who pays for it? Do you have the guts to pay for it yourself? Or do you want others to do it? How much do you think it would cost each of us?
Do you realize the freedom's we'd be giving up. Government would then mandate all sorts of restrictions on lifestyles and start making decisions about who gets expensive treatments and who doesn't. You can see this trend starting now.
Wouldn't it suck if you had a life-threatening illness and could afford to pay for the treatment, but some bureaucrat, in his infinite wisdom, says you don't qualify for the treatment, therefore you cannot get it no matter how much you'd be willing to pay. Welcome to socialism.
Some bureaucrat or some penny pincher in a made-for-profit business whose income and bonuses depend on "saving" money, damn the patients, for these Corporate giants.
What, you want people who might be potentially SICK someday to get health insurance? The next thing you know, you'll want insurance for people with pre-existing conditions!
You evil Marxist, you. I bet you have a big painting of Stalin in your living room.
Don't you know that Insurance, like Tax Cuts, is only for the rich and healthy? How else do you expect the Insurance Companies to turn a healthy profit?
BTW, Have you kissed the butt of a small businessman today? They keep this country free, you know.
Your "welcome to Socialism" fails miserably as snark, since I would welcome Socialism.
With Socialized Medicine, millions of people would give up the fear of getting sick and knowing they can't afford to see a doctor except in overpriced emergency rooms (like they do now- do I enjoy paying for inflated care in emergency rooms? No, I don't. When we have Socialized Medicine, I won't have to.)
"Wouldn't it suck if you had a life-threatening illness blah blah blah Sean Hannity Mark Levin Glenn Beck Talking Point inserted here Europe has Socialized Medicine they hate it that's why they keep electing representatives who expand it blah blah blah..." Please give it a rest, you have nothing. Every other Western Democracy has Universal Health Care already, and it's enormously popular EVERYWHERE.
Thank Goodness that morons like you are sliding into the ashbin of history. The age of I've Got Mine, You Kiss Off and Die is coming to an end. It won't be missed.
Bravo!
As is the case in "socialist" Europe, I am sure that those who can afford to pay more for private supplemental insurance, will still be able to land their own suite at the Cedars Sinai patient ward and those who can afford it, will still be able to see the Head of the Department of Otolaryngology for an ear ache. But those of us in the U.S. who can't obtain private health insurance, will at least be able to get treatment for MS or cancer thanks to subsidized health care, instead of depending on private donations, or resigning themsleves to getting no treatment at all. We here in the U.S. can only dream of such "socialistic" health care, because what we have is more or less "feudal" health care.
I've lived in Europe and used the healthcare system there. It wasn't anything like what the right wing would have you believe. Wealthy people still went to private physicians and hospitals. People who couldn't afford that went to the government doctors. The system woked well, nobody was left out or bankrupted by health problems. there was still choice. All this talk about no choice is just right wing bull.
Of course, nobody should pay attention to anything like what you say because you refer to actual FACTS, and everybody knows that facts have a liberal bias.
Do you even GET that Health Care in the US is ALREADY rationed- to the ever-thinning population of people who can afford the rapidly-inflating cost? "Wouldnt it suck if you had an entirely treatable disease but you couldn't get it taken care of because you DONT HAVE ANY MONEY?"
But that doesn't ever seem to matter to people like you- it's all about Keeping What You've Got. You were born a hundred years too late- you would have loved the Gilded Age, when not just health care but also Education and clean food and water ("You want to give that to EVERYBODY? Who's gonna pay for it? YOU?") was the private reserve of the upper class.
So yeah- I'll help pay for it. And so will you. That's why it's called a Society. I know you hate that, because it's less gold in your pocket. Tough roll- there's the door if you can't deal with it, you won't be missed.
It's less gold in his pocket today, he just doesn't realize it. To what do I refer to? Uncompenstated care. In America, we don't turn away those who need emergency care, regardless of ability to pay. When this care goes partially or completely unpaid for, costs go up. When costs go up, the cost of insurance goes up. The healthcare and healthcare insurance industries are already passing on costs of uncompensated care to those of us left who are lucky enough to have insurance. Yet a socialized way of paying for our health care is supposed to be worse than this?
The private sector will still be there if you don't want the government to be your insurer.
Where has this happened?
Private insurers do that all the time and they get big bonuses because of it.
Did it ever cross your mind that no one would be clamoring for a public option if the private sector was doing their job?
I'd feel sorry about all this pwnage if it wasn't anotheramerican. But since it is, I'll be delighted to pile on:
"Anotheramerican in a Nut's Hell:"
You fool, jjamele2880. Don't you realize that if health care were nationalized, we would have to pay for health care with our taxes, instead of getting it for free from the benevolent huge insurance companies like we do now?
Further, don't you understand that in some magical way that is not at all a nonsequitur, letting the government pay for your health care would lead to the rise of the dreaded nanny state?
And finally, if we turn to the government to pay for health care, they might decide you don't get to have your health care paid for (unlike the for-profit corporations who insure all -- well, okay, some -- Americans now, and who ALWAYS pay for every necessary procedure, regardless of profit motive not to).
I'm willing to bet that the money that most of us pay for our healthcare now (as in, I pay for a portion of my company provided health care and I'm sure this is a majority thing) would be about the same amount of money we'd pay in taxes for a nationalized/socialized health care system. Which in turn, would relieve the burden of paying for most of the nation's healthcare from corporations and companies large and small, which, if we are to believe the things that they tell us, is one of the highest operating costs that they currently have. As in, if they didn't have to pay for health care for their employees, the bottom line would be a lot better.
This is why I don't know why companies from all over the US of A aren't CLAMORING for a national healthcare system. All of these legacy costs that we keep hearing about from the Big 3 for instance, poof! Would be gone. Their retirees would be covered by the national system. Also, a smaller tax could be attached to companies, so that they would still have to pay an amount into the national healthcare system, but I'm pretty sure that this number would be lower than what they're paying now for private coverage.
Also, the free market will still be there for people like AA who seem to think he doesn't pay for his healthcare now (NO! No national healthcare, it will up my taxes!! Are you getting it for free now chief? Not likely). And he'd be more than welcome to pay for a policy for himself, and or his family. Nobody is going to stop you from doing that.
And all of this BS about the government telling doctors what to do. Insurance carriers ALREADY do this here in the US. How many stories have we all heard about how an HMO, or an insurance carrier has to be consulted before a doc can run a certain test, or get an MRI, or a CAT scan of a patient? I used to date an ER nurse, and I can tell you, this happens ALL OF THE TIME. All of these horror stories we allegedly hear about European systems that "don't work", are all BS. In my life, I've worked for several foreign companies, all based in the US, and this is a topic of discussion that I bring up with my overseas colleagues, and not a single one of them over my 13 years at work have had bad things to say about their healthcare systems. Not ONE bad thing. This includes England, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Germany.
That is a good point mag. It puts our corporations at a competitive disadvantage to have to pay healthcare costs that are nationalized in pretty much all other industrial nations
Thanks magnolialover. Although these were precisely my points, I suppose any wingnuts reading these comments would probably have to have it all spelled out.
For instance, aa didn't respond to my post although he flailed around a bit more below. He probably thought I agreed with him. Sad, innit?
People like AA who "see the rise of a Nanny State" probably see a lot of black helicopters, Freemasons, UFOs and UN symbols on our money, too. That WE can't see any of these things just means that we are blind sheep, and boy won't we be sorry when the trap is sprung!
The current US health care system is a joke. Insurance companies make more money by denying coverage. In other words, they have a motive to NOT DO the very function for which they're supposed to exist.
Who will pay for it? Single payer nationalized health care would cost LESS than the current system, since there'd be no redundancy and administrative requirements would be reduced. In addition, single payer would cost less because more people would be able to afford cheaper preventive medicine that they currently forego, meaning a reduced need for more expensive procedures later. In addition to THAT, national health insurance means a cost savings and increased productvity and a better ability to compete against foreign companies because employers wouldn't have to provide coverage or manage coverage for their employees
You know what every industrialized country in the world except the United States has in common? They have national health insurance. You know what else they have in common? Not one country that ever adopted national health insurance has ever gotten rid of it. Case closed.
Here is something that the latest company that I worked for did. In-house (on site), they had a nurse practitioner that would come in every day of the week for an open clinic. If you were feeling bad, you could make an appointment, and have whatever it was you had checked out. For free. The company would cover all on site visits to the NP. Not only did this save money for the company (the way I understood it, the company paid the salary of the NP, which was cheaper than paying out insurance money for regular doc visits). And also, this would increase efficiency on our production floor, because, people didn't have to leave work for hours to go to the doc. They could go in, have things checked out, and be back at work in 15-20 minutes.
Oh, and your family members (whether they were covered on your insurance or not), could come in and have the same treatment and visit.
It was a good system, and works well.
Who did you work for, Commies R Us?
jjam,
Who pays for it? Do you have the guts to pay for it yourself? Or do you want others to do it? How much do you think it would cost each of us?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We all pay for it. I dont know how much it will cost and neither do you but I DO know that we pay MORE per capita AND more as a percentage of our GDP than ANY other country in the world and yet we are ranked 37th in the world in the quality of our healthcare so I dont see why it would cost MORE. I mean we would take the parasitic insurance industry with an overhead of around 30% out of the picture
Do you realize the freedom's we'd be giving up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is no reason we would give up ANY freedom. Right NOW for profit insurance companies make our medical decisions. That is simply scare tactics of rightwing propaganda
Government would then mandate all sorts of restrictions on lifestyles and start making decisions about who gets expensive treatments and who doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Exactly WHAT is your evidence this is true or anything but the rantings common on rightwing hate radio? Does England do that? Canada? Your baseless assertion cannot be supported.
You can see this trend starting now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No I cant and neither can you. That is another thing you want to make true by SAYING it
Wouldn't it suck if you had a life-threatening illness and could afford to pay for the treatment, but some bureaucrat, in his infinite wisdom, says you don't qualify for the treatment, therefore you cannot get it no matter how much you'd be willing to pay.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesnt it already suck when you need lifesaving treatment say a kidney transplant and you cant even get on the LIST because you cant pay for it? 18,000 people a year DIE in the US from lack of access to healtcare NOW. Besides which what is your EVIDENCE that a nationalized healthcare system condemns people to death just because? The way you phrased that you dont seem to CARE if they die if they CANT pay it would only be tragic if they died no matter that they COULD pay. That would be some really screwed up priorities.
Welcome to socialism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah we already have socilized the Police, military, judicial system, so what? Some things should NOT have a profit motive. Healthcare should be a right you have not a commodity you buy.
The cost of nationalized health care will be less than it is now, moron. You are ALREADY subsidising the unisured, through higher premiums. Just follow the money. Hospitals are REQUIRED BY LAW to treat whomever comes in. Who do YOU think pays when that patient doesn't? What's more, the uninsured typically wait until they're on death's door before going to the emergency room, costing 10's of 1000's of $, sometime $100's of 1000's, when a simple anti-biotic (or other inexpensive treatment) could have dealt with the problem early on, much more effectively and much cheaper. WHAT'S MORE, companies such as GM (and others) pay HUGE health care cost, that are nealry BANKRUPTING them. If it were paid for by taxes (all of our taxes, now) then companies having tough years would get a break that they don't get now (since they would effecive not have health care costs, since they don't pay taxes when they're in the red) and corporations that are BOOMING will pick up the slack. (And a few years later, when the tables are turned, THOSE companies will get a break.) Nationalized healh care WOKRS. There's not one country that has it that trying to get rid of it. NOT ONE. Our system is ineffective and inefficient and expensive mainly beacuse WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A SYSTEM. We just have RESOURCES, that are not being managed. Any problems that DO exsist with national healthcare can also be far more easily addres (via the democratic process) that the problmes that exsist in our current system (which is controlled by nigh omnipotent insurance companies, largely protected for even market forces.) The is NO DEFENSE for our current system, and NO LEGITIMATE CRITICISM of natinal health care. Just a lot of fearmongering and BS.
One thing's for sure: I wouldn;'t want the REPUBLICANS to manage my health care. (The party that handled HUrricane Katrina?) IMHO THAT'S why you guiys hate teh idea so much. No one in there right mind would trust YOUR PARTY with it!
How much money is now spent on premiums by both indiviuals and large compaines today compared to what it would cost for public health insurance? Does anyone know where to find info like this?
Hell if a CEO of a Health Company can make hundreds of millions, well, that speaks for itself. Probably cost someone cancer treatment somewhere along the line.
And last week the Right was complaining about America being a Christian nation. I guess that form of Christianity depends on the amount of money it may cost you.
That type of "reporting" is the result of hiring "watchdog reporters" for $10 a story, or, if 1000 people click on your story, may be $50?
Welcome to the new world of journalism...
Remember: This is the "newspaper" that ran the anti-Obama editorial quoted by Sheer Insannity. Of course, he said it was published in the San Francisco Chronicle...
examiner.com is just one of those new "news" websites that want content for free.
Attention all! We need to do something about this:
Astroturf campaign uses fake letters from senior citizens to push for Medicare Advantage.
This is a democratically funded group who sent fake letters to try and persuade Obama to rethink cancelling their costly plan. Here's their contact info, if I get a list of sponsors I'll post that as well.
They don't seem to be accepting email right now. Democratic folks really do not need to be doing this type of thing. I don't think this is going under the radar.
Thanx Snop.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11934
Tea Parties, all staged events from the get go backed by large scale conservative backers.
and it appears the participants are protesting tax cuts designed for 95% of the population. That means they want to protect the Bush tax cuts for the well to do. Doesn't make sense. I expect to see pin stripe suit wearing flown in CEO's protesting Obama tax plan,, not what appears to be blue color workers.
>>Who pays for it? Do you have the guts to pay for it yourself? Or do you want others to do it? How much do you think it would cost each of us?>>
Does anyone care to realize, that WE ALREADY HAVE GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE!
Those 'beurocrats' who make the laws, many of which cry "Socialism" on TV to you......are already enjoying along with their comfortable families the best medical coverage, dental, retirement, and socialistic benefits that money can buy....and its all funded by *your tax dollars*.
So you are already paying now for government funded healthcare. You just aren't getting any!
A couple statements that I truly believe:
1) Healthcare in America, should not, and never should be...for profit. It is completely immoral, unChristian, unethical-----and not ot mention, downright greedy----- to make caring for cancer patients, diseased, elderly and people with medical conditions over which they have no control, a business and a profiteering venture for moneymakers. That is why healthcare in America cost 10x as much as anywhere else in the the Western World, and isn't even as effective- check around, check the web, do some research, PLEASE.
In the 2000s we have among the sickest, weakest, un-cared for population in the 1st World today. Our population (at least, the non-rich majority) are even sicker and weaker than those in Communist China.
2) Any 'universal healthcare' program that is not in fact, universal healthcare, that being, like what our politicians enjoy.....all the healthy people chip in together and we care for our relatively few percentage-wise weak and sick (like all societies with a conscience, SHOULD), will not work!!
This includes hybrids where profiteering insurance companies get subsidies from our tax money, while everyone is forced to buy their insurance policies.
That is not a healthcare program, that is an Insurance Company Welfare Program.
I fear that the promises Obama made concerning healthcare will fall prey to big business and corporate greed, just as his promises about outsourcing U.S. jobs and unfair trade policies.
COMPROMISED AWAY.
God help us! Because I am thinking more and more, I don't believe our government will.
AA: How much of our tax dollars currently goes to Medicaid to pay for unnecessary ER visits for running noses and minor acuity cases? I'd gladly trade that tax cost to ensure every American has the ability to get preventive health care checks, immunizations and free up the costly backlog of our ERs. But, then again, that just might make too much sense for the those that think health care is for the privileged few.
Demin,
How about having to pay a governement fine if some bureaucrat thinks you weigh too much? Does that sound reasonable? It's already happening in Japan. How about an extra tax on softdrinks containing sugar? How about extra taxes on cheeseburgers someone has deemed unhealthy? That is being proposed in NY by the Governor. Where does it end? Can't you just see it, "The weight police"!
We're seeing an erosion of personal rights and the rise of the nanny state. I don't know about you, but I don't want the government intruding on my life to that degree.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0107/p09s01-coop.html
ps. If you think the government is going to bring down health costs and improve it by taking it over, I believe you are naieve. Anyone remember Hillary's Health Care plan? What a joke.
First the fact they do something in Japan is no evidence it will happen here. We are two very different cultures. THIS is silly
If you think the government is going to bring down health costs and improve it by taking it over, I believe you are naieve. Anyone remember Hillary's Health Care plan? What a joke.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why NOT? The countries that DO have a national healthcare system which is the rest of the industrial world pay LESS per capita AND as a percentage of their GDP so there is good reason to say it would cost less. Sure I remeber Hillaries healtcare. The one that was demogogued and killed in the cradle by vast money spent on scare tactics by corporations. The one we will never know how it WOULD have worked. Kind of like what you are trying to do now. The joke as usual is one you
zzzzzzzz... you come back several hours later, and THIS is all you have? "Nanny State?" Cheeseburger taxes?
Good lord, what a buffoon. You should have quit while you were behind. I think most of us just assumed you did, which is why you vanished yesterday instead of staying here and taking your beatdown like a man.
Brutal, jj. But well deserved.
AA,
"How about having to pay a governement fine if some bureaucrat thinks you weigh too much? Does that sound reasonable? It's already happening in Japan. How about an extra tax on softdrinks containing sugar? How about extra taxes on cheeseburgers someone has deemed unhealthy? That is being proposed in NY by the Governor. Where does it end? Can't you just see it, "The weight police"!"
Allow me to respond to the red-herrings you threw out above. First, doesn't the government run Medicare today? I don't believe that Medicare has weight standards, so what makes you believe a nationalized system would? The same goes for your fast-food examples; they're illegitimate fear-mongering.
So, you'd rather pay more now than you realize for the uninsured to clog up our ERs while patients with true emergencies may lose out on valuable time while the doc is dealing with some kids runny nose.
"We're seeing an erosion of personal rights and the rise of the nanny state. I don't know about you, but I don't want the government intruding on my life to that degree."
The only erosion of personal rights I saw was from the Bush admin with illegal wire-tapping, the Patriot Act, locking up folks without any charges being brought against them, etc......
Please point out to me where any other Westernized nation with nationalized healthcare has lost personal rights under that system. If you want to keep your private insurance I'm sure you'll be able to. Since when did healthcare become a privilege of the few versus a common right for all?
"ps. If you think the government is going to bring down health costs and improve it by taking it over, I believe you are naieve. Anyone remember Hillary's Health Care plan? What a joke."
What is the Admin costs of Medicare; 1% or 2%? Tell me any other healtcare plan in this country that can compete with that.
In conclusion, if a society (country) is judged by how it takes care of its least fortunate, then currently, we are in a sorry state. Furthermore, I chuckle at how the Christian-right wrap themselves around how moral they are, yet are against this proposal. This has the rotten smell of hypocrisy.
Demin, AA doesn't give a crap about taking care of society's less fortunate. It's clear he sees them as leeches that are robbing him of his hard-earned money, and the faster they expire, the better off his bottom line will be.
"Demin, AA doesn't give a crap about taking care of society's less fortunate. It's clear he sees them as leeches that are robbing him of his hard-earned money, and the faster they expire, the better off his bottom line will be."
What a sad way to live ones life. Guess what AA, when you die you don't get to take your $$ or toys with you.
BTW, nobody "remembers Hillary's Health Care plan," because it was killed by the Republicans when the problem was half as large as it is now.
The sacred Free Market has had it's shot to provide health care- when fifty million citizens are essentially locked out of a system because of it's cost, that system DOESN'T WORK. So please, stick to your honest though morally bankrupt argument that health care isn't a right, it's a privilege meant for an increasingly smaller number of people. I'd think you'd rather come off as a coldblooded idiot than as a coldblooded idiot who is also a liar.
I write a progressive column for Examiner.com and I am embarrassed by the article I just read on "nationalized health care."
Please note that not everyone who writes for Examiner.com is as poor a writer as the author of the article talked about here.
guess betsy mccaughey getting her rear handed to her was enough for neo cons to give this job to someone else
Hooray for free health care!! Free at last!! No waiting, like in the license bureau, post office, or any other government run entity. The rich succas can pay for it too. We need a new crop of college grads to get jobs, and get rich so they can start covering the cost with their tax dollars. No more laying around the dorm eatin pizza and doin rails. One problem though. If bureaucrats are going to instruct doctors what medical procedures they think should be performed and how much they can charge, what kind of doc do ya think will be scuttling toward you with his or her scalpel? Well, ya know, it is free . Some of us will make it and some of us won't. It's a numbers game, and did I mention it's free?
If bureaucrats are going to instruct doctors what medical procedures they think should be performed and how much they can charge
You seem like a hit 'n runner, but anyway:
That. Will. Never. Happen. And in case you missed it, your health care is already being restricted by insurance companies all in the name of PROFIT.