Media infected with conservatives' "socialized medicine" myth
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: In recent days, numerous media figures have falsely characterized President Obama's health care proposal as "socialized medicine," a "single-payer" health care system, a "single-payer government-run system," or "nationalized health care" like the British or Canadian models.
In recent days, numerous media figures have claimed or suggested that President Obama has proposed -- or that his health care plan will lead to -- "socialized medicine," a "single-payer" system, a "single-payer government-run system," or "nationalized health care" like the British or Canadian models. However, Obama has not proposed a single-payer or a nationalized health care system and has explicitly rejected the idea that the United States should adopt the British or Canadian models of providing health care. As PolitiFact.com noted in a March 4 post, "Obama's plan leaves in place the private health care system, but seeks to expand it to the uninsured" and "the plan is very different from some European-style health systems where the government owns health clinics and employs doctors."
Moreover, during a March 26 online town hall discussion, Obama said he did not support enacting a "single-payer system" for health care like those in England and Canada. When asked, "Why can we not have a universal health care system, like many European countries, where people are treated based on needs rather than financial resources," Obama replied, "I actually want a universal health care system; that is our goal." But he said a "universal health care system" does not have to be a "single-payer system" like England or Canada has, and rejected getting rid of the current employer-provided private health insurance system: "I don't think the best way to fix our health care system is to suddenly completely scrap what everybody is accustomed to and the vast majority of people already have. Rather, what I think we should do is to build on the system that we have and fill some of these gaps."
These false characterizations of Obama's health care plan echo debunked claims that conservatives made -- and the media repeatedly echoed -- during the 2008 presidential campaign. In fact, as The New York Times reported in a May 3, 2008, article, "Senator John McCain has been repeatedly suggesting that his Democratic rivals [Obama and then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton] are proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain" but "[t]he suggestion is incorrect." As Media Matters for America has documented, as far back as the 1930s, conservatives have attempted to smear progressive national health care reform proposals by calling them "socialized medicine" or a step toward that inevitable result.
There are numerous examples in the last week alone of media repeating or failing to challenge the characterization of Obama's health care proposal as socialized medicine:
- In his April 30 Wall Street Journal column, Fox News contributor Karl Rove wrote that, in 2008, the Obama campaign "ran ads attacking 'government-run health care' as 'extreme.' Now Mr. Obama is asking, as he did at a townhall meeting last month, 'Why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?' "
- On the April 29 edition of his Fox News program, Glenn Beck said, "Are we on the road to universal health care? If so, what dangers could we face as other countries with universal health care, like Canada, are facing now?" Beck then said he didn't want the Canadian health care system, and that "I kind of like ours," and asked president and chief executive officer of the Pacific Research Institute Sally Pipes to "[t]ell [him] about Canada's health system." Pipes then said, "Where are we going to go as patients and where are the best doctors in the world going to go if Obama's health care plan comes through? We have universal coverage; we don't have universal access. We will have Medicare for all, single-payer government-run system. It's not the American way, and it has to be slowed down."
- On the April 29 edition of Fox News' Special Report, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer asserted that Obama is pushing "a radical domestic agenda which involves, as he puts it every time, a holy trinity of health care reform, by which he means nationalizing health care. ... And this is all in the service of leveling the differences between rich and poor and leveling the differences between classes."
- During the April 29 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto asked Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) about what Republicans might do before the 2010 midterm elections to halt Democratic initiatives. In response, DeMint asserted: " A lot of Democrats are not going to get a lot of support back home for socialized medicine. So I think if people stand up and speak out, we have a chance of stopping a lot of this nonsense that they're talking about now, and maybe it will give us a shot in 2010 to reorganize this Congress and to put back some checks and balances for President Obama." Cavuto did not challenge DeMint's suggestion that Obama has proposed "socialized medicine."
- In an April 29 post to The Fox Forum, FoxNews.com financial columnist Liz Peek wrote: "Team Obama wants to set up government-managed health insurance programs which will, in theory, compete with private insurers. The likelihood is that the public programs will ultimately drive the private players out of the business, as has been the case in student lending, leading to rising costs and ultimately to rationing of health care spending. Many people fear that it is but a short hop from nationalized health insurance to nationalized health care -- a truly horrifying prospect for anyone who has studied the disaster of English socialized medicine. Do you want bureaucrats deciding whether you should get that MRI? Would you like to wait six months for a breast exam? If you think HMOs are a pain, think airport security screeners, or motor vehicle clerks. That should make you take your vitamins!"
- On the April 28 edition of Fox News Radio's Brian & The Judge, co-host Andrew Napolitano suggested that "what may be coming" under Obama's proposed health care plan is similar to the systems used in Canada and the United Kingdom: "You want a situation like we have in Canada, where you have to wait 16 months to have nonelective surgery? Do you want a situation like they have in Great Britain, where only the rich can go to private clinics and everybody else from the upper-middle class -- from the upper-middle class on down has bad teeth and poor health and has to get the permission of a bureaucrat before they can see a doctor? That is what may be coming without a meaningful debate, without a meaningful alternative, without input from you." He later added, "Do you think that it's a coincidence that the government would be enacting this takeover of health care in the same week that we have fears of an epidemic and a pandemic about swine flu? Remember how fear -- remember how the government uses fear to get people to give up their freedom."
- On the April 27 edition of Special Report, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron falsely suggested that Obama has proposed a nationalized health care system similar to those of the U.K. and Canada when he asserted: "The battle is already one of this year's most polarizing and partisan. Conservatives for Patients' Rights launched a new ad with British and Canadian doctors warning Americans about the perils of nationalized health care."
- In an April 25 Wall Street Journal article, editorial board member Brian Carney reported that "given the balance of power in Washington, [Sen. Judd] Gregg [R-NH] gives the Democrats good chances of success in nationalizing our health-insurance market. 'I think the odds are pretty good that it's going to happen -- that you'll have a major health-care reform bill pass.' " Carney also quoted Gregg asserting: "There's no question ... that this is a debate about rationing to a large degree. All your single-payer systems are rationing systems. It's also a debate about technology and innovation. Because you will not have capital pursuing technology, innovation and science if it's health-care related, because the return on capital won't be there. And these things are so expensive, especially on the pharmaceutical side and the biologic side, that you'll dramatically slow improvements in the quality of health care through science with a single-payer plan."
- During the April 24 edition of Special Report, White House correspondent Wendell Goler cropped a comment by Obama and took it out of context -- effectively reversing the statement's meaning -- to falsely suggest that Obama supports creating a health care system "like the European countries." Goler claimed that Obama "doesn't want to do it halfway" on health care and then aired a clip from the March 26 online town hall event of Obama saying, "If you're going to fix it, why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?" Following the clip, Goler reported: "His critics worry universal health care would mean government-run health care."
- In a column printed in the April 24 edition of The Washington Post, Krauthammer asserted that "[i]n the service of his ultimate mission -- the leveling of social inequalities -- President Obama offers a tripartite social democratic agenda: nationalized health care, federalized education (ultimately guaranteed through college) and a cash-cow carbon tax (or its equivalent) to subsidize the other two."
From the April 29 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Does that mean, though, that you have to wait until 2010? Because assuming Al Franken steps in as that 60th filibuster-busting Democrat, you guys are just, you know, gonna be looking to order fries, right? I mean, what are you going to do?
DeMINT: Well, what we have going for us, Neil, is what you and Dick Armey were just talking about. Americans are pushing back. They're standing up. They're speaking out as they haven't done in years. And there are some Democrats who could get the message, who understand that electricity tax is going to hurt their constituents. They could stop that.
A lot of Democrats are not going to get a lot of support back home for socialized medicine. So I think if people stand up and speak out, we have a chance of stopping a lot of this nonsense that they're talking about now, and maybe it will give us a shot in 2010 to reorganize this Congress and to put back some checks and balances for President Obama.
CAVUTO: So this is like your Reagan moment.
From the April 29 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Now, did you know that we had a health emergency? Yeah, it's a health crisis. Are we on the road to universal health care? If so, what dangers could we face as other countries with universal health care, like Canada, are facing now?
Sally Pipes, president and CEO of Pacific Research Institute, and author of The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide. Help me out on -- because everybody says that, gosh, Canada, they've got -- I mean, wouldn't you love to have the Canadian health service up there? No, not really. I kind of like ours. Tell me about Canada's health system.
PIPES: Well, Glenn, you know, I am from Canada. I became an American two years ago, but I grew up under a single-payer, government is the only provider of healthcare. And few people in America know that they have long waiting lists for care. In Canada today, the average Canadian waits 17.3 weeks, over four months, from seeing a primary-care doc to getting treatment by a specialist. They have rationed care and lack of access to the latest technology. So, you know, if that's what we want in America, then people should support Governor -- President Obama's public plan, which will be part of an insurance -- national insurance exchange.
[...]
PIPES: And I like to say, you know, Canadians have an escape valve, they just hop over the border --
BECK: Yeah, it's true.
PIPES: -- and pay to get their MRI done timely. Where are we going to go as patients and where are the best doctors in the world going to go if Obama's health care plan comes through? We have universal coverage; we don't have universal access. We will have a Medicare for all, single-payer government-run system. It's not the American way, and it has to be slowed down.
BECK: OK.
PIPES: People need to know in America this is not what they will want if they want good health care.














They are lying AGAIN. I disagree with Obama what we NEED, what we DESERVE is a single payer system
I, too, wish Obama's plan was as aggressive as the right-wing professional liars would have us believe, but it's simply not the case.
The non-partisan but center-right leaning Factcheck.org even dubunks this myth.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html
They are lying again. Like I've said several times recently, it's not possible that this is an honest mistake.
Why do you refer to FactCheck.org as center-right leaning? They're extremely reliable and as unbiased as you can get.
Are you suggesting that the Center-Right can't be objective and reliable?
There's nothing wrong with leaning center-left or center-right. In this case, the fact that we percieve them as leanign center-right, but still actually agreeing with us on this actually gives them even more legitimacy! Liberals don't think an argument is wrong just because it's supports a conservative position. We think the conservtaive positions are wrong because of the lame arguments that support them. It's conservatives who think an argument is wrong simply becuase it's liberal. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Rielly, Savage, Coulter, etc... have robbed them of all critical thinking abilities and that's why the party is dying.
Are you suggesting that the Center-Right can't be objective and reliable?
No. If I was, then I wouldn't have MMFA on my favorites list. This site--for the most part--accurately corrects conservative misinformation. I admit that I worded my last post in the wrongway.
What I should have asked LuvLuLu is why he\she perceives FactCheck.org as leaning center-right when they go after both liberal and conservatives using quality research and analysis. In that sense, it gives them more credibility than MMFA, since they aren't concerned with one specific type of misinformation.
And yes, I know MMFA is a progressive site, so when I wrote how I wouldn't have them on my favorites list if being slanted automatically means unreliable, I wasn't implying that they were center-right too. Really, all I'm trying to say is that FactCheck.org is as unbiased as you can get when it comes to correcting political falsehoods. I see no good reason to say they slant in any direction.
Fair enough. I use fact-check.org rather a lot myself. (Though I'll admit my own center-left bias in that I come here far more often!) ;)
But really it's becasue the discussions are always so much more interesting. I wish they had a comments section on all of their items like MMFA does. :(
We certainly don't "deserve" a single payer system. Isn't that how it works in Germany? Only the truth is, if you want 'decent' care, you must pay more for it so the rich end up getting better care than the poor. How about Cuba, don't they have a single payer system, too? How many times do you wish you could have travelled to Cuba to get quality medical care for your ailments? Whens the last time you went to the VA for medical care? Tell me about your experience. Do you really think our citizens DESERVE to have lower quality medical care just so you can say 'I told you so'? I don't. I prefer having my own choice of medical care quality, thank you.
the rich end up getting better care than the poor...
As long as everyone including the poor get health care, I could really care less if the rich get better care.
Well, we already have that. The government has lots of programs going that provide low cost health care to anyone who needs it. Why would 'nationalization' be necassary? In my opinion, it would lower the quality of care that everyone (except the rich) already get. That is not a good thing. But, if you prefer low quality health care to the poor, then you go for it.
I wouldn't want to increase access to healthcare either, if the quality is noticeably lowered, but that's not the case when looking at the single payer systems in France, Sweden, Denmark or even Canada.
No we DONT.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm
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.
The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.
About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.
It may be your OPINION that it would lower the quality of healthcare but there is no real reason this would be true. It can be your OPINION that unicorns sneak in at night and eat your cornflakes but unless you can SHOW this is true then it makes a poor argument
That's a real tear-jerker article you supplied. But, it only proves my case better. There are 300,000,000 people in the USA and 18,000 die from your fears. Let's see, that's about .00006 Percent of the nation die from the lack of health care. Well, I guess those are about the right odds, since you want to spend $1.5 Billion on a disease that's killed none in the US, while 30,000 die from yearly flu's, where's the promise of $1.5 Billion for them? If you want a real "cause" to worry about, use deaths caused by something that can be prevented, stick with something a little more REAL.
Besides, your article blames those 18K deaths on "lack of insurance" causing the lack of health care. So, what's your complaint, that Americans can't get insurance or can't get health care? How much more do you want to spend to provide 'national insurance'?
Your opinion is flat-out wrong.
There is no reason for it to BE a lower quality medical care. You are spewing propaganda. We pay the most of any country in the WORLD for medical care. Per capita and as a percentage of GDP yet show up at 37th on the list for quality. We DESERVE single payer because healthcare should be a right you have not a commodity you buy like it is in the rest of the industrial world. 18,000 people a year DIE in the US from lack of access to healthcare and you dont deserve to DIE from being poor.
You wnat to know what it woudl cost? Combine the current health care budgets (medicare, medicaid, schip, military, MoC, etc...) and add to it the combined revenue of the health insurance industry. THAT'S what it would cost to give REALLY GOOD COVERAGE to everyone. You could even have the insurance comapnies manage it, as long as the policy coverage was defined by the 10 most liberal members of the senate. Personal Income Tax increase? Sure: by roughly what I'm paying now for premiums - so no net change in my take-home pay. And YES, tax the "poor" too - by roughly what THEY would pay, IF their employers offered health insurance now! (That's fair.) Corporate taxes? Well... profits go up and down, but keep ity revenue neutral to start. Companies that are booming wil pay a little more, meanwhile companies that are struggling (like GM, who's getting KILLED by their health care costs) get a break. And that's FAIR because from any given year to another, a given company could be in one situation or the other. And by giving MORE coverage, the COST per person will be LESS, since people will GO to the Doctor when the infection (for example) can be cured with a $10 anti-biotic, instead of waiting until they're on death's door and now they need emergency room car, Intesaive Care and mutple rounds of expensive, exotic anti-biotics and god-knows-what else. Plus more people might actullay SURVIVE as well. OMFG!!!
There is NO defense for our current model, and nothing worng with the single payer model that can't be fixed.
I agree. I wouldnt use the private insurers because THEY want profit and the best way for a healthcare deliverer to make a profit is to become a healthcare denier. We could also save their overhead which is a lot some of them pay their CEOs in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year. I completely agree with your assessment of the businesses that are getting killed by healthcare costs it is a competitive disadvantage to them. Yes nothing wrong with single payer we couldnt fix.
"...you dont deserve to DIE from being poor." Right on Brother!
Single payer health care does NOT mean reduced quality care. You're spouting talking points.
MMFA, FactCheck.org has also weighed in on this falsehood. It might be in your interest to include them as a source too: A conservative group's ad implies Congress is on its way to instituting a British- or Canadian-style health system.
Did ya like that slik graffic - "road to socialism"? Since they opened the floodgates, does that mean it's ok now for the liberal press (whoever that is) to post "road to fascism" if we ever elect another republican president in my lifetime?
Absolutely. i would even lend my computer creds to jazz it up.
me too. But I am glad he got the stimulus package passed. One item not mentioned was a 65% reduction on COBRA and recertification for those recently laid off. Now that it's $250/month vs $1200/month for me I can cover myself and my family again.
Now if I could just find a frakken' job in Austin!
I wouldn't worry about what MMFA says or the media say or any quotes from our President. He has shown the ability to change his mind depending on who is bending his ear so the end result will depend who is close to Obama when he puts his input into the process. On the other hand, he doesn't seem to have much input to the process; he seems to let Reid and Pelosi write the big bills. Perhaps we should be looking to the originators of the bills for what might be coming. Should a "single payer" bill pass through congress I doubt he would veto it.
Summarizing, it really doesn't matter what the President wants, he'll sign any health care bill that comes to him.
egb,
Do you have any facts to back up your fluff?
Also, did you know that no President ever wrote any legislation. The legislators do that, which is why the President is called the "Executive" Branch and the Congress & Senate are called the "Legislative" Branch.
All Bills originate in the "Legislature". You might want to review your civics lessons.
You have shown YOUR ability to spew out worthless talking points and bilge. The only thing your posts say is you dont like Obama and will just say whatever pops into your head to denigrate him.
I'm so happy the right is doing everything to ensure people like me, who are employed by businesses that cannot afford to pay for health care and have to self insure, will be soon priced out of the market because I am growing old (how odd!) and with every passing year, my premiums have ROCKETED despite the fact that I don't smoke AND I can work out for 2 hours straight without needing medical attention. Yes, thanks to them and the media's negligence in relaying the facts, I will be forced to drop my coverage and just cross my fingers that I don't get sick. Either that or stop eating or paying other crucial bills like electricity and gas. Heck, I'd cut my Internet service if that would pay HALF the insurance bills. Not even close. And did I mention my plan SUCKS? Try a $2500 deductible. I pay that plus a grand per year to the insurer now, and they just hiked my premiums by $60/month because I'm getting a year older. Y'know, life has a funny way of making you feel like a failure despite myriad success.
Randy
YOU are far from a failure my friend. It is in fact society's failure for not meeting its obligations to its citizens.
Socialized medicine seems to work everywhere else except the USA, where we have more infant deaths than in Cuba and about 90,000 people a year die due to medical errors.
I’ll take my chance with Socialized medicine any day.
I think these fools missed the point when they say people come here for our health care...what they forget to mention, this is the wealthy from other countries that pay cash, bumping out of place and running to the front of the line of hard-working Americans who pay for insurance. Much like how the wealthy, politicians and well-connected in the USA get away with murder and have Socialized medicine themselves.
Am I missing something?
Of course Beck likes the American system, since he's rich and can afford it. Thank goodness Glenn Beck is fighting for my right to lose my house if I get sick.
I hear the lament: "In countries with socialized medicine, the wealthy get better care than the poor!" I work in the health care "industry." Do you think that situation does NOT prevail right here, right now? At least the poor in those other countries DO get some care. Not always the case here, let me tell you.
The issue isn't only about the uninsured, although that is obviously a huge problem. I have a very good friend who, in her mid twenties, got cancer of the muscles and connective tissues. She was in college at the time and had insurance through the university. She had to remain registered and attend classes all throughout her treatment and recovery in order to retain her insurance. I am happy to say that she got excellent care at a top notch clinic and she has now been cancer free for more than two years. However, she is now more than a million dollars in debt, even with insurance, and she is not even thirty. For the rest of her life she will have to struggle to pay down her debt. She did nothing wrong, yet she feels as if she is being punished just for getting sick. Something as important as health care is too important to be left up to for profit industry. It is fundamentally flawed to believe that just purchasing insurance is any solution. I have issues with all the solutions put out there and I don't think anyone really knows for sure what the best solution is, but something needs to change. Staying stuck in the mud all the while screaming socialism is not helping. Maybe if we had single payer health care my friend would not have to struggle the rest of her life just because she got sick through no fault of her own. As a society we need to reevaluate a system that essentially kicks people when they are down.
I know how your friend feels. I don't have the debt she's got, but I know what it's like to feel as though you have done something wrong by getting sick in the first place.
Back in 2001 I was diagnosed with cervical dysplasia. When it was first caught I was in what they call the CIN 1 stage. It eventually progressed into the CIN 2 stage, which is when I had a Cryosurgey done. Now I never had full blown cancer cells present on my cervix, but it wasn't too far off if I hadn't recieved treatment when I did. I've since been free of the disease. I was lucky at the time that I had health insurance through my job.I've since lost that coverage due to loss of said job. Finally finished paying off my share of the medical bills back in 2004.
I've tried to get insurance since then, and to put it nicely, it's a nightmare. I have to spend at least months trying to get ANY insurance company to cover me. The hoops they make you jump through due to a "pre-existing" condition is mind blowing. It's enough to drive one mad.
Due to the nonsense I was put through back in 2007 trying to get insurance I found out that insurance companies also consider being pregnant a pre-existing condition. I had to have a medical exam preformed by a doctor of their choosing (they being Blue Cross) in order to start yet another approval process with them. I had already been denied twice by them due to what happened back in 2001. Well, because of that exam I found out I was pregnant. I also found out the next day that I had been denied coverage due to the pregnancy. Sheesh. I tried EVERY other insurance company I could find, all with the same result. I couldn't qualify for Medicaid in my state because my husband made too much money. $1,000 a year over the state's cap on qualifying incomes. Needless to say, I'm still paying off the medical bills I racked up.
I mean, seriously, even though it is not Obama's plan to create a single-payer health care system or even a socialized one, something needs to be done. The system is broken, and it needs to be fixed. Everyone may not agree as to how that should be done, but as humans we should be able to come together and at least find some sort of compromise. Not gonna hold my breathe on that to happen, but a girl can hope.
Where are the progressives talking up Obama's plan...we need someone to combat Ben Nelso and his ilk.
Summary: In recent days, numerous media figures have falsely characterized President Obama's health care proposal as "socialized medicine," a "single-payer" health care system, a "single-payer government-run system," or "nationalized health care" like the British or Canadian models.
OK, now that MMFA has determined what the President's health plan isn't, does anyone have a comprehensive explanation of what it is and how exactly it is going to be funded?