About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox's Angle reports criticism of public plan, but not defense

June 09, 2009 5:02 pm ET

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.

EMBED

SUMMARY: In a report about Republicans' opposition to the inclusion of a public option plan in the health care reform bill, Jim Angle reported only GOP criticism of the public plan without noting supporters' responses to those arguments.

9 Comments

On the June 8 edition of The Fox Report with Shepard Smith, reporting on a letter that nine Senate Finance Committee Republicans reportedly sent to President Obama opposing the inclusion of a public plan option in the forthcoming health care reform bill, Fox News correspondent Jim Angle reported only the Republicans' criticism of the public plan without noting supporters' responses to those arguments.

Angle reported, "Critics argue that [the public plan] would squeeze out private insurance, and that a government plan would wind up setting prices." But Angle did not note the arguments of public plan supporters addressing concerns that a public plan would enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over private plans. For example, as Media Matters for America has noted, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during her May 6 testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee that the public plan "can be done as a level playing field. It's about the rules that are established in the beginning." She continued, explaining how a public plan option should be structured and why it is a necessary component of reform:

SEBELIUS: And as I said, the private insurers currently have in fact a -- I would say -- a tilted playing field in way too many areas where cherry-picking on the market is a strategy to make a profit, so that the ability to underwrite individuals' medical conditions to either make insurance unaffordable or unavailable is a current private-market strategy. I think that that measure doesn't work well in a health insurance exchange any more than a measure which would give government huge advantages and huge subsidies doesn't work well. So I think if the rules are the same so individuals who have lower income, who are not insured, have a subsidy benefit as they come into the health exchange and can choose between a public and private plan option with the same kind of rules, I think it can work as a very important competitive situation where it will help drive -- where people will be competing, public and private will be competing, not on underlying price or on unfair government subsidies, but really on practice and protocol, on lowering overhead costs, on lowering administrative costs and driving benefits to their incoming enrollees.

Additionally, on May 4, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) reportedly released principles for a public plan option requested by Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) -- whose committee is currently producing a draft health care reform bill -- that are intended to create a level playing field on which the public and private plans could compete. According to a May 5 New York Times report, Schumer said that the " 'public plan ... must be subject to the same regulations and requirements as all other plans' in the insurance market." The Times reported that the principles he released include [emphasis added]:

¶The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.

¶The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay.

¶The government should not compel doctors and hospitals to participate in a public plan just because they participate in Medicare.

To prevent the government from serving as both "player and umpire," the officials who manage a public plan should be different from those who regulate the insurance market.

As Media Matters documented, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron filed a similarly one-sided report on the public plan option on the May 6 edition of Special Report.

From the June 8 edition of Fox News' The Fox Report with Shepard Smith:

SHEPARD SMITH (host): I'm Shepard Smith, this is Fox Report HD. It's the bottom of the hour; time for the top of the news, and President Obama, facing resistance from Republicans as he tries to overhaul the nation's health care system. A group of GOP senators now sending the president a letter today urging him not to create a government-run insurance plan.

The president has said a public option would keep private companies honest and make the market more competitive. But these senators warn it would take power away from the doctors and the parents, and give that power to another Washington bureaucracy.

Jim Angle is on the top story at the bottom of the hour. Jim, the Republicans also say that the public -- the public option, at least, would actually hurt competition.

ANGLE: Well, that's right, Shep. Critics argue that would squeeze out private insurance, and that a government plan would wind up setting prices, telling people what kinds of treatment they could get, and making decisions that doctors should make. In other words, they say it'll lead to the kind of health care you get in Canada, where patients have to wait months, even a year or two, for treatment after their doctor says they need it, Shep.

SMITH: [Inaudible] how to pay for it either, Jim.

ANGLE: Well, no. We don't know the cost yet because there is no Democratic plan on the table, though even Democrats say it will cost a trillion or more dollars over 10 years. But some Republicans note we can't pay for the government health plans we already have such as Medicare, one part of which has promised some $36 trillion more in benefits than the government projects in revenues. But President Obama insists, Shep, that no new plan will add to the deficit.

SMITH: Jim, he's telling Congress it's time to deliver a health care plan, and he's getting some high-tech resistance there, too.

ANGLE: Well, he is. In fact, over the weekend, while the president and his family were sightseeing in Paris, Republican Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa resorted to tweeting, a form of short text messaging, as you know, saying to all the world, "President Obama you got nerve while you sightseeing in Paris to tell us time to deliver on health care. We still on schedule, even working weekend."

And Republicans say how can the president say hurry up when Democrats haven't even put a bill on the table, leaving them with nothing to examine, discuss, or vote on -- Shep.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rwmacdonald2091 (June 09, 2009 5:16 pm ET)
      1  
      The right wing crackpots say that whatever the government does, private corporations can do better. So by their mantra about corporate America, why would would a private cooperation be worried about some competition from the inept do nothing right, government ?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (June 09, 2009 5:37 pm ET)
      2  
      Faux Gnus, as fair and balanced as a one legged man half way up a tornado.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by foghornleghorn (June 09, 2009 5:51 pm ET)
      2  
      Why aren't the Republicans for single payer? I thought they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility?

      I guess they really are the party of the rich and connected.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 09, 2009 6:51 pm ET)
      1  
      Because to FOX it's indefensible.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tjmccool2284 (June 09, 2009 10:53 pm ET)
      2  
      "Why aren't the Republicans for single payer? I thought they claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility?"

      It's not about how much money, it's about who gets it. If they were for fiscal restraint, they would be the ones telling you that the UK gets similar health outcomes but pays 40% per capita compared to the US. Instead, the message is about socialized medicine (gee, like Medicare?) or rationing, which because they all have health care they know nothing about, or the reliable bureaucrat making health decisions. Naturally, they mean decisions made by a government bureaucrat to be more heartless than ones made by an insurance company bureaucrat.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hm1342 (June 10, 2009 1:14 am ET)
        1
      I guess MMFA missed yesterday's edition of The Ed Show, where Ed Schulz had on Rep. Charlie Rangle and Sen. Kent Conrad, both Democrats who support the bill. In between Ed's anger at Republicans (no surprise there) he gave both Rangle and Conrad time to talk about the Health Care Reform Bill. Guess what? Neither one mentioned a single detail about how it would work other than it would be "revenue-neutral". So while Fox is being blasted for not airing any defense of the bill, MMFA is not blasting MSNBC for failing to air any criticism of the same bill. In neither case are any actual provisions of the bill being discussed in detail.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by IowaDem (June 10, 2009 9:16 am ET)
        1  
        MMFA is not "blasting" MSNBC because they are not presenting any CONSERVATIVE misinformation. Please check the mission statement for MMFA for clarification on this websites purpose.

        Secondly, how is presenting facts and direct, un-filtered quotes/transcripts "blasting" Fox? MMFA doesn't have to "blast" Fox, Fox does a great job of making fools of themselves without anyone's help.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by hm1342 (June 12, 2009 12:56 am ET)
             
          MMFA is not "blasting" MSNBC because they are not presenting any CONSERVATIVE misinformation.

          If no one has read the legislation, how can anyone accurately report on it? That would apply to both sides. MMfA is highlighting Angle's story for only giving one side of it, which is no less than what MSNBC is doing. Ed Schulz mentioned that the Health Care Reform Bill (if that's it's official name) was 615 pages long - yet no one I have heard thus far has pointed out a single specific provision in it. So I take issue with liberals and conservatives trying to describe something they haven't read yet. Both sides are giving out misinformation if they haven't read the bill.
          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.