Hannity falsely claimed Mayo Clinic "slam[med]" Obama's health proposal
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: Sean Hannity falsely claimed that the Mayo Clinic "slam[med]" President Obama's health care plan. In fact, the Mayo Clinic did not criticize Obama's health care proposal, and indeed applauded the administration's suggested revisions to the House bill to address Medicare payment rates.
During the July 21 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that the Mayo Clinic "slam[med]" President Obama's health care plan -- which Hannity referred to at one point as Obama's "nanny state, cradle to the grave, womb to the tomb, nationalized health care socialized system." In fact, the Mayo Clinic did not criticize Obama's health care proposal. In a June 16 statement, the clinic criticized the House bill for "fail[ing] to use a fundamental lever -- a change in Medicare payment policy -- to help drive necessary improvements in American health care," but subsequently applauded the administration's suggested revisions to the House bill to address Medicare payment rates.
Teasing a discussion of the Mayo Clinic's criticism, Hannity falsely claimed that the clinic "slams the president's proposal." In a subsequent tease, Hannity stated: "The president has been praising the Mayo Clinic's model of health care but wait until you hear what they have to say about his nanny state, cradle to the grave, womb to the tomb, nationalized health care socialized system." He then introduced the segment by asserting, "President Obama has made no secret of his admiration for the Mayo Clinic," then aired footage of Obama praising the clinic. Hannity concluded: "It turns out the feeling is not mutual," adding, "Mayo Clinic officials voiced fierce opposition to the health care scheme cooked up by Congress."
In fact, Obama shares the Mayo Clinic's concern about the need to address Medicare payment rates. In a June 2 letter to Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) and Max Baucus (D-MT), Obama listed several proposals to reform Medicare, including "reducing overpayments to Medicare Advantage private insurers; strengthening Medicare and Medicaid payment accuracy by cutting waste, fraud and abuse; improving care for Medicare patients after hospitalizations; and encouraging physicians to form 'accountable care organizations' to improve the quality of care for Medicare patients." Obama also proposed "giving special consideration" to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to "identify and achieve additional savings." Obama said the commission "could be a valuable tool to help achieve health care reform in a fiscally responsible way."
Subsequently, White House budget director Peter Orszag stated in a July 17 statement that "one of the most potent reforms is a change in the process of health care policymaking: empowering an independent, non-partisan body of doctors and other health experts to make recommendation about Medicare payment rates and other reforms." And in a July 17 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Orszag proposed creating a nonpartisan Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC), which would "have the authority to make recommendations to the President on annual Medicare payment rates as well as other reforms."
In a July 21 entry on its Health Policy blog, the Mayo Clinic wrote, "We applaud the direction" of the Obama administration's IMAC proposal, adding, "This, and other, bold concepts have the potential to 'bend the cost curve' in U.S. health spending without compromising health."
As Media Matters for America has noted, The Washington Times and Fox Nation previously advanced the falsehood that the Mayo Clinic had criticized Obama's health care proposal.
From the July 21 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
OBAMA [video clip]: The Mayo Clinic -- many of you have heard of -- provides outstanding care, some of the best in the world.
HANNITY: The feeling is not mutual. The Mayo Clinic slams the president's proposal.
[...]
HANNITY: And coming up: The president has been praising the Mayo Clinic's model of health care but wait until you hear what they have to say about his nanny state, cradle to the grave, womb to the tomb, nationalized health care socialized system.
[...]
HANNITY: President Obama has made no secret of his admiration for the Mayo Clinic. In fact, he's repeatedly voiced his enthusiasm for the quality of care provided by the Minnesota-based clinic.
OBAMA [video clip]: There are some places like the Mayo Clinic -- many of you have heard of -- provides outstanding care, some of the best in the world. ... People fly in from everywhere to go to Mayo Clinic. ... Turns out Mayo provides care much more cheaply than a lot of other health systems.
OBAMA [video clip]: Places like Mayo Clinic in Minnesota are able to provide some of the best health care services in the country.
HANNITY: All right. It turns out the feeling is not mutual. Mayo Clinic officials voiced fierce opposition to the health care scheme cooked up by Congress, writing, quote: "The proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. ... The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."
Now Mr. Obama would be wise to listen to the very professionals he has praised so highly.
So... they're advocating for MORE spending, then?
What does Hannity think WILL offer "higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients?" More of the same system that has been failing to meet demand for the last 40 years?
Was Hannity challenging himself to see how many "scary" phrases he could squeeze in?
...and you're saying "Where's the 'fierce opposition'?".
But you didn't actually SEE them when they said that. They were baring their incisors, their ears were back, and the hair on the back of their manes was standing up. Frankly, I've never seen the Mayo Clinic so fierce.
"Mayo Clinic’s reaction to House Tri-Committee bill
Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.
In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."
You can look those words up, and at the same time, look up the definitions of "slam", "fierce", "opposition", and "mane". You also obviously have about the same level of reading comprehension as Hanniturd, as both of you seemed to miss a couple of key phrases in that statement (actually a Mayo Clinic Health Policy Blog entry by Jane Jacobs, Public Affairs Dept.) such as "Medicare payment policy" and "promise of transformation in American health care". I'd suggest reading this link to better understand the focus of the Mayo Clinics concerns with the bill, but I doubt you or Hanniturd would understand it. Hint: Jane Jacobs writes about the worry that the POTENTIAL to have a bill which IMPROVES health care will be lost if the current bill is passed. Ooooo!! Wow, what a slam! A fierce assault on Obama!
If Hanniturd deserves any apology at all, it's from you for being such an ineffectual tool of an apologist. Hanniturd is a liar, won an award for it, and works for the network that was awarded the right to lie by the court. I sure hope the adults you refer to at least have a usable vocabulary beyond what he and you have demonstrated.
So, if you were the typical uninformed tv viewer, you would come away from watching Hanniturd with the idea that the Mayo clinic vehemently opposed health care reform. And that is a LIE, a falsehood, deception, duplicitous, intentionally misleading...
Is this what you think the airwaves should be used for? Do you want a democratic society to base its elections on information like this? Do you think that the general public should be led around by those with enough money and media power putting on shows like this? For all the whining I hear about the "liberal media" and the righteous animosity toward biased information outlets, I never cease to be amazed how easily those doing the whining ignore the problem of system-wide misinformation. Almost sounds like partisan bias.
How do we force the FCC to hold Fox accountable? Not that the FCC actually has any teeth, mind you.
Before Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (virtually nullifying the Fairness Doctrine), there was at least a basis for arguing for accountability. Now that all that’s gone, good ole’ uncle Rupie (and other media mega-corps like Clear Channel) can do as he pleases and American be dammed.
Rupie has no obligation to tell the truth or to be fair and balanced. He is technically serving his constituency, his market niche.
What is one to do?
(30 years in broadcasting)
Democrats aren't much better at it than Republicans, but you can see how much more detached from the mere defense of their party the liberals are by the amount of criticism is levelled at Obama by his supporters, as compared to what Bush or any Republican has been subjected to. Talking Points Memo, for example, ran a Howard Kurtz blurb this morning comparing the secrecy of Cheney and his and energy execs to the secrecy of Obama and his health industry execs. When your supporters run stuff like that, you start paying attention.
Partisans know that it's tough to get your opponents to jump onto their bandwagon, but when riders start jumping off, that's when they panic. Hanniturd keeps piling on the dung because his riders have proven they're more than willing to ride along while sitting on a pile of manure, justifying it by claiming there's manure in the other wagon, too.
So you're saying that the reason the conservatives can't repent for the sins of Hannity, O'Really?, limpaugh, et al is because progressives are setting a bad example...
It must be a tough life to constantly point out the low standards of the liberals all the while striving not to exceed them.
I really wasn't endorsing any particular way to go, I'm simply asking if the alternative is any better or "freer".
In trying to help the Republican party gain popularity and credibility, you've got two choices:
1. Try to paint the Democrats as the worse of the two parties while giving full support to the Republicans. This has two problems with it, the first being that you're going to meet with resistance from the Dem loyal so that every word you say will be scrutinized and you'll appear to be willing to say anything to promote your cause. And the second being that the Republican representatives don't necessarily have to represent your ideas or behave ethically because they see no risk of losing your support.
2. Go after the members and advocates of your own party who aren't fulfilling the reasons you put them in office to begin with. When they see that their faithful are abandoning them, they'll shape up pretty quick, because they're not likely to replace the formerly loyal base by winning over the opposition. So when Hannity proves that, as an advocate for Republicans (face it, it's all about political party, not conservatism with him), you conservatives need to speak out against him. If the general not-so-involved public sees that conservatives won't put up with misinformation, lying, misbehavior, etc. even from their advocates, they'll have a much better opinion and develop more of a trust with conservative causes.
Option two is by far the preferable one, and more effective in the long term. And it benefits us liberals, too, because a strong opposition party is the only way to keep our own representatives honest.
See how partisan loyalty is actually hurting your cause now?
My guess, NO!
He would not last five minutes on any of the great newspapers I worked on, except as an op-ed contributor whom the publisher specifically wanted, but whom every reporter and editor in the place openly scorned.