About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hannity relies on falsehoods and distortions in "nightmare" health special

July 24, 2009 9:03 am 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 what was billed as a "Universal Nightmare" special edition of Hannity, Sean Hannity relied on distortions and falsehoods to raise the specter of "socialized medicine."

31 Comments

The July 23 edition of Fox News' Hannity -- billed as a "Universal Nightmare" special edition -- relied on distortions and falsehoods to raise the specter of "socialized medicine." During the show, host Sean Hannity stated: "Socialized medicine is by no means a new idea. In fact, the citizens of Canada and the United Kingdom are living through what can only be described as a 'universal nightmare.' Now take a look at what could soon become a reality right here in America." He then aired a segment that included footage of several people criticizing the Canadian and British health care systems. Subsequently, correspondent Griff Jenkins misrepresented comments President Obama made during a June 24 town hall, claiming that Obama "has vowed to examine other attempts at universal health care, like the United Kingdom and the Canadian systems." In fact, in those comments, Obama made clear that he did not support creating a system based on those models.

After claiming that Obama "vowed to examine other attempts at universal health care, like the United Kingdom and the Canadian systems," Jenkins aired footage of Obama stating:

OBAMA: A lot of those other countries employ a different system than we do. Not all of them, by the way, use a socialized medicine. ... Almost all of them have what would be considered a single-payer system in which the government essentially operates a Medicare for all.

In fact, moments after making those comments during the June 24 town hall, Obama stated, "For us to completely change our system, root and branch, would be hugely disruptive and I think would end up resulting in people having to completely change their doctors, their health care providers, in a way that I'm not prepared to go."

From the June 24 town hall (with the portion aired by Jenkins in italics):

Q: A little skeptical on cost, Mr. President. Other industrialized nations provide coverage for all of their residents, they have higher-quality care, and they do so spending about less than half of what we spend on health care now. So there's an argument that could be made that we actually don't need to spend any new money to fix the system if we're willing to make some tough decisions. Could you comment on that and maybe exploring that as an approach?

OBAMA: Well, you're absolutely right that we spend at least 50 percent more than any other advanced country and we don't have better outcomes in terms of infant mortality, longevity -- all those various measures of wellness.

Now, a lot of those other countries employ a different system than we do. Not all of them, by the way, use a socialized medicine, as I think the British National Health Services is called. Some of them have what would be considered -- almost of them what would be considered a single-payer system in which the government essentially operates a Medicare for all, even though doctors and health care providers are still separate.

The problem is, is that we have a employer-based system that has grown up over decades. For us to completely change our system, root and branch, would be hugely disruptive and I think would end up resulting in people having to completely change their doctors, their health care providers, in a way that I'm not prepared to go. This is one-sixth of our economy. I think that we can build on what works, fix what's broken, and still save substantial money.

Moreover, during the show, Fox News contributor Dr. Marc Siegel claimed, "Millions of people are going to lose their current health insurance in favor of this government insurance because the public option can come in cheaper for patients; the private insurers can't compete, the government can regulate the amount of care that's delivered -- that's also known as rationing care, by the way." But Hannity and Siegel failed to disclose that Siegel is affiliated with a group that is funded in part by the pharmaceutical industry. Siegel is a senior fellow at the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

 

Hannity has previously falsely suggested that Obama has proposed a Canadian or U.K.-style health care system.

From the July 23 edition of Fox News Hannity:

HANNITY: Socialized medicine is by no means a new idea. In fact, the citizens of Canada and the United Kingdom are living through what can only be described as a "universal nightmare."

Now take a look at what could soon become a reality right here in America.

[begin video clip]

OBAMA: The very first promise I made on this campaign was that as president I will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of my first term in office.

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Folks, reform is coming. It is on track; it is coming.

HANNITY: It's coming all right, and if the Obama administration has its way, millions of Americans are staring at another massive government tax hike.

STEPHEN SIEGEL (gastroenterological surgeon): The current proposals for reform of health care are very worrisome to me. I think they represent a slippery slope. For health care reform to be successful, they have to reduce costs, and the only way, in fact, to reduce costs is to reduce services and ration care.

HANNITY: Canada and the U.K. have government-run health care systems, and many opponents say be careful for what you wish for.

STEPHEN SIEGEL: I think that once the American people realize that this is where the plan will lead us, they will not accept it.

HANNITY: Shona Holmes is a native of Ontario, Canada, and she knows all too well the struggles of being a patient in a government-operated health care system.

HOLMES: Before I went to the doctors in Canada, I started to come down with some symptoms, and I had to go and find out what was wrong with me. And at that point I was told that my vision was going, and that we needed to see an endocrinologist and a neurologist immediately.

Unfortunately, I couldn't get an appointment with either one of them for up to four to six months for either one. I realized that I was in trouble, and at that point I decided that I better go down to the States and get a diagnosis and at least find out whether or not there was something serious to worry about. And that's when I traveled down to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona.

HANNITY: Within one week, Shona received the frightening news. She had a life-threatening brain tumor, and with a full diagnosis in hand, she headed back to Canada to fight for her life.

HOLMES: People wouldn't even look at the diagnosis that I brought back from the States, and I basically got thrown back into the system for testing. And I had been told that I needed to have this surgery in order to save my eyesight within four to six weeks.

HANNITY: With little health from her own health care system, Shona and her husband returned to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona. Within weeks she had surgery that changed her life.

HOLMES: The U.S. health care absolutely saved my life.

HANNITY: Earlier this month, Shona testified on Capitol Hill about the horrific experience.

HOLMES: What started many years ago as a seemingly compassionate move in our government to treat all equally and fairly by providing the same medical coverage has, in fact, turned into a nightmare of everyone suffering equally. And I'm here to say, when it doesn't work, it doesn't work.

HANNITY: Recently, a Pajamas TV reporter went undercover in a Canadian hospital to get a firsthand look at what the American people could experience.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: But it's hard to get a family doctor when he doesn't have one.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, I know. But the only thing you can do is just call the phone number.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: I did that like three months ago.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. But maybe it's like two or three years.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Three year -- to get a doctor?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, but you're young, so you have the time.

HANNITY: Stories like this are common across Europe. Katie Brickell of London, England, was another victim of a government-controlled system.

BRICKELL: When I was 19 everybody around me seemed to be getting smear tests, and I went to the doctors and asked if I could have one. And they told me that I was too young, that the age limit in England to have a smear test was 20. So I went back when I was 20 years old, and they said the same thing, but this time the age limit had been raised to 25.

And I didn't need one until then. But when I was 23 I had symptoms that I was worried about, and I went to the doctors, and we eventually found out that I had cervical cancer.

STEPHEN SIEGEL: When you have a X number of doctors for triple X number of patients, this results in waiting -- and waiting delays diagnosis, waiting delays treatment, waiting results in poor health and bad endings.

BRICKELL: I didn't get the care that I should have got. I didn't get it when I asked for it, and it ended up leading me to having an incurable cancer all because of one simple test that just is too expensive for the government to have allowed me.

HANNITY: So if patients lose out and doctors predict disaster and all we hear are stories of long lines and waitlists that stretch for years, well, we have to wonder why this president is pushing for a system where poor quality health care is the norm.

SIEGEL: I have difficulty understanding why we as a country are trying to move toward systems that are not successful. I don't recall hearing of anyone flying to Canada or to the United Kingdom for second opinions in specialized care. They all come here.

HOLMES: In the United States I felt like a patient, and I felt like I was cared for, and in Canada I'm nothing but a number.

OBAMA: For those naysayers, cynics who think that this is not going to happen: Don't bet against us. We are going to make this thing happen.

[end video clip]

HANNITY: Unbelievable.

[...]

[begin video clip]

HANNITY: America has some of the top health care and top medical technology available anywhere in the world today. What makes it so great?

MARC SIEGEL: The current health care system is based on choice. We need a system where Americans can choose the health care they want just as they can choose to buy one automobile versus another.

HANNITY: Now Congress has decided it wants to throw another choice into the mix: a cheaper, government-run, quote, "public option" for insurance coverage. But don't worry.

OBAMA: If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too.

MARC SIEGEL: When President Obama says that you get to keep the health care you already have, he's being completely disingenuous. Millions of people are going to lose their current health insurance in favor of this government insurance because the public option can come in cheaper for patients; the private insurers can't compete, the government can regulate the amount of care that's delivered -- that's also known as rationing care, by the way.

[...]

OBAMA: We will have some up front costs -- anywhere from 1 trillion to $2 trillion. So what I've proposed is that we cap the itemized deductions that the top 2 or 3 percent get -- people making over 250,000 a year. With that additional money we would have paid for all of the health care that I'm proposing.

JENKINS: But the president may not be able to make good on that pledge, although, he has vowed to examine other attempts at universal health care, like the United Kingdom and the Canadian systems.

OBAMA: A lot of those other countries employ a different system than we do. Not all of them, by the way, use a socialized medicine. ... Almost all of them have what would be considered a single-payer system in which the government essentially operates a Medicare for all.

JENKINS: But note: He has failed to mention Hawaii's now-defunct program to insure all children.

[end video clip]

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by seeryer (July 24, 2009 9:50 am ET)
      5 1
      Sean Hannity relied on distortions and falsehoods to raise the specter of "___________________." Fill in the blank.

      Anything this douche raises the spector of will certainly rely on distortions and falsehoods.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by HistoricallyCorrect (July 24, 2009 9:59 am ET)
      7  
      Canadian health care has a lot of problems that desperately need fixing. It's a shame that people like Holmes fall through the cracks, but this does not happen all the time. Seeing a specialist for a non-life threatening issue is a giant pain in the ass, but if it's life threatening it's not that long. You never have to wait to see a Family Physician (an hour maybe, but never long). The hospital waits can be long because it goes by URGENCY not first come first serve.
      If you are seriously injured, you don't have to worry about paying for an ambulance to take you to the hospital (unless the doctor decides you were a moron and you pay a paltry 40 dollars).
      Rich people like Hannity hate it because they'd have to wait their bloody turn.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Conchobhar (July 24, 2009 10:08 am ET)
      5  
      MARC SIEGEL: "The current health care system is based on choice. We need a system where Americans can choose the health care they want just as they can choose to buy one automobile versus another."

      Fine. Now tell me why a government-run, not-for-profit, plan shouldn't be an available choice.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (July 24, 2009 11:13 am ET)
        1  
        They blather within the confines of Fox News because they know they will debate or answer to no counter-point, which would leave them into a quivering pile of flop sweat.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (July 24, 2009 11:39 am ET)
        1  
        There isn't really that much choice in our system. Most people have health insurance through their employer and have only a few choices (if any.) Among those choices you are further limited by the prohibative cost of some of the plans. I have 5 plans I can choose from but 2 of them I couldn't possibly afford on what they pay me and one has a deductable so high it's basically just catastrophic coverage. Of the other two options I was in one for a couple years but the deductable was still high enough that I never got any benefit from it because I'm generally healthy and only see the doc a couple of times a year. Then I went with the other option which is a well known HMO. Office visits are $15 or $20 co-pay which seems to work out better but the plan is a little more expensive so it's probably about the same if I only go a couple of times a year. Anyway if that's all the choice our current system offers I really don't see how I or most Americans are losing anything even if we go single-payer.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 24, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
        2 1
        The current health care system is based on choice.

        This is a damned lie.

        I'm limited in my choice of doctors and hospitals, based on who's in my insurance co's network.

        I'm limited in my choices of treatment, based on what's covered by my insurance co.

        I have basically NO CHOICE in who my inurer is, becuase that's 100% up to my employer.

        WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET PEOPLE!!! WE DON'T pay for the care we recieve, and WE DON'T pay for or coverage! Let's get off this "rugged idividulaism" nonsense!!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anotheramerican (July 24, 2009 2:07 pm ET)
          1 4
          Nice,
          Isn't it your choice to take your employer's insurance benefit? Couldn't you opt out of the insurance if you don't like it and join some other special interest group for their insurance plan? Could you not purchase your own insurance if you wanted?

          Does not your employer not periodically review their insurance carrier and open it up to bids?

          I am of the opinion that you are mistaken about what insurance "choice" is all about.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by vhw28672478 (July 24, 2009 3:48 pm ET)
               
            there no insurance choice at all
            Report Abuse
          • Author by albertsenj (July 26, 2009 5:08 am ET)
            1  
            Opting out of the plans offered by your employer is a 'choice' but, 'joining some other special interest group' is NOT a viable choice - not if you want the benefits of real group coverage. You would basically be buying an individual plan which is VERY expensive.

            Just because your employer reviews and potentially changes carriers doesn't necessarily mean it will be any better for you. Remember "Smith's invisible hand of capitalism"? That should make the costs/benefits of each of the plans about the same.

            Choices which are essentially identical, or choices which you can't afford are not really choices at all.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (July 24, 2009 10:10 am ET)
      3  
      Anecdotal evidence is worthless, Mr. Hannity. Every health care system in the world has horror stories like this. Since that is easily and demonstrably true, and since we already pay twice what other industrial nations pay, at least we can get the horror stories for a little less money. How about that, Mr. Hannity?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ReasonAndResolve (July 24, 2009 10:55 am ET)
      2  
      Am I the only one who notices just how unhappy Hannity and his ilk are - not just now, but all the time (even during the Bush years. These people are too busy blaming others for the ills of the world to actually stop and enjoy the world around them. They will never be happy.

      Ironically, I think they, on some level, understand that, if the Ayn Rand model of utopia were actually to come to pass, they would have absolutely no place in Galt's Gulch.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Sagra (July 24, 2009 11:34 am ET)
      3 1
      I can't imagine Hannity losing any sleep over whether the average schmuck has access to healthcare. The only thing that gives him nightmares is the prospect of Democrats succeeding at anything, ever.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Old_Benjamin (July 24, 2009 12:28 pm ET)
      2  
      This Holmes woman is a liar. She has claimed she had cancer and or a tumour when it was a cyst.

      http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/19/755113/-Another-Healthcare-Lie,-and-the-Lying-Liar-Thats-Telling-It
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LittleFuzzy (July 24, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
      2  
      Shona Holmnes works with a group in Canada which is attempting to dismember the Canadian health care system.

      She was diagnosed with a benign cyst, not a brain tumor (according to the Mayo Clinic web page, now removed). The mortality rate for this cyst was ZERO percent, therefore it was NOT life-threatening. Had it been life-threatening, the process would have been much faster - even to the point of sending her out-of-country and paying the whole tab!

      She was suffering from loss of vision, and could have lost all vision in 6-8 months. Once the cyst was removed, however, I think that her vision would be(was?) restored completely.

      She is now $100,000 dollars in debt to pay for her choice to go to the US for surgery. She is now being paid to advertise against health care reform in the US. She is also suing the Ontario Health Insurance Program to have it re-imburse her for the surgery. Whether she gets any or all of the money is a matter for a learned judge to decide.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by LittleFuzzy (July 24, 2009 12:44 pm ET)
           
        My error: should be Holmes, not Holmnes
        Report Abuse
      • Author by anotheramerican (July 24, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
        2 4
        Little,

        Did Shona Holmes join that group attempting to dismember the Canadian health care system before or after her diagnosis and surgery?

        I noticed from the link to the Mayo Clinic that her doctor, Dr. Patel said she has lost 25% of her vision and he was afraid she was going blind.

        From that website:
        "...Their further tests revealed an increase in the size of her cyst over a short period of time as well as progressively worsening vision. "I was concerned that the pressure on Shona's nerves were causing her to become blind," says Dr. Patel. "We needed to remove the cyst to save her vision."

        So even if her claim that the tumor was life threatening is an exageration, it looks to me like it still was a serious medical condition that was causing blindness and needed to be treated right away. According to this website, I am left with the inference that had they not acted right away, she would indeed have become blind.

        Having said that, it seems to me her criticism of the Canadian health care system is still valid. If as you had said, if her tumor was lifethreatening, the process would have been much faster, how fast would it have been if it was not life threatening? Would you or anyone here be satisfied that you would go blind (even if it may be reversible,) while waiting for the government to schedule your operation?

        Would you want to potentially be that anecdotal story where waiting for some government bureaucracy to schedule your initial cat scan and eventual surgery you had to wait over a period of months, lose your eyesight, when it could be done in a fraction of the time and save your sight, as it is now available here in the U.S.?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by vhw28672478 (July 24, 2009 3:47 pm ET)
          1 1
          free market health care do not work
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Old_Benjamin (July 24, 2009 6:12 pm ET)
            1
          It wasn't a tumor - it was a cyst.

          Would you want to potentially be that anecdotal story where waiting for some government bureaucracy to schedule your initial cat scan and eventual surgery you had to wait over a period of months, lose your eyesight, when it could be done in a fraction of the time and save your sight, as it is now available here in the U.S.? AA

          She had to raise $100,000 to pay for it. Any idea how many under insured/uninsured citizens could come up with that kind of money?
          Report Abuse
        • Author by LittleFuzzy (July 24, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
             
          Before
          Report Abuse
        • Author by glzgowlass (July 24, 2009 9:08 pm ET)
             
          couple of things. I have insurance here in America and I DID go blind (in one eye) because the eye doctor was incompetent or indifferent, who knows? So having private health insurance is no guarantee of quality care.

          second, I don't recognize the description of British health care as described by the right wing nuts and it makes me angry. I could write pages and pages of examples of the excellent care my family and friends have recieved at the hands of the so-called horrendous NHS.

          My friends partner has some serious health issues and his waiting time for a specialist is no more than a week or so. In fact when he cancelled a couple of appointments for one of his specialists, she called his home to tell him he really needed to stop cancelling appointments and come in to see her. He has had "hypo's during the night on more than one occasion and was rushed to hospital and been well taken care of as they nursed him back to health. He hasn't seen a single bill.

          I have many other stories like my mother who has the pharmacy drop her meds at her door (no cost) carers who come in three times a day (no cost) amublances who pick her up and drop her off when she needs her annual check up, again no cost.
          I could go on and on, but you get the picture. I'm sure you can find some Brits who are disgruntled for one reason or another at the NHS but if you tried to take it away from them and replace it with a US model there would be riots in the streets.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by albertsenj (July 26, 2009 5:32 am ET)
          1  
          Hannity, and others, make the argument that, if the government takes over the health care system it will take months/years...whatever to get in to see a doctor.

          If you can get in to see a doctor now in say, 1-2 weeks, why should it take any longer under a government system? Are the doctors going to up and disappear? Can a government bureaucracy really be any worse than your typical insurance company bureaucracy?

          Actually, things might work better under a universal coverage system. Imagine if people could go in for an office visit when their cold got 'pretty bad' instead of waiting until it was damn near pneumonia and going into the ER?

          Another canard I like is the need to keep the current system to 'protect insurance industry jobs'. C'mon, the government acting (or in this case NOT acting) so as to funnel money to an industry is corporate welfare - period. The truth is what is being protected is the 15-30% the insurance companies rake off the top. Of course, some of that is used to fund campaign contributions.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Justalittleluck (July 24, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
      2  
      Why doesn't Hannity talk about current problems in health care in USA? There are horror stories of people that thought they had coverage but when too sick to fight for themselves, found out they
      were not covered. Keep it real Hannity!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by vhw28672478 (July 24, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
         
      We need heath care reformed
      Report Abuse
    • Author by alienofwar (July 25, 2009 1:30 am ET)
      2  
      70% of Canadians like/really like their health care system and 80% say they would not trade it for the U.S system.

      But why let facts ruin a Sean Hannity's fairy tale? Gulp it down you gullible Fox viewers and if you survive, please come again!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by alienofwar (July 25, 2009 1:33 am ET)
           
        http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090710/national/poll_health_care
        Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (July 26, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
        1  
        HANNITY lives in a fairey tale world.A world where CONSERVATISM is the answer to everything.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by ProgLib (July 25, 2009 6:06 am ET)
      1  
      like sean hannity gives a rats *** about canadians? and hes airing shots of the canadian flag as well while airing (most likely very specifically edited) footage of this ladies healthcare issues... how very pro-american and patriotic of you, sean. seriously, who in their right mind can believe anything this guy has to say on his show? it lacks all credibility, especially when he is running segments with scary music in the background. at least oreilly is entertaining sometimes... but hannity is just a complete d-bag.

      and in this case, he decides to compare the "socialist" healthcare system in canada and baselessly claim that somehow it will be identical to what the US is going to be. there is a lot more than falsehoods and distortions in this "special", like belligerent and pointless paranoia about obama being some kind of a dictator and controlling people's right to healthcare when he is only trying to improve it since it was flawed for the last 8 years under the presidency of sean hannity's BFF.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (July 26, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
        2  
        a few years ago while in EUROPE my mom suffered a stroke.she spent 3 weeks in a SWISS hospital, then flew home and spent 1 week in a NEW YORK hospital.The cost for the 1 week stay in NEW YORK was substantualy more than for the 3 week stay in SWITZERLAND. O the evils of SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by gmsingh (July 25, 2009 7:22 pm ET)
      1  
      Is Hannity capable of saying anything where he doesn't sound like he's having a panic attack?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by hurricaneyankee52983 (July 26, 2009 8:54 pm ET)
         
      SEAH HANNITY=far RIGHT WING LIAR.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wikilowe (July 26, 2009 11:59 pm ET)
         
      Has anybody else here seen the report that Shona Holmes, who has become the "symbol" of what's wrong with non-US Healthcare, is exaggerating her condition grossly so as to misrepresent Canadian and Universal Health Care?

      She had a benign cyst on her pituitary gland called a Rathke's cyst which has a 0% mortality rate. She had no chance of dying or of really even being harmed by it. Not to mention it's genetic, which probably could have barred her from getting insurance in the US had she lived her, what with it being a pre-existing condition and all.
      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.