CNN's Hill advanced falsehood that public option is "unpopular"
Reporting that "a lot of the anger that we've seen in these town hall meetings is over the idea of a public insurance plan," CNN's Erica Hill falsely suggested that a public health insurance option is broadly unpopular, asking chief business correspondent Ali Velshi, "What are the real proposals here for public insurance? And why is it so unpopular?" In fact, according to several recent polls, a majority support a public plan option.
From the August 7 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
HILL: So, Ali, a lot of the anger that we've seen in these town hall meetings is over the idea of a public insurance plan.
VELSHI: Yeah.
HILL: The word "socialism" gets thrown around there. We're compared to governments in Europe, Canada. Critics say it's essentially a government takeover of the health care system. Even House Democrats, though, who support the idea, don't seem to agree to make it work.
So give us an idea. What are the real proposals here for public insurance? And why is it so unpopular?
VELSHI: All right, well, because it's unfamiliar, because it does have those overtones of socialism. That's not necessarily true. And you're absolutely right about one thing. Democrats are having trouble agreeing on what that is. Republicans are having an easier time on agreeing that they don't want the public option.
Polls find majority support public option
Several recent polls found that a majority support a public option. Recent polling from Washington Post/ABC News, Time, and McClatchy all found more than 50 percent support for a public option; two Quinnipiac polls and a New York Times/CBS News poll found more than 60 percent support. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found respondents divided with 46 percent of respondents supporting a public option:
Quinnipiac: 62 percent support "public option." When asked whether they "support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans," 62 percent of respondents in a July 27-August 3 Quinnipiac poll said they support giving people a public option. In a July poll asking the same question, 69 percent said they support a public option.
Washington Post/ABC News: 54 percent support a "government-run plan." A July 15-18 Washington Post/ABC News poll asked: "Thinking about health care, one proposal to insure nearly everyone would require all Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty on their income tax, excluding those with lower incomes. It would require most employers to offer health coverage or pay a fee. There would be a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. And income taxes on people earning more than 280-thousand dollars a year would be raised to help fund the program. Taken together, would you support or oppose this plan? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?" Fifty-four percent of respondents said they would support the plan.
Time: 56 percent favor a "government-sponsored" option. In a July 27-28 Time poll, 56 percent of respondents said they would favor a health care bill that "creates a government-sponsored public health insurance option to compete with private health insurance plans."
NY Times/CBS News: 66 percent favor a "government administered" plan. When respondents were asked in a July 24-28 New York Times/CBS News poll whether they would "favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans," 66 percent said they would support the plan.
McClatchy: 52 percent say "it is necessary to create a public health insurance plan." In a July 9-13 Ipsos/McClatchy poll, 52 percent of respondents said that the statement -- "It is necessary to create a public health insurance plan to make sure that all Americans have access to quality health care" -- came "closest to [their] opinion" of "whether or not the government should create a public health insurance plan as an alternative to private insurance."
NBC News/Wall Street Journal: 46 percent favor a plan "administered by the federal government." However, at least one poll, conducted July 24-27 by NBC News/Wall Street Journal, shows a split opinion on the public option. When respondents were asked whether they would "favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies," 46 percent said they would favor such a plan, while 44 percent said they would oppose it; 10 percent of respondents were not sure.
Pattern of misleading media coverage of public option
Media skew health care debate by casting public plan option as left-most proposal. As Media Matters for America has noted, by ignoring a position on health care embraced by many progressives, the media have helped to skew the debate and potentially ensure that the legislation that Congress and the Obama administration work out will fall short of what the administration and the public are advocating, which itself is less than many progressives say is necessary. In their coverage of a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) for a system of health coverage "cooperatives" as an alternative to the inclusion of a public plan option, the media have often portrayed the co-op system proposal as a compromise between the public plan option, which Obama is advocating, and a plan free of any government involvement, which many congressional Republicans are advocating, without noting that the public plan option is itself a compromise for many progressives, who advocate a single-payer system. Indeed, in the view of many progressives, the public plan option is the least that must be included for health care reform to be successful.
NPR's Liasson stated that "the public option is what's driving a lot of this anger." On the August 9 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, NPR's Mara Liasson asserted that there is "real anger" over the public option without noting that according to several recent polls, a majority support one.
Wash. Post redefines "center" as excluding public plan. On August 6, The Washington Post described an "emerging" bipartisan health care reform bill that would "abandon the government insurance option that President Obama is seeking" as a "move toward" the "center," ignoring recent polling on the issue.
Progressive economists' critiques missing from coverage of "compromise" health co-op plan. Media figures and outlets have characterized Conrad's cooperative health insurance proposal as a "compromise," "hybrid," or bipartisan "alternative" to a public insurance option without noting the argument by progressive economists that the co-ops are insufficient and a public option is necessary for health care reform to be successful.
Transcript:
From the August 7 edition of CNN's Anderson Cooper 360:
HILL: So let's put those brawls over health care reform aside for just a moment, and let's try something here. Let's look at some actual facts. Let's take a look at what is on the table at this point in the House and the Senate.
Who better than Ali Velshi to join us now with the "Raw Politics"? So, Ali, a lot of the anger that we've seen in these town hall meetings is over the idea of a public insurance plan.
VELSHI: Yeah.
HILL: The word "socialism" gets thrown around there. We're compared to governments in Europe, Canada. Critics say it's essentially a government takeover of the health care system. Even House Democrats, though, who support the idea, don't seem to agree to make it work.
So give us an idea. What are the real proposals here for public insurance? And why is it so unpopular?
VELSHI: All right, well, because it's unfamiliar, because it does have those overtones of socialism. That's not necessarily true. And you're absolutely right about one thing. Democrats are having trouble agreeing on what that is. Republicans are having an easier time on agreeing that they don't want the public option.
But there's more than one thing when we talk about a public option. Let's take a look at what it is. The first option is a publicly funded insurance system that basically deals with -- and remember this, there are up to 50 million Americans who are not properly insured right now. This wouldn't even take care of all of them.
But basically it would be a federally funded insurance program that would compete with privately funded insurance programs. So I think this talk about how it's going to take away the insurance people have, it doesn't make sense. That's not on the table at all.
The other proposal that the Democrats have is a co-op type of insurance; a cooperative that is not necessarily funded by the government. It's funded by its members, although it would get seed money from the government.
One of the problems is we don't know how many people would participate in these programs, so it's hard to do the actuarial science to figure out whether it would cost more or less. So I'm fascinated by people who are yelling and not letting others speak on this thing, because there's so much information that we actually have to have.
But this is, in very, very broad strokes, the two public options. It would not be all of the program, by the way. It would be part of health care reform -- Erica.
Years from now, when your grandchildren ask you why the U.S. is still the only industrialized nation without National Healthcare, you can say you were there when the Troglodytes drove a stake through its heart in the name of greed.
Hilarious!
Erica, the next time you sit down in a chair to have your makeup done before you go on the air, take a long look in the mirror. You will find the answer to your question there.
Just in case you are too lazy to do this, I will spell it out for you: Because the media, the vast majority of the media, has spent the last two months calling a public health option and any reform of the current illness care system 'fascism', 'communism', 'socialism', 'euthanasia', and any other thing they (and you) think will stick. Funny, because even after the carpet bombing of this topic by the corporate whores in the media and the scare mongers on the web, it STILL has strong public support.
Close to 70% of Americans have health insurance that they rate as Good or Excellent. Nearly 75% rate their overall health care as Good and Excellent. Other data indicate that nearly 50% of Americans say our health care is fine in this country. That is a steep hill to climb in this debate.
Keep your eye on the polls. Just remember to keep your eye on what they're saying. You can bet the architects of ObamaCare in the WH are!
They dont like the cost they pay now. They want reform.
But? How much more will it really cost after government takes over. ???
And all your numbers say is that 75% of people can't read the fine print, or assume nothing bad will ever happen to them, and 50% are woefully, depressingly misinfomred.
Those 75% may as well believe the earth is flat, it still don't make it so.
Those numbers are from an Aug 7th poll BTW. Anyway, it's going to be a long tough slog uphill for ObamaCare. The more people find out about how this will effect them and how much it costs the climb will only get steeper.
For example, if your health insurance costs you $1,000 a month today, you can anticipate $2,000 a month (adjusted for inflation) in 2017. Company health care costs are going up at 9% this year.
Viewed differently, we're going to get a lot poorer if we do nothing.
And IMO, many of the people who say their health care is fine probably hasn't had to use it lately and/or ever.
The US pays twice as much per citizen for health care compared to other industrial countries. We are ranked 39th in the world in health care, pretty much dead last amongst industrial countries. We pay more and get less.
None of the five criteria (1. Health level, 2. Health distribution, 3. Responsiveness, 4. Responsiveness distribution, 5. Financial fairness) take into account actual health outcomes like cancer and heart attack survival rates which in the US we lead the world in 13 out of 16 cancers. Their methodology is so flawed Morocco and Columbia are ranked ahead of the US.
When's the last time you heard of people running to Morocco to get cancer treatments? I'm all for a good debate on health care, but using data (especially WHO data) is not the place to start.
WHO data biased
More flawed WHO data
When you take into account all diseases amenable to health care, the US ranks 15th.
(You'll notice that there are a lot of cancers included in that study.)
So the US spends twice as much and we end up 15th in the world. Not good.
Right out of your link:
I cant say it enough...WHO data is faulty. Change the study
but the fact still remains the methodology is the same. WHO biased their data towards single-payer nationalized programs. That is why Columbia is ranked higher (at least in the 37th ranking) but I know you know in your heart of hearts that the health care there is nowhere near what we have in the US.
Your link brought up mortality rates. What they don't take into account is accidents and homicides. When adjusted for those two, then the US is on par with the rest of the world.
If you had even skimmed the study you would know that homicides and accidents are already excluded. Even the title lets you know: do you think homicides are amenable to health care?
The study does use WHO data, but you have not shown that the data is biased in any significant way. Even if your links were absolutely true, the small change in maternal mortality would not rocket the US up to first place. I doubt it would make any difference at all. (Maternal death is one of 34 conditions considered by the study.)
They (WHO) bias the study towards single-payer nationalized systems. It doesn't get any clearer than that. I can agree that even though certain data was included that the US would be number one. That's not my point. I can guarantee you though we're not 37th.
My beef is you have politicians running around using WHO data that is KNOWN to be biased. It is misleading at best and devious at worst.
I can agree that certain having been included would not make the US number one. I'm not arguing that "we're number one", just that we're not 37th in the world.
never post before coffee...
WHO data biased...Overall attainment vs overall performance
I agree with one poster, our "health care reform" should be
about improving health care, reducing the costs and increasing coverage. Insurance is a bogey. A lot of Americans would agree to Universal health care. Most don't want the government managing their health care. That will include the Medicare beneficiaries as soon as it runs out of money. The challenge for all of America is how to cover everyone, lower the costs and improve health care without having the government micromanaging the health care system. [HR3200 starts right out micromanaging with the details of home visitations and advising doctors when to have end of life discussions. Imagine that, a United States Law giving advice to doctors.]
HR3200 is a bad law. Vote NO on HR3200. Shuffle and re-deal. Come up with a better solution. Time is wasting.
Why do we need to go back over the election. The Republican's act like we are starting from scratch and that isn't so. We won the election so give us our public option and put this thing to rest.
The media is playing right into their hands treating this like a fresh issue. If the Republican's had of won, there would be no discussion about a public option.
This is why it matters. Know who Ezekiel Emanuel is? Yes, Rahm "they're dead" Emanuel's brother, health care POLICY ADVISOR for ObamaCare. Can a tiger change his stripes?
(Bold my emphasis)
Get ready for the Gov to make health care decisions for you people. It is coming if these folks get their way.
The reason? He was second in line for highest campaign donations from them during the election, and is advocating a public-private insurance combo plan, saying he does not want to create a loss of insurance sector jobs in the current climate. Many of these jobs could be assimilated into the public sector over a period of time.
The fact of the matter still remains...all politicians are dependent on campaign money, and that is a far bigger concern for them than placating the public with a much-needed single-payer system that eliminates the fat-cat middleman. Make them compete with other bidders to supply low-cost healthcare and prescription drug coverage or lose government business, and yes, if necessary, the government should consider options to bring in more foreign doctors or drugs to stabilize costs, just as the profiteers do themselves.
So remember those facts whenever you see something about the plan in the press or the news. Especially since investigative reporting of the facts has long been replaced by whatever sensationalism draws readers, revenue, and furthers the political agenda of their advertisers. Is it any wonder that we get more viewpoints and truth from a free-internet than the bought and paid for moguls of Fox and CNN? Good riddance to them all.
Follow the dollars and the truth will set you free, and don't believe the lies of the Limbaughs, Hannitys, and others who are far better off than you or I with their private plans, which they are more than able to afford. And believe me those two would need every penny if they ever had to face the millions of uninsured somewhere in a dark alley. By the grace of God I can't understand why His justice hasn't found either one of them yet. May God have mercy on their souls, if either exists, because in today's trying times, your faith is surely being put to the test.
So if at all possible, fight against the current private insurance option, and tell them you want public taxpayer paid healthcare, plain and simple, and to stop killing babies with drones in Afghanistan and Iraq to help pay for it. Haven't these crimes against humanity, endorsed by Hannity (and his ilk), gone on long enough? Isn't it time for this administration to put an end to the suicides and returning dead and maimed soldiers? - Rodrian Roadeye