Fox & Friends hosts Luntz to decry Pelosi "rebranding" the public option, push "government option" language
Fox & Friends hosted "word doctor" Frank Luntz -- who has instructed conservatives to use the term "government option" rather than "public option" because it doesn't poll as well -- to criticize House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "rebranding" of the public option as the "consumer option." Co-host Gretchen Carlson also continued Fox News' trend of using language echoing that approved by Luntz by asking if the public option should be called a "government takeover of health care."
Luntz uses Fox News platform to rebrand public option, criticize Pelosi for her own rebranding
On Fox & Friends, Luntz explains why "people out there who are watching right now" should call it the government option. During the October 28 edition of Fox & Friends, Luntz responded to Carlson's question about Pelosi's "rebranding" of the public option, arguing that Pelosi is trying to "change" the term because the public option is "losing support on a daily basis":
CARLSON: Let's talk a little about the wordsmiths and how this sort of rebranding effort has been going on for the last couple of months. Now we have Nancy Pelosi not wanting to call it the public option. Shouldn't what we really call it is a government takeover of health care? Is that why she now wants to call it the consumer option, to kind of shield that?
LUNTZ: Well, look, a lemon is a lemon; you can call it an orange or an apple. And I have a simple question for people out there who are watching right now, what you should call it. Who created it, the public or the government? Who determines the details of what's in this plan, the public or the government? Who is promoting this plan, the public or the government? Now she's realized the so-called public option that she wants to call it is losing support on a daily basis, and so she's trying to change the language behind it. The problem is that the American people really don't want Washington running their health care. They really don't want Washington making the decision that should be made by doctors and hospitals. And so she's trapped in this ideological crusade that an increasing number of Americans are opposing.
Public option remains popular. Contrary to the claims of Luntz and other conservatives, polling consistently shows broad support for the public option.
Luntz previously told Hannity to use term "government option" because "the public is overwhelmingly against" that phrasing. On the August 18 edition of Hannity, Luntz explained to Hannity that "If you call it a public option, the American people are split," but "if you call it the government option, the public is overwhelmingly against it." Hannity replied that "from now on, I'm going to call it the government option."
Carlson echoes Luntz, asks if public option should be called "government takeover of health care"
Carlson asks if public option shouldn't be called a "government takeover of health care." After airing a clip of Pelosi referring to the public option as the "consumer option," Carlson asked, "So will this change the public perception of a government takeover of health care, or is it just hot air?" She later said to Luntz: "Now we have Nancy Pelosi not wanting to call it the public option. Shouldn't what we really call it is a government takeover of health care?"
Pollster Luntz suggested health reform opponents use term "government takeover." In a memo titled "The Language of Healthcare 2009," Luntz asserted: "You'll notice we recommend the phrase 'government takeover' rather than 'government run' or 'government controlled' It's because too many politician say 'we don't want a government run healthcare system like Canada or Great Britain' without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. 'In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make YOUR healthcare decisions. THEY decide if you'll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can't have that in America.' " [Rule Five in Luntz's "THE 10 RULES FOR STOPPING THE 'WASHINGTON TAKEOVER' OF HEALTHCARE"]
Fox & Friends' Doocy previously used "government takeover" language to attack wording of poll on public option. After noting that an ABC/Washington Post poll asked, "Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?" Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy stated: "On its face you think, 'That sounds pretty good.' So you can understand why it would be more positive than negative." Carlson then responded: "As opposed to just saying, 'Do you like the government-run option?' That would be more straightforward." Doocy replied: "Right. Or, 'Do you -- are you in favor of the government taking over the health care situation in this nation?' " [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 10/21/09]
Fox News has repeatedly aired on-screen text using Luntz-approved term "govt option"
In the same broadcast, Fox & Friends featured on-screen text using the term "govt option." As Media Matters documented, the October 28 broadcast of Fox & Friends also ran a chyron reading, "Snowe Upset by Reid's Govt Option Push."
Fox News' Live Desk has repeatedly aired on-screen text using the term "govt option." From the October 27 edition of The Live Desk:
From the October 26 edition of The Live Desk:
This is no different then the "War on Terror" changing to "Overeseas Contingency Plan". Or when Nancy Pelosi with her "it's not a tax increase but an elimination of a decrease". What? Common sense says that equals an increase. Heck, I even remember Hilarty Clinton changing her haristyle when she was first lady to appear more traditional after many people were getting upset with her role with universal healthcare.
This basic expansion of Medicaid will certainly be one the worst if not the worst thing that has ever happened to this country. If it passes there will be no going back. This country is bankrupt now & of you think somehow if can afford a new bill that they have NO CLUE how much it will really end up costing think again. This is not an "option" any more than you IRS bill is. What government pet project has ever worked efficiently and under budget? When does a gov't take over ever increase competition or control spending? It only controls the profit of others while it steals for themselves. This is not about healthcare it's about power.
Tell me why do Progressives get so upset with the private industry makes a proit & tell us who were are somehow being cheating by greedy businesses, yet embraces a government who is doing exactly what they accuse others of?
i have no problem with them making a profit. what i have a problem with is that when i get sick i expect to have it covered after my deductible. i should not have to make a dozen phone calls and contact a lawyer just to get them to do their job. especially when they take the money that is supposed to pay for my heath and use it to line their pockets.
do you know why they are changing the name? because you wingnut began it by saying the public OPTION was government controlled healthcare. the right learned how gullible their followers are so they use fear words to advance their agenda. quit being so surprised when the other side hits back.
the rest of your argument just shows how uninformed you really are. the public option will be paid for by the people that use it. that makes it deficit neutral. and why do you idiots keep harping on medicare? take a history class and look at what was happening to seniors before medicare. also, if your argument is so great against medicare then repeal it. i would love to see conservatives win an election after that.
bottom line is that health care for all is a good idea whose time has come. and all you christian conservatives would see that if you weren't so selfish and maybe tried to educate yourselves.
Conservative peiople never started the "PUBLIC OPTION" phrase that was started by supporters of "universal healthcare" or "national healthcare". Since most people see Canada or the UK when they hear these phrases that's when a new phrase was developed.
You are absolutely right that the people who use this gov't healthcare system will be apying for it because everyone will end up on it? If you employer is going to save money by not providing your healthcare benefits do you think they are going to prvide them? What about the small business owner who will apparently face a fine of about 8% if they do not provide ins coverage. Who is paying for the gov't healthcar right now? It crtainly isn't the people who are using it. YOu do knwo we will be paying into it 3 years before it even starts right? And apparently this money will go into the general fund. That general fund sure has worked well before!
I personally think SSI, Medicare & medicaid was another excuse for gov't to have more control. Of course no politician would ever say these programs should be reduced or removed because too many peoiple are used to living on the gov't teet & refuse to give it us! Just like Robert Reich said if politicians were truthful they would tell seniors we are not going to pay for expensive treatment to keep you alive for few months-we are going to let you die". What politiican would get elected with that statement?
Bottom line- universal, national, goverment insurance is a bad idea & it's another debt that this country cannot afford.
The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money".- Margaret Thatcher
if you really don't like the way government does things then stop driving on public/government controlled roads. don't call the fire or police/government controlled security. hopefully you don't need the post office/government controlled parcel service.
The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money".- Margaret Thatcher
it would seem that socialism in England out lived Ms. thatcher and last i checked people in England were free and happy. so much so your socialism fear mongering.
if you want to live in a completely free country, buy an island and move there. let me know how your life works out with no government. you can send me a post card. oh yeah, thats right you won't have a post office.
"Him' is actually a "her". See what happens when you assume; goes along with the baseless and unsubstantiated as the rest of your post. If we had LIMITED Goverment, eveyone would be better off.
As far as war, it never solved anything except for Slavery, Communism, Fascism, Natzism.. I think you get the point. It's our wars who allow you to speak as you do. Be thankful-it;s a Blessing.
Psst - China is still there.
Solved slavery? Really - so all the slaves around the world are fooling themselves?
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/slavery1.html
And fascism? Solved? Well why are all the wingnut screech monkeys decrying the current administartion's fascism?
Grab yourself a clue...
Progressive, communist, socialist, fascist, what's the dif?
But you claimed it was solved. And what about China and slavery? Are you really as stupid as you appear?
Ahhh, here's the crux of the matter - you're homeschooled! Now I know wiki isn't authoritative, but for someone such as yourself, it's a start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Why is it Libs alway have to resort to attemptign to attck someone to mae their point? maybe it's a way of trying to deflect from their lack of response?
So far today I am a "homeschooled" "Librul foreigner" "man" who is irrational, uniformed and needing to take history! And I've only posted on 2 stories!! I've have stuck to the topics and if i did go off topic (slightly) it never resulted in namecalling. oh well. just like every other Lib- react emotionally because you have nothing else to say!
Anyway, I believe what I was saying is how simple minded people are when all you need to do is change a word & you can actually change people's viewpoint. Looking at today's world I would hav never guessed we are the country where the automobile, the lightbulb, the telephone, space travel, tha A-bomb, polio vaccine not to mention the best form of gov't ever produced over 200yrs ago. I only wish we would adhere to that great document. We are a far cry from what the Founders created. Gov't healthcare is not the answer!!
Well, it's been fun but got more important things to do! See ya!
Uh oh - another victim!
And perhaps you are unfamiliar with a web site called Free Republic, but if you think what you described here as attacks are bad, try them.
How is that? Oh, yeah, off the top of my head we ended slavery and gave women the right to vote. Wanna go back to those good old days of slavery and women's suffrage?
Gov't healthcare is not the answer!!
Insurance companies had their time, but it has now passed. With their greed they've brought death and bankruptcy to thousands. They had their chance and they failed. Failed miserably.
As far as the insurance companies having "their cance and failed miserably". If you would get the gov't regulation out of them it wouldn't be so bad. So you are willing to trust the very people who steal from you on a daily basis under the guise of "for your own good"? You happy with the marxist we have in control right now but how will you feel if the people you oppose gain control again & they are the one in control of your care? Will you still feel the same then? How are we going to pay for this. when Medicare was proposed it was only supposed to cost #$12 bil by 1990 & ended up costing $107 bil. n now you think these people who have never held a reglar job in their ife is going to do this efficiently?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis
I think that pretty much sums it up.
And do you think it wasn't conservatives who opposed Martin Luther King's struggle for fundamental human equality?
Do you really think it was conservatives who wrote the most liberal document ever written at the founding of our country?
Wow!
Not to mention one of the reasosn healthcare & insurance is so high is because our current gov't plans do not pay enough to keep any busimess afoat. The cost has to be made up somewhere & that's is why we end up apying $30 for Tylenol in the hospital.
You really don't think it was the Democrats that supported the civil rights act do you? check you history. Sen. Bryd I think was still playing in his white sheets & al Gore SR was opposed to it as well.
Just like many other words people who belive in big gov't change words to try to better convince people to side with them. You are absolutley right that the Constitution was the most Liberal document ever written but you can not say the reflects today's liberal definition. That's like saying "gay" still only means "happy". Actually I've notices more people callign themselves, "progressive" rather than Liberal becasue of the reputation Liberalism has developed. The liberalism that stands for truly equal rights & limited government-sign me up!
Tort reform. Hypocrite. I thought you against government regulation? What do you think you're rooting for when you root to limit patient's rights, aka, tort reform?
Really? Have you been to England? have you seen their ecomony? Lived there over 4 years myself. Great adventure but truly made me appreciate the US.
If the Democratic/socialist way is the best please tell me why so many Democratically controlled cities & states here in the USA are doing so poorly economically. Detriot has pretty much been run to the gound & it's been controlled by Dems my whole life. New Orleans- another perfect example. Show me where increased taxes & services have actually made a city or state prosper!
if you want to live in a completely free country, buy an island and move there. let me know how your life works out with no government. you can send me a post card. oh yeah, thats right you won't have a post office.
A completely free country would be anarchism-not appealing. I have read "The Coming Insurrection". Not a great idea. What most people do want is "limited govenment" The goverment should not be a nanny state somehow knowing what is better for us then ourselves. Taxes should go to provide infrastructure such as roads, the courts police/fire etc. What it doesn't need to go to is generation after generation of people who live off the gov't. i know you probably chose not to believe it but there are people who chose not to work & prefer for to collect welfare or live in poverty rather than actually doing something hard everyday. I also do not think tax dollars should continue for a women to continue to having bay after baby on our taxes becasue she doesn't feel like taking a pill or using a condom. If a woman wants 10 kids on medicaid that's fine ther is no limit just keep spitting them out! Personally I think the post office is a perfect example of why we don't need government in our healthcare! Not the best example of efficiency. Private companies such as FEd EX & UPS are far more effective & profitable. I could also saem th same for yourself. if you want a country to wipe your nose when you need it there ar plenty to go around. the tissue paper may be rationed though. Good luck when you get there.
Family coverage is estmated to be 22,000/YR in less than 10 years.
Lost of people live off the "gov't teat" as you call it. The list would fill this whole blog.
Without it whole towns would disappear as they've put military suppliers all over the country.
Under Bush there were subsidies for oil & energy companies.
We subsidize farming
No other major industrialized country allows for profit health care.
No other country allows drug advertising in TV
Drug companies benefit greatly from research done either directly by the gov't or through grants provided by the gov't. They also benefit greatly by overly long patent protection plus laws & courts funded by the gov't.
Actual investment in R & D by drug companies is exceeded by the amount they spend on marketing. The US is the only country in the world that allows drug advertising on TV.
Drug prices were rather stagnant as a percentage of GDP from 1960 - 1980 but from 1980 - 2000 they tripled.
Drug prices are rising around 12 percent each year.
For the top 10 pharmaceutical companies, [research & development] amounted to only 11 percent of sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent in 2000
Of the 78 drugs approved by the FDA in 2002, only 17 contained new active ingredients, and only seven of these were classified by the FDA as improvements over older drugs. The other 71 drugs approved that year were variations of old drugs, or deemed no better than drugs already on the market. In other words, they were me-too drugs.
The former chairman and CEO of Bristol-Myers Squibb, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., made $74,890,918 in 2001, not counting his $76,095,611 worth of unexercised stock options. The chairman of Wyeth made $40,521,011, exclusive of his $40,629,459 in stock options.
2.-? where does this come from? I would like to read the rest of the policy.
3.-You're right about that & how sad is that. Products of a combo of the "me generation"; & entitlement mentality.
4.- Refer to #4 again it's sad when generations continue to live off the gov't. Defense spending if different & necessary.
5.I'm against corporate susidies, as much as "windfall profits tax".
6.- We shouldn't susidise farming that too has now become a disaster. FDR was a great example & ethanol is too.
7.- No other country has better healthcare! Competition & incentative & innovation are not bad things!
8.- Refer to #7. So far we are still a capitalist country. If rx commericals are so influental shoudl we ban alcohol, fast food commercials?
9-13. Drug company also greatly do well with research from private donors and profits from the companies they work so hard develop. If capitalism is so bad for business & innovation why do most new rx come from the US. That is because when healthcare is rationed byt ht gov't there isnt' much to go to research & not to mentione the refused to pay for high cost treatments therefore likely a waste of money. (Refer to NICE in UK)
14. With all the ambulance chasing lawyers around many pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to develop new rx. Just look at the vaccine developments & how they have dropped off. Also see recent lawsuit commercial for Yasmin, fixident, you name it.
15.- Not to mentione the kick backs for stimulus package like to Goldman Sacs, etc! Timothy Geithner does pay what $37,000 in taxes he didin't know about. Charlie Rangle misses $2 mil of income in his taxes and yet you trust these people? Why is it only corportions who actually work for their money are evil while other who steal it from you tellign you it's for your own good are angels? Besides when you look at isnurance companies profit please refer to the profit margin. I think it averages about 2%.
I never said heath insurance doesn't need reformed I just say ogvernment isn't the answer!!
Sure, so what if your breakfast cereal is 20% lead and causes brain damage, you can always get a job at Faux News.
7.- No other country has better healthcare! Competition & incentative[sic] & innovation are not bad things!
While the U.S.A. has very good capabilities to handle illness, if it's only available to those with near-million-dollar salaries, it's like the fact that the Earth has the capability to feed all six billion people, but there are people starving because of the distribution failures.
9-13. Drug company also greatly do well with research from private donors and profits from the companies they work so hard develop. If capitalism is so bad for business & innovation why do most new rx come from the US.
You ARE aware that most of the 'new' drugs are simple variants of 'old' drugs, and are created because the 'old' drugs are losing their patent protection?
14. With all the ambulance chasing lawyers around many pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to develop new rx.
Besides the previous response, I don't see a lot of 'reluctance' to develop 'new' drugs, I even noted two commercials for prescription only drugs that only enhance the action of other drugs.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm
Public is the antonym of private. We don't talk about going swimming in the government pool - we swim in the public pool if we don't have a friend with a private pool. We don't drive on government roads - we drive on public roads so we don't get in trouble for going on the private roads.
This is not rocket science.
I like, American healthcare plan. That's just me.
Healthcare is a right, not a privilege.