Misinformation pandemic: Conservative media use H1N1 to oppose health care reform
Since President Obama declared the H1N1 pandemic a national emergency on October 24, conservative media figures have accused the Obama administration of attempting to, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, "create panic and chaos" in order to "sell health care." These charges ignore the prevalence of the disease, which, along with the consequent need to "enable U.S. health care facilities to implement emergency operations plans," were factors Obama specifically cited when he declared the national emergency.
Conspiracy theory: Obama fearmongering about H1N1 to pass health reform
Limbaugh: government might be "hyping the number" of H1N1 cases to "[c]reate panic and chaos, sell health care." During the October 28 edition of his syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh asserted "if that's true" that the government is "hyping the number of" H1N1 cases, "that doesn't surprise me. Create panic and chaos, sell health care, keep general unrest out there amongst the population -- it's right out the Obama formula."
Limbaugh fill-in Davis suggested White House hyping flu to "make us feel oh-so-good about government handling a health issue." Filling in for Limbaugh on October 26, guest-host Mark Davis noted that "since the swine flu issue has arisen and it happens to be alongside the massive health care debate," then asked if there is "an effort on the part of this White House to make it seem worse than it is so that we are all just thinking and worrying and gnashing our teeth and wringing our hands over the kind of coverage we have and to make us feel oh-so-good about government handling a health issue."
Beck co-host Gray: Obama is "just declaring a national emergency so [they] can take power." On the October 26 edition of Glenn Beck's radio program, during a discussion of Obama's decision of declare the H1N1 pandemic a national emergency, co-host Pat Gray asserted of the Obama administration: "We're just declaring a national emergency so that we can take power, but we don't really want you to panic."
Conservative media's charges ignore reality of the H1N1 pandemic
Obama declared "national emergency" to waive federal requirements, facilitating hospitals' emergency operations. Obama announced that he declared the pandemic a national emergency because "the rapid increase in illness across the Nation may overburden health care resources and that the temporary waiver of certain standard Federal requirements may be warranted in order to enable U.S. health care facilities to implement emergency operations plans, the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic in the United States constitutes a national emergency."
CDC reported H1N1 has caused at least 20,000 hospitalizations. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has attributed at least 20,000 hospitalizations and more than 1,000 deaths to the virus, according to a Washington Post report about Obama's national emergency declaration. From the article:
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported on Friday that the flu was spreading widely in at least 46 states and had already caused the hospitalization of at least 20,000 Americans. More than 1,000 deaths have been attributed to the virus and more than 2,400 additional deaths were probably associated with it, officials said. [The Washington Post, 10/25/09]
Media still using H1N1 vaccine distribution to suggest government can't manage reform
Breitbart, Examiner claimed vaccine distribution indicates government can't handle reform. As Media Matters for America has noted, Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com highlighted a piece by Washington Examiner editorial page editor Mark Tapscott which blamed the H1N1 vaccine shortage on the government and suggested that the shortage is indicative of the government's ability to reform health care.
Fox Nation, Hannity, Pat Robertson follow Breitbart's lead. Like Breitbart, Fox Nation highlighted Tapscott's Examiner piece, linking to it with the headline: "Vaccine Shortage Not Best Advertisement for Obamacare."
Similarly, on the October 26 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity noted the "severe shortage of the H1N1 vaccine" and asked: "[D]oesn't the government's success at providing the nation with flu vaccines, does it give you a lot of faith about their ability to take over the entire health care system?" Also, on the October 27 edition of The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson suggested that the number of people lining up to get the H1N1 vaccine should be "enough to scare you away from this public option." He added: "They think the government is now -- is going to handle your health. They can't even get out vaccines for people, and they've had, they've had a good year or better to get the supply together, and they don't have it yet."
CDC, Sebelius say manufacturers' projections of available vaccines were too high. CDC director Dr. Thomas Friedan said that vaccine supplies were below the number predicted because the estimates from the vaccine manufactures -- presumably the experts in flu vaccine manufacturing -- were too high. Friedan stated: "What we have learned more in the last couple of weeks is that not only is the virus unpredictable, but vaccine production is much less predictable than we wish. We are nowhere near where we thought we'd be by now. We are not near where the vaccine manufacturers predicted we would be." And Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has called the projections the government received from the manufacturers "overly rosy."
Hannity's anti-reform crusade: Fox host uses H1N1 to fearmonger about rationing
Hannity used H1N1 to fearmonger seniors will be denied care. On September 21, Hannity suggested during both his radio and Fox News shows that the CDC's list of priority groups to receive the H1N1 vaccine places the elderly "last on the list" and thus amounts to "a form of government deciding rationing." Hannity, who has repeatedly fearmongered that health care reform will lead to rationing of care, linked the H1N1 vaccine to health reform and asked "why would you expect Obamacare to be any different?"
I guess it's true the Biblical Story of Abel & Cain?
What do Conservatives stand for besides Hate & Dis-Trust?
Will the Extreme Right ever stand for anything that's Honest & Just?
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
And what a horrible thing to try to get passed! Healthcare for people? Socialized healthcare at that! What kind of sick administration would try to make that happen?
There is only one thing I could think of that would be worse than trying to lie to America about a disease to pass healthcare reform: Lying to America about a rouge regime hoarding weapons of mass destruction that was a part of the 9/11 attacks to justify a war with that regime...even though they had no WMDs and had nothing to do with 9/11. The way this administration is, I can only see that as the next logical step in their dubious and dishonest methods.
After all, those military members already get yearly flu, hepatitis and other precautionary vaccination shots. They would probably try to use that fact as another method to pass this so-called socialized healthcare. Disgusting! Blech! Yuck! How dare they?!?
Spin from both sides.
Clearly, rosy projections are status quo for businesses trying to gain business.
But, if I acted as a vendor of sorts and communicated that x would happen, and then y happened instead because my supplier didn't come through, I'm still responsible to the customer.
They are still responsible to the American public for what they're responsible for, and they have lived up to every one of their responsibilities with regard to the H1N1 virus problem.
If you're a distributor, and you told your customers that the vendor has promised x, but the vendor has delivered less than that to you, then you inform your customer when you expect to be able to get the full delivery out to the customer.
That's what the Obama Administration has done. They don't have an obligation to magically make those shortfalls disappear!
They have taken ownership of what they own.
On the other side of the coin, we have the right side of the aisle playing politics with this issue, smearing the Obama Administration unfairly in an attempt to foster mistrust and fear about the government's ability to handle healthcare reform in order to pursue their own political agenda. They've pushed misinformation in a wholly dishonest way that's the height of politically partisan behavior. They aren't even really trying to sway public opinion about the flu vaccine. They're doing it to fearmonger about healthcare reform, and dishonestly using this H1N1 health crisis to do so.
"Yep, so they'll try to pound each other instead of taking mutual responsibility."
Sure sounds like a comment that states pretty emphatically that the White House isn't taking the responsibility they should on this issue.
And RightON said "both sides". He didn't limit his comment to any specific groups on either side.
Tell us what responsibility anyone on the left besides the Obama Administration has with regard to anything dealing with H1N1, and then tell us how they have abused/ignored/rejected that responsibility you maintain both sides are doing.
Nevermind the fact that this is a public and open forum where people can state their opinion, even if it varies from the majority. Nevermind that small-minded people only attack a differing opinion instead of discussing it. Nevermind that it is more mature to respect a differing opinion and state the reasons why you disagree with it when its easier to just start name-calling and arguing for the sake of arguing.
But it is DellDolly's right to act that way. If Dell wants to force an ideology on someone else, who is to stop that? Its not like there is troll police for the troll police.
Dell, don't listen to this clown.
It's just nonsense. It makes no sense if you interpret what they were saying as talking strictly about the media. I know that and you know that and so do four thumbs down and the zero thumbs up. And so do RightON and Dex. All we need is Wesley here and we'd have a full on troll party!
Clearly I don't only care about thumbs up, but they are relevant when the discussion is about other posters not replying to those posts. Not only did they follow my suggestions, but they approved of my direction and they disapproved of the posts critical of my position!
Clearly all you care about with this post is beating up on me. Does it make you feel powerful to make a personal attack online? Because, you should know, it's not a powerful thing to do.
I asked a pretty simple question. I didn't misinterpret what anyone said, but it was twisted as though I did. I repeated the simple question a couple of times, yet no one has even attempted to answer it, and that's because their position wasn't an honest one.
And that's indicated by many things, including the thumbs up or thumbs down their comment got.
You actually went to another story to whine about my comments from a different story. You made personal attacks on me, called me names and tried to say I was a "concern troll" while trying to discredit my very legitimate credentials. You twisted my posts and came up with your own meaning to what my actual meaning was.
I never called you names, I never disagreed with your OPINIONS or made it personal. But when I look at all your posts, half the time you use the "I have thumbs up and you dont" response to people that dont hold the same view as yourself.
You actually dont stop to look at the body of someones posts, you just base your opinion on one post with people you dont agree with.
I was merely pointing out that you only seem to care about whether you get thumbs up or not to justify your points of view, which is true based on the majority of your posts. Is that a personal attack? No. Its the truth. Its not my problem that you cant deal with it.
And you were the one who was demanding that I provide you with my credentials, and it was you who was trying to tell this site that you had better instincts for the PR the President should follow that the President's staff has regarding their expose of FoxNews as a non-legit news organization.
My posts had nothing to do with the person whose name was at the top of the post.
Your attacks here have everything to do with me, so that makes them personal attacks.
And I've referenced thumbs up in 3 posts I believe in 3 months here - I sometimes make a hundred posts in a day - but you've seen half of my posts mention them? You liar.
It would be you who doesn't look at the body of the posts. I always reply to the body of the post! Always.
So it is your "job" here to be the troll police? You are the sole appointed voice of Media Matters to point out "concern trolls?"
I never "demanded" anything of you. I simply asked you what your credentials are to critique my OPINION. I never said I had better instincts than anyone. Those are your words. I said I just think its dumb for the White House to call out Fox publicly that way. I said there are better ways to deal with them. And that is based on my experience.
So according to you, I cant have a reasonable opinion based on real-life experience and state that in an open forum?
So you don't judge a person by their name at the top of the post? You just attack someone whose views you don't agree with? (you never denied that by the way)
I said before, and maybe you didn't see it, but I agree with a lot of what I have seen you post on here. But what gives you the right to anoint yourself the attack dog of this blog? Where do you get off trying to "call out" what you perceive as trolls?
How has that worked for you? I'm still here. Oh, wait, maybe because I'm not a troll? Maybe because coming out and confronting someone head-on doesn't really do anything but drag out the argument? I notice most people you argue with are still here posting. Hmmmmm. Sound familiar? Something to think about, huh?
And I have yet to call you any names, while you have sunk to that level many times.
I think you might take blogging a little too seriously.
I don't make any replies to you or to anyone else with any concern about what the person who wrote the post I am replying to will think about it. I reply to the body of the post, not to the person who wrote it. That's the way it should be.
I don't post for thumbs up either. Not once have I ever done that. But it's undeniable that thumbs up and thumbs down are indicative of something at times. To deny that, again, is your issue, not mine.
And the person who simply wants to argue to argue? That would be you who is making repeated personal attacks instead of addressing the issue in the headline here!
So, I didn't simply try to puff myself up with thumbs up, did I? Nope. After someone claimed that I had no credibility, and implied that they had some, I posted that the audience here doesn't believe that the portrait of the two of us that they were painting wasn't accurate!
Thanks, but no thanks, you don't get to tell me what to do and not do, nor do I have to take your advice. I will do what I want, when I want, and part of what I want to do is to stop trolls from derailing threads, if I can.
And yes, you did demand, 3 times I believe. You insisted that we were required to listen to you because you had credentials. Then when I voiced my opinion that you didn't know what you were talking about, and the opinion that the White House had plenty of experts to advise them who 100% disagreed with you, you insisted on me telling you what my credentials were. Facts are undeniable. This is a fact.
I never said anything about you not being able to have an opinion.
And again you expose your true personality here. Only rightwing trolls believe that the criticism of your opinion is saying that you can't have that opinion!!! We see that kind of comment here all the time. It's never a true accusation.
And then you use the second most popular false accusation - that you're being attacked simply because of a differing opinion!!! It's never a true accusation either.
And then the final false accusation - that we want those people with whom we disagree to disappear and stop posting, and until we reach that goal, we won't be happy. It's never a true accusation.
And you shouldn't kid yourself that you're superior to me because you haven't used any "names". You've done everything but that, and many things are more offensive than simple names.
If you don't understand how your baseless personal attack here was undeserved and ill-conceived and irrational and thereby really, really offensive, then I can't help you understand it.
But I can, and will, continue to object when your posts contain things I disagree with, or things that aren't true or aren't based in reality.
Do you even understand words? It seems to me you twist around posts to come up with your own meaning and definition of what was said so you can argue with it. You have COMPLETELY and utterly twisted all of my posts with the view that I am some right-wing troll. Nothing is further from the truth, but you can't seem to get that because you want to continue to argue.
When I said the body of posts, I am talking about the whole body of work people write overall here, not the body of the one post on one story you are reading. Again, you have comprehension problems so you can continue to argue. So you can not honestly say you "always" reply to the "body" of the posts as was my meaning, not your distorted view of what I am talking about.
And what advice am I giving you exactly? I don't care what you think about myself, or what I post. I am merely showing that your attacks and slander of myself has gotten you nowhere. Once again you are twisting around words and meaning to come up with something I am not talking about. Again, comprehension issues so you can continue to argue.
And once more, you bring up thumbs as if that is some judgment that validates what you are writing about. I'm sorry to say but it doesn't. But in your mind I guess it does. I'm not going to try to change your view on that, because, well, you probably would comprehend that wrongly.
And this is a personal attack by me? Oh, well I guess if pointing out your hypocrisy, and pointing out you have anointed yourself the troll police, I guess that is personal. I don't see how that is more of a personal attack than you ridiculing my credentials, calling me names, going to other posts to whine about me and trying to get me to not post on here anymore because you think I am some troll. And don't forget, it was you who started this whole thing, not me. You responded to my post attacking me as a troll. I have only been defending myself to you. But you are to single-minded to see that.
So let me explain this clearly for you to understand and not twist around. I have seen most of what you have posted on here. I usually agree with what you have to say. But I think it is arrogant of you to act like the troll police and instantly judge people on something because you don't agree with what they have said. You attacked me because of it. I defended myself and you continued to twist my words and meaning (and still are) so you could continue to argue. All I am doing is pointing out that fact to you. If you don't like how i am doing it, that is not my problem because you have missed the meaning of pretty much everything I have said to you and twisted it around just because you prejudged me and want to continue to argue. Got it now?!?
I'm curious, stop giving generalizations and give me some details. Real ones. Not your continued made-up twisting of my own words and meanings. You know, things like when I said "I have real-world experience in PR and journalism, what are your credentials?" and you said I am "demanding" people to recognize my credentials and "demanding" that you prove yours. That is "demanding?" Stating a fact and asking you a question is "demanding?" Really? Seriously, you have MAJOR problems with word comprehension.
And of course, how could I have been so mistaken, because we know that you never discuss anything except the media here. You never talk about the Obama Adminstration or Democrats or Republicans or liberals in general, do you?
Do you really think your lies like this won't get caught?
Do you really think that falsely attacking someone for going off topic is going to detract from your documented attempts, some successful, to draw a whole thread off topic? Do you really think that my on-topic post about what the Obama Administration has done that isn't problematic compared to what the right has done with the help of the media to push their opposition to healthcare reform is off topic? Really? My post couldn't have been more on topic, but somehow I am derailing threads?
You are getting lost in your own twisting of this story.
And do you know how many times in the past two months I have chastised others by using the 2 wrongs don't make a right argument? You have no credibility on that argument though, because that's exactly what you did by saying that both sides need to take responsibility?
This isn't rocket science. I swear it's not.
If you are that simple that you can't see how taking out of context the actual number of those uninsured somehow isn't beneficial to those proposing this health care reform, then you have no business posting here with any credibility. But then you never have.
Where is anyone taking it out of context? There are actually that many uninsured.
And when challenged with providing one example, you failed.
You are the one with no credibility and 4 thumbs down. You are the one who failed the challenge to provide evidence of what was asserted. You. Not me.
"Yep, so they'll try to pound each other instead of taking mutual responsibility."
And just so you remember, this is the RightON comment you were replying to (and I want you to be sure to notice, since you lied about it the first time, his comment is NOT just about the media).
"Nowhere near the 47 or so million that liberals and their media put out there everyday.
Spin from both sides."
So, again, who is going to pound one another? And what are they supposed to take mutual responsibility for?
I was at one time one of those "temporarily uninsured". I struggled for years to pay the bills, but now, have a pre-existing condition that cannot be covered. Think your health and health insurance is safe. Don't count on it.
Anyways noone actually disputes the fact that there are 46 million uninsured of course; as you said, some of them apparantly just don't count.
That's the salient point...which got lost in all the hubbub.
No thanks to a complete overhaul of healthcare to insure just an additional 11 million.
They have been saying that we should fear the government's ability to handle that reform because they supposedly aren't handling the H1N1 medical issue professionally or adequately.
The opposite is true. We should fear and question the rightwing's attacks on healthcare reform because of their dishonest portrayal of the H1N1 issue!
There is nothing about viruses in either the Bible or the Constitution.
"There is nothing about viruses in ... the Bible..."
Of course there was. Viruses were called "demons", and the flu was "demonic possession". ;-)
One is to keep yourself from getting the flu. For most people, it's not a bad thing, but if you're one of the people who die from it, of course it's a horrible thing.
The other reason to get the vaccine is to prevent yourself from spreading the flu to others. If you get the flu, and you get pretty sick, while you're sick, you're unlikely to be out spreading it around. But if you get the flu, and you only get a mild case, you're less likely to know you have the flu, and you're less likely to stay home, thus spreading the flu unwittingly. And people who get the flu are contagious for a day or two before they even show any symptoms. If you get the flu vaccine shot, you're never contagious like you are if you get eventual immunity from the actual virus. You might only have a mild case of the flu, but do you want to be the person who spreads it to someone who dies as a result?
Lastly, the reason to get a lot of people vaccinated is that it helps curb the spread of the epidemic. Not only do all the vaccinated people not get sick, but they don't infect someone else. There is a huge benefit to the community at large if you get yourself vaccinated. This is why we have mandatory vaccinations for childhood diseases - it's not because most kids would get sick and die from measles. It's because if you vaccinate almost everyone, then almost no one has to worry about that happening.
And to your son's personal experience... try to reinforce with him the imperative to keep his hands away from his face. That's the most common transmission point that we all fall short of avoiding.
Hillary Clinton:
"I am sick and tired of people who call you unpatriotic
if you debate this administration’s policies. We are Americans
and have the right to participate and debate any administration."
Can government handle health care? Customer satisfaction surveys show the VA delivers better quality service than the private sector - and at considerably lower cost. Any state is free to opt out of Medicare - gee, none have, and the public would howl for blood if they did.
You are truly in denial, blindly claiming government can' handle health care or vaccines. The historical record says that government has done well on both, and the private sector would have no incentive to produce vaccines ahead of a pandemic. Ever heard of 1918? That's your private sector response to a pandemic: coffin sales are up.
Only Fox and Limburger can take a good thing & twist it into something nefarious by Obama.
Yes, we know these are "opinion" programs. It just so happens their opinions are irresponsible, stupid lies.
Oh, and one other thing. If rationing has occured in other countries utilizing a government run health care system why will rationing not occur in the United States?
But conservatives and FoxNews are using the H1N1 crisis to fight against healthcare reform by trying to discredit the government's ability to handle this crisis, thereby instilling doubt about govt's ability to manage serious, comprehensive healthcare reform.
“Lying to America about a rouge regime hoarding weapons of mass destruction that was a part of the 9/11 attacks to justify a war with that regime...even though they had no WMDs and had nothing to do with 9/11.”
Yawn.
“The way this administration is, I can only see that as the next logical step in their dubious and dishonest methods. “
Agree.
By the way, you may want to read the fine print of Pelosi's Bill. Funding for existing conditions is 'only' 5 Billion and there is a waiting period of up to six months.
And RightON is right on yet again. Younger people voluntarily don't want health insurance. While I was going to college my wife and I (and three kids) elected to not have insurance because we didn't get sick too often and when we did we toughed it out. When our kids got sick we took them to the Dr. and paid cash.
BTW I'm not sure if RightON included those who are eligible for insurance but just haven't taken the time to sign up. That's another 10 million or so.