In an April 12 Examiner.com article headlined “Obama nationalized health care plans debated,” Watchdog Politics Examiner Martha R. Gore falsely characterized President Obama's health-care reform proposal as a “nationalized health care plan[].” As Media Matters for America has documented, Obama has not proposed a “nationalized health care plan[]” either as a candidate or as president.

In addition, Gore wrote: “According to the Christian Science Monitor (04/08/2009) interest groups on the right and the left have already opened the battle lines with each side trying to shape the public's perception of how nationized [sic] medicine will effect [sic] individual Americans.” But the April 8 Christian Science Monitor article that Gore referred to at no point used the term “nationalized health care” or any similar term. Indeed, when comparing Gore's language to a similar paragraph from the Monitor's article, the phrase “nationized [sic] medicine” is noticeably absent. The Monitor wrote: “But interest groups on the right and left have already begun a fierce ideological battle, with each side trying to shape the public's perception of a public insurance plan” [emphasis added].

As Media Matters has documented, media figures and outlets have also advanced the false characterizations of Obama's health-care reform proposal as "government-run health care" or "socialized medicine."

From The Christian Science Monitor's April 8 article “Healthcare battle brewing: political groups gear up”:

The Obama administration hopes to give all Americans the option of buying into a public, Medicare-style health insurance plan. That is now shaping up to be the biggest flash point in the emerging debate about healthcare reform.

Advocates of a Medicare-style plan say it would give consumers a lower-cost alternative to private insurance, forcing those private insurers to become more responsive to consumer needs. Opponents counter that it would undermine the private health insurance market by prompting millions of businesses to switch to the cheaper, public alternative. In the long term, they argue, that would undermine consumer choice in healthcare.

Lawmakers and their staffs are currently hammering out the details of reform legislation that is expected to go to the floor in June. But interest groups on the right and left have already begun a fierce ideological battle, with each side trying to shape the public's perception of a public insurance plan.

From the April 12 Examiner.com article “Obama nationalized health care plans debated”:

Americans are becoming uneasy about the Obama and Democrats nationalized health care plans which is causing a debate among politicians as to whether the timing is wrong as the 2010 election approaches.

According to the Christian Science Monitor (04/08/2009) interest groups on the right and the left have already opened the battle lines with each side trying to shape the public's perception of how nationized medicine will effect individual Americans.

[...]

Most likely, Democrats in Congress will prevail upon Obama to delay any action on the nationalized healthcare plans until after the 2010 election. If not, it could become an issue in the political battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate if Republicans can convince Americans that it is the beginning of socialized medicine.