Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Media Falsehoods Surround Clinton Healthcare Proposal

By Karl Frisch, AlterNet. Posted September 20, 2007.


Media Matters offers a fact-check.
Advertisement

In light of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's announced plan for universal health-care coverage, Media Matters for America thought it might be helpful to provide you with more information concerning several themes that have emerged in coverage of the plan since the senator's announcement this week. Major emerging themes include:

  • Despite polling to the contrary, some in the media have claimed that Clinton's plan represents a "general election" problem.

  • Media have repeatedly aired Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's criticism of Clinton's plan but failed to note that, as Massachusetts governor, Romney signed into law a health care bill with similar provisions.

  • The assertion that the "debacle in 1993" undermines Clinton's credibility on health care, ignoring polling that indicates Americans believe Clinton's past experience with health care would help her in reforming the system if elected.

  • False claims about what Clinton has said about her plan, including that it will require proof of insurance for people to work, that it would be funded through the repeal of all of Bush's tax cuts, and that it will require small businesses to pay for health care for their employees.

  • Media reviving the myth that Clinton is a top recipient of money from the "health care industry."

More detailed descriptions of Media Matters' top items on these themes and links to full text are included below:

Sen. Clinton's Plan a "General Election" Problem

  • Despite polling, Mitchell saw "general election" problem for Clinton on health care
  • http://mediamatters.org/items/200709180015

    While reporting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's recently unveiled universal health-care proposal during the September 18 edition of NBC's Today, NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell said that "the real problem for Clinton" may be "selling the plan in the general election campaign." As evidence, Mitchell pointed to attacks on Clinton by Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney over her health-care proposal. But, Mitchell did not note that, in fact, public opinion polling shows that the majority of Americans support a national health insurance program.

    Romney on Clinton's Health-Care Plan

  • Media air Romney attacks on Clinton health care plan without noting he signed a bill with similar requirements
  • http://mediamatters.org/items/200709180011

    In articles on Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care proposal, several media outlets reported Mitt Romney's attack on the plan without mentioning that, as governor of Massachusetts, he signed into law a health care bill that requires every state resident to obtain health insurance -- one of the central tenets of Clinton's plan.

  • ABCNews.com uncritically quoted Romney's attack on Clinton health plan
  • http://mediamatters.org/items/200709170003

    An ABCNews.com article quoted Mitt Romney attacking Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care policy, but did not note that Romney was attacking a plan that he had not yet seen, nor that as governor of Massachusetts, Romney endorsed a law requiring residents to purchase health insurance.

  • CNN aired Romney attack on Clinton health care plan without noting his reversal
  • http://mediamatters.org/items/200709180002

    During a report on Sen. Hillary Clinton's health care proposal, CNN's Betty Nguyen aired Mitt Romney's attack on the plan, but claimed that, "like Clinton, he'd mandate health insurance." But in announcing his national health reform plan in August, Romney declined to support mandates in what was reportedly a "significant[]" departure "from the universal health care measure that he helped forge as governor of Massachusetts."

    Proof of Health Care Required for Work

  • Drudge's false headline on Clinton health care plan: "HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK"
  • http://mediamatters.org/items/200709180016

    On September 18, the Drudge Report, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge, featured the lead headline "HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK" under a picture of Sen. Hillary Clinton. However, the Associated Press article to which the headline linked did not report that Clinton's recently proposed health care plan would require people to show proof of health insurance "for work." Rather, it reported that, in an interview with the AP, Clinton said: "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed" for people who do not purchase health insurance as required by her plan. According to the article, Clinton also said, "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." The AP article also stated that Clinton "said she could envision a day when 'you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,' but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress."


    Digg!

    See more stories tagged with: healthcare, election08


    Advertisement
    Advertisement

     

    Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
    Comments closed.
    The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
    View:
    Windfall profits for Insurance Companies?
    Posted by: mnascimento on Sep 20, 2007 11:54 AM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    My issues with Mrs. Clinton involve the deliberately misleading confusion of the term for health care coverage, the INSURANCE INDUSTRY, with health care, access to PROVIDERS.
    There has to be reform regarding certain corporate entities. Hospital corporations, and Insurance companies, who are traded on the stock exchange, have the primary obligation of producing dividends for their share holders. They absorb perhaps, 30%, of premiums in administrative cost, and God only knows in CEO and executive compensation. Don't imagine "non profits" like Blue Cross/Blue Shield execs don't rake in big bucks. Why is she making room for them to divide the premiums from 47 million more desperate debt slaves?
    If we are trying to make reasonably priced care available to everyone, and we already know where the fat is, why mandate a program that includes profiteers?

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    mick3
    Posted by: mick3 on Sep 20, 2007 3:54 PM   
    Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
    First of all, Clinton's plan leaves in place both a thick layer of profit-taking by corporations and their custom of refusing to pay for needed treatment. Who would expect anything else from a dedicated corporatist like Clinton? Corporations, by law, are chartered to do one thing: maximize profits for shareholders. To that end, they exploit both their workers and their customers. They now own this country, lock, stock, and barrel, which is why working people haven't a chance in hell of justice or fairness these days.

    NOTE: Republicans attack Clinton to foster support for her by Dems, since the candidate they're really afraid of is Edwards. If Edwards were to get the nomination, Repubs would be in serious trouble---

    ---except for one thing: there won't be another election. We'll have the following instead: Another "9/11" event, martial law, cancelled elections, suspended civil rights, and a dictatorship. As planned.

    [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

    » RE: mick3 Posted by: ronheri
    » RE: mick3 Posted by: Constitutionalist75