Politifact Lie of the Year

[kalm]

This is why the Republicans are so damn good.

PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen "government takeover of health care" as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats' shellacking in the November elections.

How the line was used

If you followed the health care debate or the midterm election – even casually – it's likely you heard "government takeover" many times.

PolitiFact sought to count how often the phrase was used in 2010 but found an accurate tally was unfeasible because it had been repeated so frequently in so many places. It was used hundreds of times during the debate over the bill and then revived during the fall campaign. A few numbers:

• The phrase appears more than 90 times on Boehner's website, GOPLeader.gov.

• It was mentioned eight times in the 48-page Republican campaign platform "A Pledge to America" as part of their plan to "repeal and replace the government takeover of health care."

• The Republican National Committee's website mentions a government takeover of health care more than 200 times.

Conservative groups and tea party organizations joined the chorus. It was used by FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

The phrase proliferated in the media even after Democrats dropped the public option. In 2010 alone, "government takeover” was mentioned 28 times in the Washington Post, 77 times in Politico and 79 times on CNN. A review of TV transcripts showed "government takeover" was primarily used as a catchy sound bite, not for discussions of policy details.

In most transcripts we examined, Republican leaders used the phrase without being challenged by interviewers. For example, during Boehner's Jan. 31 appearance on Meet the Press, Boehner said it five times. But not once was he challenged about it.

In rare cases when the point was questioned, the GOP leader would recite various regulations found in the bill and insist that they constituted a takeover. But such followups were rare.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/art ... alth-care/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[D1B]

Conks

[kalm]

Conks

But at least the conks on this board didn't fall for it:

Search these results: Search found 36 matches • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2


Search found 36 matches: government takeover healthcare
Return to advanced search

Search these results: Search found 36 matches • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2

search.php?keywords=government+takeover ... mit=Search" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Bronco]

Yep and last year they said Palin talking about death panels was the lie of the year now confirmed by the NY Times.

Let's see an apology

File this story away and wait until single payer comes up again

[Col Hogan]

Politifact is a service of the St. Petersburg Times...

In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Times" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[OL FU]

I didn't much like the term but in many ways it is semantics and depending on your point of view you can interpret it however you want to. No, the government didn't take over health care. But what do you call it when the government mandates participation and describes the coverages and limitations or lack of limitations in that coverage that can be offered to fulfill the mandate

The real question is "Did the people behind the bill (not the dolts in congress that voted for it) realize that the bill would probably make things worse with the hope that this would push us to a government take over of health care?"

Call me a conspiracy theory nutcase

[kalm]

Politifact is a service of the St. Petersburg Times...

In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Times" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2003

They won two Pulitzers in 2009.

Oh, and we still have private insurance companies, private hospitals, private doctors etc.

[Col Hogan]

Politifact is a service of the St. Petersburg Times...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Times" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2003

They won two Pulitzers in 2009.

Oh, and we still have private insurance companies, private hospitals, private doctors etc.

And Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize...and the government mandates that you must buy insurance...and taxes companies and individuals that don't by the government approved policies...

And I could go on...but, why....you've made up your mind and I know the truth...

[kalm]

2003

They won two Pulitzers in 2009.

Oh, and we still have private insurance companies, private hospitals, private doctors etc.

And Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize...and the government mandates that you must buy insurance...and taxes companies and individuals that don't by the government approved policies...

And I could go on...but, why....you've made up your mind and I know the truth...

I haven't made up my mind. Please explain to me how government has taken over insurance.

[native]

And Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize...and the government mandates that you must buy insurance...and taxes companies and individuals that don't by the government approved policies...

And I could go on...but, why....you've made up your mind and I know the truth...

I haven't made up my mind. Please explain to me how government has taken over insurance.

The government gets to define who an insurance company can or cannot include in a risk pool.

[ming01]

This is why the Republicans are so damn good.

PolitiFact editors and reporters have chosen "government takeover of health care" as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats' shellacking in the November elections.

How the line was used

If you followed the health care debate or the midterm election – even casually – it's likely you heard "government takeover" many times.

PolitiFact sought to count how often the phrase was used in 2010 but found an accurate tally was unfeasible because it had been repeated so frequently in so many places. It was used hundreds of times during the debate over the bill and then revived during the fall campaign. A few numbers:

• The phrase appears more than 90 times on Boehner's website, GOPLeader.gov.

• It was mentioned eight times in the 48-page Republican campaign platform "A Pledge to America" as part of their plan to "repeal and replace the government takeover of health care."

• The Republican National Committee's website mentions a government takeover of health care more than 200 times.

Conservative groups and tea party organizations joined the chorus. It was used by FreedomWorks, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.

The phrase proliferated in the media even after Democrats dropped the public option. In 2010 alone, "government takeover” was mentioned 28 times in the Washington Post, 77 times in Politico and 79 times on CNN. A review of TV transcripts showed "government takeover" was primarily used as a catchy sound bite, not for discussions of policy details.

In most transcripts we examined, Republican leaders used the phrase without being challenged by interviewers. For example, during Boehner's Jan. 31 appearance on Meet the Press, Boehner said it five times. But not once was he challenged about it.

In rare cases when the point was questioned, the GOP leader would recite various regulations found in the bill and insist that they constituted a takeover. But such followups were rare.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/art ... alth-care/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

government was already involved in health care, so technically you are right

[ming01]

Politifact is a service of the St. Petersburg Times...

In 2003, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described the St. Petersburg Times as a "usually liberal" newspaper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Times" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is this the same st. petersburg times thats the most liberal newspaper in the country?

[BlueHen86]

Politifact is a service of the St. Petersburg Times...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Times" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

is this the same st. petersburg times thats the most liberal newspaper in the country?

What grade are you in?

[OL FU]

There is a huge difference in regulating an industry and writing the specifications for the products and demanding that everybody buy one of the products. The latter may not be taking over an industry but it is damn close. If you think the government should take over health care that is your perogative, but are you really happy with this piece of shit legislation?

[kalm]

There is a huge difference in regulating an industry and writing the specifications for the products and demanding that everybody buy one of the products. The latter may not be taking over an industry but it is damn close. If you think the government should take over health care that is your perogative, but are you really happy with this piece of **** legislation?

He'll no. And I really liked your first post. I just marvel at the brilliance of Luntzian politics. I know both sides do it, but the Republicans do it so much more effectively.

Btw, state governments mandate auto liability insurance. The FDA writes specifications for pharmaceuticals.

(actually, I think pharma writes their own specs kinda like how big insurance wrote obamacare )

[OL FU]

There is a huge difference in regulating an industry and writing the specifications for the products and demanding that everybody buy one of the products. The latter may not be taking over an industry but it is damn close. If you think the government should take over health care that is your perogative, but are you really happy with this piece of **** legislation?

He'll no. And I really liked your first post. I just marvel at the brilliance of Luntzian politics. I know both sides do it, but the Republicans do it so much more effectively.

Btw, state governments mandate auto liability insurance. The FDA writes specifications for pharmaceuticals.

(actually, I think pharma writes their own specs kinda like how big insurance wrote obamacare )

BTW, auto insurance is not comparable, since you don't have to own a car. ( and yes I realize that is not practical in some markets but you are still not forced to own a car. Also, the requirement for car insurance is protect the person you run into ). No clue about the FDA but I kinda doubt it is mandated specifications unless it is strictly limited to safety issues. There is no way the FDA can go to a drug company and say "Write me spec on a cancer cure or a baldness cure or whatever".


I will say it again, the problem we have is the mixed system. Either the government needs to get out of the way and let the market ration health care or the government needs to take it over and ration health care. You can't have the in between of not rationing health care and have a working system.

And on my first post, you just liked the fact that I admitted I am a nutcase

[kalm]

He'll no. And I really liked your first post. I just marvel at the brilliance of Luntzian politics. I know both sides do it, but the Republicans do it so much more effectively.

Btw, state governments mandate auto liability insurance. The FDA writes specifications for pharmaceuticals.

(actually, I think pharma writes their own specs kinda like how big insurance wrote obamacare )

BTW, auto insurance is not comparable, since you don't have to own a car. ( and yes I realize that is not practical in some markets but you are still not forced to own a car. Also, the requirement for car insurance is protect the person you run into ). No clue about the FDA but I kinda doubt it is mandated specifications unless it is strictly limited to safety issues. There is no way the FDA can go to a drug company and say "Write me spec on a cancer cure or a baldness cure or whatever".


I will say it again, the problem we have is the mixed system. Either the government needs to get out of the way and let the market ration health care or the government needs to take it over and ration health care. You can't have the in between of not rationing health care and have a working system.

And on my first post, you just liked the fact that I admitted I am a nutcase

Good point on the FDA, but they also write food processing and handling specifications that keep us from eating tainted food. And government also writes specifications for auto emmissions, mileage standards, and crash standards.

I know no of these are perfect examples but my point is that we are a mixed economy and not all regulation is bad. That being said I'll be the first to admit that for much of my lifetime regulatory efforts have been very clumsy and ineffective. This also happens to coincide with the increasing power of lobbyists who certainly play a role in what gets determined. So people want government to take action because the system is broken, but what comes out of the process is a gigantic, complicated, turd.

So without changing the political system, I'm with you. All government or no government. The only compromise would be to do what every other industrialized nation has done and take profit out of insurance. So government controls the spread of risk, while the providers remain private. It would save us money.

[YoUDeeMan]

I didn't much like the term but in many ways it is semantics and depending on your point of view you can interpret it however you want to. No, the government didn't take over health care. But what do you call it when the government mandates participation and describes the coverages and limitations or lack of limitations in that coverage that can be offered to fulfill the mandate

The real question is "Did the people behind the bill (not the dolts in congress that voted for it) realize that the bill would probably make things worse with the hope that this would push us to a government take over of health care?"

Call me a conspiracy theory nutcase

OL correctly calls bullshyte on the bullshyte callers.

kalm....you should be ashamed for posting such garbage. What next, an article from a right wing rag that exposes the lie of the year - and every year...the impossibility of the liberal idea to force "equality" on everyone?

[YoUDeeMan]

BTW, auto insurance is not comparable, since you don't have to own a car. ( and yes I realize that is not practical in some markets but you are still not forced to own a car. Also, the requirement for car insurance is protect the person you run into ). No clue about the FDA but I kinda doubt it is mandated specifications unless it is strictly limited to safety issues. There is no way the FDA can go to a drug company and say "Write me spec on a cancer cure or a baldness cure or whatever".


I will say it again, the problem we have is the mixed system. Either the government needs to get out of the way and let the market ration health care or the government needs to take it over and ration health care. You can't have the in between of not rationing health care and have a working system.

And on my first post, you just liked the fact that I admitted I am a nutcase

Good point on the FDA, but they also write food processing and handling specifications that keep us from eating tainted food. And government also writes specifications for auto emmissions, mileage standards, and crash standards.

I know no of these are perfect examples but my point is that we are a mixed economy and not all regulation is bad. That being said I'll be the first to admit that for much of my lifetime regulatory efforts have been very clumsy and ineffective. This also happens to coincide with the increasing power of lobbyists who certainly play a role in what gets determined. So people want government to take action because the system is broken, but what comes out of the process is a gigantic, complicated, turd.

So without changing the political system, I'm with you. All government or no government. The only compromise would be to do what every other industrialized nation has done and take profit out of insurance. So government controls the spread of risk, while the providers remain private. It would save us money.

No one has to eat food regulated by the FDA either. There is no penalty for growing vegetables in my back yard and not purchasing them at the supermarket.

So, auto and food regulation are not equal to this health care initiative.

And while, in your vision, the new health care may save you money, it could, at some point, cost you your comfort and your life.

[OL FU]

BTW, auto insurance is not comparable, since you don't have to own a car. ( and yes I realize that is not practical in some markets but you are still not forced to own a car. Also, the requirement for car insurance is protect the person you run into ). No clue about the FDA but I kinda doubt it is mandated specifications unless it is strictly limited to safety issues. There is no way the FDA can go to a drug company and say "Write me spec on a cancer cure or a baldness cure or whatever".


I will say it again, the problem we have is the mixed system. Either the government needs to get out of the way and let the market ration health care or the government needs to take it over and ration health care. You can't have the in between of not rationing health care and have a working system.

And on my first post, you just liked the fact that I admitted I am a nutcase

Good point on the FDA, but they also write food processing and handling specifications that keep us from eating tainted food. And government also writes specifications for auto emmissions, mileage standards, and crash standards.

Once again huge differences. I can't think of a government regulation that is comaparable to the following: we have 3 generic products. You, the individual, have to buy one of these three or we are going to fine you. Now I admit I may not have the facts absolutely correct, but I believe generally that is the way the law works as far as the end user is concerned. The only thing that is slightly comparable was the military draft. where the government said, you are either going to the Army, jail or Canada

[JMU DJ]

Republicans were for "government takeover of health care" before they were against it.

[death dealer]

Good point on the FDA, but they also write food processing and handling specifications that keep us from eating tainted food. And government also writes specifications for auto emmissions, mileage standards, and crash standards.

I know no of these are perfect examples but my point is that we are a mixed economy and not all regulation is bad. That being said I'll be the first to admit that for much of my lifetime regulatory efforts have been very clumsy and ineffective. This also happens to coincide with the increasing power of lobbyists who certainly play a role in what gets determined. So people want government to take action because the system is broken, but what comes out of the process is a gigantic, complicated, turd.

So without changing the political system, I'm with you. All government or no government. The only compromise would be to do what every other industrialized nation has done and take profit out of insurance. So government controls the spread of risk, while the providers remain private. It would save us money.

No one has to eat food regulated by the FDA either. There is no penalty for growing vegetables in my back yard and not purchasing them at the supermarket.

So, auto and food regulation are not equal to this health care initiative.

And while, in your vision, the new health care may save you money, it could, at some point, cost you your comfort and your life.

You don't have to have health insurance either. You just need to be able to pay for the treatment of any health problems you may have or suffer and die. Health insurance is a luxury.

[YoUDeeMan]

You don't have to have health insurance either. You just need to be able to pay for the treatment of any health problems you may have or suffer and die. Health insurance is a luxury.

In this case, even if you choose to not carry health insurance, you'll have to pay for everyone else's health problems. You won't be able to effectively "opt out" because you'll be fined.

Of course, even if you've paid into the program, the government will decide if your suffering is worth addressing and if you are worth saving under their plan. A person who is old is a luxury that the governement might not be able to afford.