Values Voter News just received an email from the White House that was informing of a new website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/ which is suppose to "help you separate fact from fiction". Click on image to left for upper half of email sent.
In its opening statements the email reads: "Anyone that's watched the news in the past few days knows that health insurance reform is a hot topic — and that rumors and scare tactics have only increased as more people engage with the issue. Given a lot of the outrageous claims floating around, it’s time to make sure everyone knows the facts about the security and stability you get with health insurance reform."
Fair enough, there will always be rumors and scare tactics and outrageous claims however is it possible that ALL the claims being made out there are really outrageous. In other words is the White House making outrageous claims itself and scaring people away from legitimate concerns. Now it is true that this email does not claim all the claims out there are outrageous but lets look at at least one of them and watch some videos side by side and let the readers make their own conclusions.
First, lets get some context. Lets start with a poll that proves many Americans are indeed concerned with the issue of a single-payer health care where the federal government provides coverage for everyone. The reputable Rasmussen Reports polling site that has predicted the last two elections within half a percentage point did a recent poll. They found in a poll released today that 32% favor single payer health care and 57% oppose it.
For some reasons why many Americans oppose a government take over of health care in a single payer universal health care system see video below from John Stossel's segment on 20/20.
There are many other reasons like tax payer funded abortions which is a major concern that many pro-life Americans have which the White House Reality Check site has yet to respond to. See below video and for more on that issue see: New Pro-life ad: "Health reform is the issue to insist..for his first term..Public option is key"-says influential abortion advocate Wendy Chavkin.
Now back to the issue of the single payer health care. The White House Reality Check web site has a video in response to the below video claiming it is "disinformation" and part of a "scare" tactic.
Lets review what this video is claiming first so we can then examine the evidence the video presents as proof of that claim. The video starts off with: "Evidence Obama and the Dems health care goal is a government public option that will ultimately eliminate private insurance." And then presents some clips that evidence forth that position.
Now below is how the White House Reality Check web site responds to this "scare" tactic. The video above is the very video in the link and headline that the White House Spokesperson below pointed to on her computer screen.
So now that we have our Reality Check from the White House Reality Check web site lets do some Reality Checking of the spokesperson.
1) The spokesperson never proved that the videos were taken out of context.
Values Voter News will show you the whole context of Barney Frank's comments to prove there was nothing taken out of context on his comments see video below.
And below is more context on Obama's speech in 2003
2) Showing clips from Obama's speech that repeat what Obama said in the video in the first place doesn't answer the question. The first video reported that Obama is advocating a public option but that is not the concern the concern is that this public option is by many on the left the very option that will lead to a single payer system which so far remains a legitimate concern.
3) What the spokesperson really needed to do was not repeatedly tell us what the public option is by playing clips from Obama's speeches. Most probably understand that the public option is just that a public option not a single payer system. But what the spokesperson needed to address was whether or not this is a plan by Dems and Obama himself to lead to a single payer health system which so far the evidence presented in the video seems to strongly suggest.
4) Maybe she could have addressed how it won't lead to that and those claiming it will are wrong. Below is an excellent article found at Rasmussen Reports entitled Government Health Care in Stealth Mode released today that speaks of this very issue and concludes very similarly with the conclusion at Values Voter News that: "They don't address the point...". See video below and then the article that is discussing the video.
Government Health Care in Stealth Mode
A Commentary by Michael Barone
Monday, August 10, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
One video is worth a thousand words (or, as in this column, about 730). The video in question, put together by a group called Verum Serum, shows public statements by three advocates of single-payer (government monopoly) health insurance explaining that a health care bill with a "government option" would move America toward a single-payer government health care system. You may not have heard of the first two, Rep. Jan Schakowsky and professor Jacob Hacker. But you have heard of the third, President Barack Obama.
Schakowsky is a left-wing Democrat from the north side of Chicago and adjacent suburbs and, as chief deputy whip, part of the House Democratic leadership. The video shows her speaking to an enthusiastic group last April. She cites an insurance company spokesman as saying, "A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer." The audience cheers. "My single-payer friends," she goes on, "he was right." Later she adds, "This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there, and I believe we will."
Schakowsky sounds self-assured but angry, perhaps because her husband, Robert Creamer, served five months in prison a few years ago for bank fraud and failure to pay withholding taxes. Hacker, Yale's Stanley B. Resor Professor of Political Science, sounds friendly and cheerful in appearances recorded in January 2007 and July 2008. With a government option plan, he says in 2007, "You can at least make the claim that there's a competitive system between the public and the private sector," but he predicts that the government option "would eliminate the small group insurance."
Speaking of the government option in 2008, he says, "Someone told me this was a Trojan horse for single-payer. Well, it's not a Trojan horse, right? It's just right there. I'm telling you. We're going to get there, over time, slowly, but we'll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance as we should, but we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they're going to lose their private insurance. We're going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they're in the pool, and we're going to let them keep their private employer-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it."
Of course, there's no guarantee employers will. Many employers, single-payer advocates hope, will be happy to let their employees go onto the government plan. The Lewin Group, cited often by various analysts, estimates that a government-option plan, depending on how the law is written, could move as many as 100 million households off private insurance and onto the government plan in a few years.
Obama has never made his ultimate goal a secret; it's the same as Schakowsky's and Hacker's. The video shows him saying in October 2003, when he was running for the U.S. Senate, "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program." He adds, "We may not get there immediately," noting the Democrats must "take back" the White House and both houses of Congress -- a condition fulfilled last Jan. 20.
Campaigning for president in May 2007, he says, "But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately." That seems to imply that his goal remains the same as it was in 2003. "There's going to be potentially some transition process -- I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out, where we've got a much more portable system." Which of course government health insurance would be. You couldn't get away from it. The president's defenders depict this video and others like it as a patchwork of irrelevant and misleading statements. They also cite Obama's oft-repeated pledges that any health care bill he would sign would let you keep the insurance you have. They don't address the point, raised by Hacker, that you can't keep it if your employer stops offering it.
But, as Schakowsky says, "This is not a principled fight." Schakowsky, Hacker and Obama believe, out of idealism but also perhaps for crass political reasons, that America would be better off with a single-payer system like Canada's or Britain's. But they realize that they're operating in a country where most voters don't agree. The video helps us understand how they're seeking to reach their single-payer goal through government-option stealth.
COPYRIGHT 2009 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
See Other Political Commentaries
See Other Commentaries by Michael Barone
Views expressed in this column are those of the author, not those of Rasmussen Reports."
Lastly, go to about 1:35 to about 2:10 in this video and notice the town hall protester get heated when congressman says that this has nothing to do with a single payer system.
Disinformation is indeed troubling as are"outrageous" claims and "scare" tactics. But when it comes from the White House and our congressmen and women then it becomes an issue of trust between "We the people..." and our government. A trust that will not be repaired with a Reality Check site like this one from our White House. Calling the concerns of concerned citizens with evidence to back up their concerns as "outrageous" claims and "scare" mongering. This is name calling and smearing at its highest level from the White House to "We the people...".
It is troubling when anybody with an internet connection and a lot of free time can snope out and fact check the very White House of White Houses and find them terribly wanting. Or rather is it a good thing?