If George W was an idiot?

A widely-spread email entitled "If George W. was an idiot?" is full of inaccuracies, half-truths, and innuendo. The anonymous email is being distributed as fact to thousands of websites, blogs, and individual emails despite having no byline, attribution, or source citations. Here is a detailed response to most of the allegations in the email, with help from Media Matters Action Network.

"If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?"

It's untrue that President Obama "gave the unions a majority stake in GM." According to the May 27, 2009 Wall Street Journal, "General Motors Corp. and the United Auto Workers agreed to a new restructuring plan that would give the union a significantly smaller stake in the company than previously envisioned..." This agreement was worked out between GM and the UAW, not by the president, who made the decision earlier in the year to rescue the company from bankruptcy. It's also not true that the Obama "reduced {your?} retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90 percent." GM stock declined in value because the company was going bankrupt, not because of anything the president did. The stock went from more than $40 a share in October 2007 to under $4 on the last day of trading BEFORE Obama took office. So the 90 % decline happened under Bush, not Obama. The stock (it's now called Motors Liquidation Company) is now trading for 75 cents a share now, but could be zero if the government had let it go under. (Source: http://www.factcheck.org/).

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

Yes, the gift of 25 classic American movies the president gave Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown were on DVDs formatted on the American video standard, but did you know that George W. Bush had done EXACTLY THE SAME THING in 2004 when he gave the Queen of England an incorrectly-formatted DVD movie in 2004? (See http://intotheunknown.co.uk/2009/04/ukgov-announces-wholly-british.html).

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

It's untrue that the president gave the Queen of England an iPod "containing videos of his speeches." Instead, the iPod was loaded with video footage and photos of THE QUEEN on her 2007 official trip to the U.S.

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

Conservatives have derided the President for allegedly bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia. The White House says that it was not a bow, but whether it was or was not, how did you react when George Bush actually KISSED the Saudi King? Check these images out here.
Were you upset? Did you protest? (For more information on the cozy personal and financial relationship between the oil-rich Bush family and the Saudi family, read investigative reporter Craig Unger's book, "House of Bush: House of Saud" (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780743253390

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

You claim that President Obama made a mistake when speaking Spanish. It appears that he was making a joke about the holiday being observed on the fourth of May at the White House, and immediately pronounced "Cinco de Mayo" correctly afterwards.

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

In visiting Austria, President Obama said "I don't know what the term is in Austrian." This may have been a slip-up, but it may have been, as one Austrian writer said, Obama’s attempt not to offend Austrians as referring to their language as German. Nonetheless, how did you react when President Bush addressed Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Spanish? You will note that Italians do not speak Spanish. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/science/earth/10notebook.html?ref=world )

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?

You state that President Obama did not spell the word "advice" correctly. This is debatable. I found it very unlikely that a graduate of Harvard Law School and author of two best-selling books would make this mistake, so I did some research on this and found the copy of the letter the president wrote a concerned citizen. The "c" in advice looks somewhat like an "s," but in enlarging the word it looks like a "c" to me (see image of letter).

Who was claiming a "media cover-up of Obama's spelling error"? (It's not surprising that these chain emails attacking Obama rarely cite sources or reveal their source material, because to do so would expose that the charges come from a biased viewpoint.) I found that the source of this charge came from the Media Research Center, a right-wing conservative organization founded by Brent Bozell III. Media Matters describes L. Brent Bozell III as "a zealot of impeccable right-wing pedigree (see http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/outthere/otmeltdown.html). Regardless of whether you believe that the word was not spelled correctly, one thing is not debatable -- you can't spell "misspell" correctly!

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

When referencing the Special Olympics, Barack Obama made a joke about himself on a late-night comedy show. His joke hadn't even aired when he called the chairman of the Special Olympics board to apologize for comparing his bad bowling skills to Special Olympics (ABC News). Did George W. apologize for offending more than 90 percent of the world's population when he said this: "Perhaps freedom is not universal. Maybe it's only Western people that can self-govern. Maybe it's only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self-government." (George W. Bush, London, June 16, 2008). Come to think of it, did George W. apologize for any of his numerous offensive remarks?

President Obama has made a few gaffes so far, but President Bush during his eight years in office misspoke hundreds of time. Here is a compilation: http://www.slate.com/id/76886/In one of his misstatements, he called Africa "a nation that suffers from incredible disease." (My six year-old knows that Africa is not a country, but a continent!) Did you send out emails to your friends every time Bush said something truly idiotic?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

Again, you are incorrect in stating President Obama was the first president to install and use a teleprompter at a press conference. George Bush used a teleprompter. Oh yeah, Ronald Reagan also used a teleprompter. Check out these images here. Unlike these two presidents, however, Barack Obama has written and edited many of his own speeches.

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

Your email notes that more people were killed by floods in the Midwest than died as a result of Hurricane Katrina. I looked it up and it just is not true. Of the many storms in the Midwest in 2009, the highest death toll thus far is 36 confirmed deaths. http://prod.newsday.com/flash-flood-warning-issued-for-louisville-area-1.1347443In comparison, there were 1,836 confirmed deaths caused by Hurricane Katrina. http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/page.asp?ID%3D192%26Detail%3D5248. Again, you just can't seem to get your facts straight in your vendetta against Barack Obama, but hey, maybe if you get enough like-minded people to pass on these untruths without checking into anything, maybe they'll believe them!

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

False again. President Obama inherited an economy in disarray and since taking office, has aimed to drastically revamp our nation's failing health care system and our crumbling infrastructure. I was curious to see how the national debt changed during the Bush years and according to the unaffiliated website PolitiFact.com, "When Bush took office; the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/22/rahm-emanuel/5-trillion-added-national-debt-under-bush/. When he took office, Obama not only faced the fallout from the worst economic downturn in 30 years, but also inherited this massive debt. One Republican, David M. Walker -- who served under George W. Bush -- said this: "There's no question in my view that Bush was the most fiscally irresponsible president in the history of the Republic...Obama was handed a bad deck."

Since you seemed concerned over wasteful spending did you know that billions of dollars were wasted during the Bush administration, particularly in massive contracts given out to private contractors that operate in Iraq and Afghanistan: According to one commission set up to investigate the use of private contractors, "billions of dollars of that amount ended up wasted due to poorly defined work orders, inadequate oversight and contractor inefficiencies. In one example, defense auditors challenged KBR after it billed the government for $100 million in costs for private security even though the contract prohibited the use of for-hire guards." http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-06-08-report-dod-spending_N.htm

I hope that we are always critical of those we elect, but I see that you are not being consistent or fair in your criticism. Your complaints about President Obama are ironic, given the fact that President Bush did in fact make so many similar and even more egregious mistakes and made them much more often. Have you heard that expression? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

###

Birther conspiracies and the media

OBAMA BIRTHER MOVEMENT OUT OF FRINGE AND INTO MAINSTREAM MEDIA


One of the most fascinating and disturbing conspiracy theories circulated by opponents of President Barack Obama is the “birther” movement. One would think that the Internet rumors alleging that our president was born outside the United States would have died off after the White House produced proof in June that Obama was born in Hawaii to an American citizen, but instead they are kept very alive by popular media pundits.
If you think that only far right-wing nut cases believe these wild conspiracy theories, think again. Recent polls reveal some surprising results:
· A September Public Policy poll indicated that 64 percent of Republicans were either not sure or disbelieved the president was born in this country. An earlier poll in August on www.politico.com showed similar findings. In fact, when you took out minorities from that poll, 83 percent of southern whites said they doubted or were unsure about whether Obama was born in the U.S.
· In mid-September, a Daily Kos poll in Arkansas asked the state’s residents if they believed Barack Obama was born in the U.S. Thirty-seven percent said “no” or were “unsure.”
· On August 6, a Public Policy poll revealed that only 53 percent of Virginians were sure that President Obama was born in the U.S. Twenty-four percent polled in that state did not believe that Obama was born in this country, and 24 percent “were not sure.”
Also in August, at least 10 Republicans Congressmen, led by Rep. John Campbell of California and Rep. Bob Goodlaite of Virginia, sponsored a bill that would require possible candidates for president to release their birth certificates before running, but most didn’t want to talk about the current president’s birthplace when approached (see a funny video posted on http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0709/Danger_of_the_birthers.html)
Of course talk radio fueled the crazy paranoia that just won’t go away (do a Google search for Obama and ‘birth certificate’ will be one of the top three searches). G. Gordon Liddy asserted on his nationally syndicated radio show that “our president was born in a slum in Kenya” (June 8) and claimed that Obama’s released birth certificate was “a forged fake” (August 26). Rush Limbaugh, the most popular talk show host in America with 13.5 million minimum weekly listeners, said the president “has yet to prove he is a citizen” and implied Obama visited his ailing grandmother late last year not to see her, but to tamper with his birth records. Limbaugh’s comments, like most of his most incendiary political remarks, received widespread coverage in the mainstream press.
These alarmist theories are spread not only by the far right wing, but by fundamentalist Christian organizations. LivePrayer.com has produced a half-hour infomercial questioning where the president was born. It has run on several networks, including one CBS affiliate in Lubbock, Texas. Hal Lindsey, an evangelical commentator on cable television (TBN, Daystar, CPM Network, Inspiration; various local stations) also pushed the birther conspiracy theory (in addition to implying that President Obama is the “anti-Christ” in the prelude to Armageddon). Another birther movement evolved from the recently formed “Anabaptist Church of Africa” in Pennsylvania, which lists as one of its articles of faith to set right the “unbearable injustice, and trampling of the Constitution of the United States, in thinking to force the people to accept a foreigner as the President of this Republic, ignoring the single most important qualification for the highest office in our land, that such a one, not just gain such ‘power by the consent of the governed’, but that he be naturally born amongst us as one of us.” (I guess no one told this group that John McCain was not born in any of the United States or its terrorities, but in Panama.)
The mainstream media coverage’s of these paranoid political conspiracy theorists has carelessly given credence to an issue that has been debunked time and again (see http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html and http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/ for the evidence). For example, when a caller to Lou Dobbs’ radio show asserted Obama would soon be “exposed as having been born in Kenya,” Dobbs replied that “Certainly your view cannot be discounted.” On CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, Dobbs questioned the authenticity of the birth certificate provided by the State of Hawaii and at one point jokingly suggested that President Obama may be “undocumented.” CNN continually hounded the Hawaii Department of Health about the issue even after the birth certificate was released again.
By interviewing the birthers on cable and broadcast television, journalists give them some semblance of credibility. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews disparaged G Gordon Liddy on his “Hardball” in July, showing Liddy the birth certificate and the birth announcement from the Honolulu Advertiser in August 1961. Yet Liddy caught Matthews by surprise when he brought up claims of a “sworn deposition from [Obama’s] grandmother who says she was ‘present and saw him born in Mombassa, Kenya.”
What Liddy was referring to is actually an affidavit filed by a far right-wing evangelical preacher named Ron McRae, who interviewed Sarah Obama, wife of Barack Obama’s grandfather, through a translator. Sarah Obama’s words were misinterpreted in the translation, and she corrected him over and over again, but the itinerant preacher never accepted that (see http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/07/23/liddy/).

The danger in legitimizing the ‘birthers’ claims is that it subtlety encourages racism and violence, according to Southern Poverty Law Center’s Heidi Beirich. She points out that the political atmosphere before the Oklahoma City bombing eerily resembled today’s environment, with an up tick in paranoid political rumors and fear-mongering. We’ve already seen one murder from neo-Nazi assailant who killed the security guard at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. (it was discovered that James von Brunn, the accused murderer, helped spread the birthers’ claims on the Internet).
There are several theories about the birthers’ motives: wishing for a “magic bullet” that would invalidate Obama’s presidency; fear of foreign influence; fear of change. Yet the chief reason is rarely talked about in the mainstream media: racism. If one doubts that, then ask yourself the question: If our president’s father were born in Ireland, Scotland, or another European country, would anyone raise these questions? Or, if their true motive is to enforce the constitutionality of the “born in the USA” presidential requirement, then why didn’t they bring up that John McCain was born on a military installation in the Panama Canal?
The Internet has certainly made it easier for conspiracy theorists to espouse and share their views anonymously and without accountability. Some bloggers who have thoroughly researched the issue, like Alex Koppelman on Salon.com, correctly point out that “almost all of the people who’ve been most prominent in pushing the story have a history of conspiracist thought.” Yet the mainstream media, rather than conduct investigative reporting, generally report on the crazy lawsuits challenging the president’s birth and the reactionary groups who buy infomercials and downtown billboards without bothering to expose or discredit these fringe groups.
Of course, debunking the birthers with facts won’t change their minds, because facts can’t counter paranoia, but they can help the other conservative-minded folks who only listen to Fox News and talk radio for their news of the day. Instead of giving credence to wacky lawsuits and right-wing commentators who try to stoke the flames of fear and hostility against a black president, the mainstream media could steer a different path of responsible journalism and open dialogue about issues and policies instead of spreading propaganda and distortion.

Jimmy Carter and racism debate

ONCE AGAIN, MEDIA OUTLETS AVOID DISCUSSION OF RACISM
INACCURATE REPORTING CREATES FUROR


By MC Burton

The headlines on September 16, 2009 were predictable:
· “Jimmy Carter says racism behind animosity to Obama.” (Washington Post)
· “Racism behind anger toward Obama: Carter.” (AFP)
· “Are Obama’s critics racist? Jimmy Carter thinks so.” (L.A. Times)
· “Carter blames racism for anger against Obama” (NBC News)
· “Carter’s ‘racism’ claim draws widespread criticism.” (FOX News)

Contentious stuff – a former president claiming racism is behind the motives of those who disagree with the current president. There’s only one problem: He didn’t say that.
In an interview with a NBC reporter on September 15, Former President Jimmy Carter said this:
“I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American,” Carter said. “Racism…still exists and I think it has bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance and grieves me and concerns me very deeply,” he said.
If you read that statement closely, the former president did not say that the majority of people who oppose the current Administration’s policies are racist. He did not even say the people out in the picket lines and demonstrating against the president are racists. What he said was that the majority of the most extreme protests – the most “intensely demonstrated animosity,” have an underpinning of racism. This is an important distinction the mainstream media missed, and I believe they intentionally missed it to create confusion and avoid dealing with the issue they’ve skirted around and marginalized since the presidential primaries.
Although MSNBC did not release the full interview with Carter, it set the tone for how the other mainstream news outlets handled the story. The network news editors framed the story as that of a controversial politician who invoked racism to “discredit the critics” of the current president. NBC’s Matt Williams acted shocked and chagrined at Carter’s comments: “Why does race have to be made part of it (the public debate over healthcare)?” he asked. NBC’s White House correspondent called the remarks “pretty striking” and reported it purely in terms of how the White House would respond.
Most other news outlets followed suit and framed the issue as a political one the White House had to address. Many, like Johanna Neuman in the LA Times, reported the comments even more out-of-context, leaving off the key words in Carter’s sentence (“the most intensely demonstrated animosity’) in lead paragraphs.
Because of the way it framed the issue, the media expanded the already fractured schism between political opponents and further eroded open dialogue that is needed in this country. Janet Daily in the Daily Telegraph wrote that Carter “made an outrageous, unfounded, and potentially inflammatory remark about race.” Bloggers were incensed, writing comments such as this: “If you don’t agree with blacks, you are a racist!? Thank you, Mister Carter, for downgrading the USA!”
Most Democrats quickly downplayed Carter’s remarks under a furor of criticism. Then the media moved on to cover the controversy it created by its inaccurate reporting. The cycle helps declining circulation and low network news ratings, while fueling partisan agitators on the Internet. This allows national reporters to keep failing to address the issue of racism that is still prevalent and is growing more open by the day.
Around the country, protest groups are marching with placards of President Obama in white face (as the Joker from the last Batman movie), signs saying he should ‘go back to Africa,’ and constant references about his “dubious” U.S. citizenship. At a recent protest rally in Washington, protestors paraded the streets with signs that read “Obama is a Muslim,” “Obama is the AntiChrist,” “The zoo has an African (picture of a lion) and the White House has a lyin’African,” and “Bury ObamaCare with Kennedy.” Over the Internet, emails and web blogs compare the president or his wife to a monkey. T-shirts are sold with Obama’s image that says “Somewhere in Kenya or Indonesia, a village is missing its idiot.”
Hate speech on talk radio has emboldened many of these bigots. Remember when Rush Limbaugh played a song called “Barack the Magic Negro” on his radio show during the primary campaign? The song was the brainchild of Tennessee Republican Chip Saltsman, former national campaign manager for presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who sent it to Republican National Committee members as a Christmas present. He defended the tape as satire.
Since prejudice is no longer underground, it is easier for the extreme zealots to express their views overtly in the debate over healthcare reform. For example, Rep. David Scott of Georgia received emails and faxes from his constituents that were tinged with racial hatred. One fax used the common image of Obama as the joker, this time with the hammer and sickle stamped across his forehead, with the message: “Death to Marxists! Foreign and Domestic!” Below that, it addressed the Congressman directly with a variation of the ‘n’ word before rattling off a lengthy diatribe which included this phrase: “The folks are not going to stand for socialized medicine even though most Negros (sic) refuse to stand on their own two feet.”
A friend of mine is an editor of a community newspaper in Louisiana. The main reason for the extreme vitriol against President Obama, he says, is due to racism.
“I grew up in Jim Crow times, and I know all the all code words, and I hear them here. It is so sad. This whole thing with his speech to school kids is not about socialism or indoctrination. A lot of these parents just don’t want a black person telling their kids what to do. It’s sad. I thought this country had gotten over all that. I may be talking through my hat here, but I can’t help but see it this way.”
Jimmy Carter is right. Much of the criticism of the president is beyond the bounds of acceptable political discourse, something no other president has encountered. Why was he excoriated for saying the obvious – that the radical fringe element of the Republican Party is influenced by deep-seated racial fears and animosity? Those who accuse our president as being un-American, a terrorist, a Muslim, an Arab, or something less than a person are not attacking his policies, they are attacking something else, and we have a name for that behavior– racism.

###

Socialized medicine label nothing new in healthcare reform debate

‘SOCIALIZED MEDICINE’ CHARGE NOTHING NEW IN HEALTHCARE REFORM DEBATE


By M.C. Burton

All presidents, Democrat and Republican, who have taken on the status quo and proposed changes to America’s healthcare system have been falsely labeled “socialist” or “communist.” What’s rare about this time in history is that the current president has taken a moderately centrist role in advocating healthcare reform as opposed to President Clinton or even President Truman.
Locally, we read front page stories about citizens who believe the president has “appointed czars with communist and socialist ties and speaking out against America and our founding fathers.” Letters-to-the-editor compare President Obama to Hitler and label him “fascist” for proposing reform.
Giving free publicity to dolts who don’t know the difference between socialism and fascism (two opposite political ideologies) is something the media has done consistently during the healthcare reform debate. Journalists fan the flames of reactionary ignorance by failing to correct the false claims, and they also fail to give any context about healthcare reform in the history of our country. Here’s what some opponents said about plans to provide healthcare and senior care to Americans when they were first introduced:

Franklin D. Roosevelt labeled a ‘communist’ for creating Social Security

In the 1930s, opponents of FDR used the same kind of rhetoric and false political labels when he proposed creating what is now the most popular government program: Social Security. Critics called FDR “Red Roosevelt” and “a czar/dictator.” The American Liberty League called him a fascist (of course Roosevelt would later lead the United States in a war against fascism). In a strange similarity with another bellicose talk radio host of today, Father Charles Coughlin spouted invectives on the radio airwaves against Roosevelt. He called Roosevelt “a Communist in the chair once occupied by Washington” and said the New Deal was mired “in the Red mud of Soviet communism,”
Opponents of the new Social Security program used some of the same hyperbole we hear today. Some Republican congressmen said the proposal would “threaten the integrity of our institutions” and “lead to a fingerprint test” for millions of Americans. The American Medical Association ridiculed the Roosevelt administration’s “attempt to evolve a plan of socialized medicine” and labeled supporters of the bill as “un-American.”

Unlike Obama, however, FDR deflected these critics by proactively controlling the debate through his famous “fireside chats.” During one of these radio broadcasts, he said:
“A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it ‘fascism,’ sometimes ‘communism,’ sometimes ‘regimentation,’ sometimes ‘socialism.’ But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and practical…I believe that what we are doing today is a necessary fulfillment of what Americans have always been doing – a fulfillment of old and tested American ideals.”

Truman and national health insurance
Actually, the first president who proposed national health insurance was not considered a liberal. On Nov. 19, 1945, just seven months into his presidency, Harry S. Truman proposed that Congress enact a sweeping national healthcare program. One of the chief purposes of Truman’s plan was to ensure that all communities, regardless of their size or income level, had access to doctors and hospitals. In his Nov. 19, 1945 address to Congress, Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund to be run by the federal government. The fund would be open to all U.S. citizens, but would be optional. Those choosing to participate would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses in time of need. The plan called for the government to pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program.
Again, critics invoked the scare of Communism in the public mind, and this time those fears were more easily stoked in the wake of World War II. One senator claimed that the bill “came right out of the Soviet constitution.” The American Medical Association characterized the bill as “socialized medicine,” and, called members of the Truman administration “followers of the Moscow party line,” a phrase to be used frequently by Joe McCarthy during the Communist witch hunt a few years later.
“Millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health,” Truman said. “Millions do not have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. The time has arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and that protection.” Ultimately, Truman could not overcome the opposition from Congress on this proposal. For a full text of President Truman’s special message to Congress on Nov. 19, 1945, go to:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/anniversaries/healthprogram.htm

LBJ and Medicare
After the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson took up his proposal to form a safety net for America’s seniors – Medicare. Of course opponents of the proposal could not easily define LBJ as a “socialist,” but some, like George H.W. Bush, did call the plan “socialized medicine.” Among one of the most notable opponents was Ronald Reagan, then a candidate for the governor of California. In a taped advertorial for the American Medical Association, Reagan said in opposition to Medicare:
“One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project – most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a choice to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it.”
In another message, when the bill was very close to passage, Reagan pleaded for citizens to call their congressman, saying that if passed, the program “would invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country, until, one day, we awake to find that we have socialism.”
More than 43 million senior Americans use Medicare today, 44 years after the U.S. Congress passed the legislation.

Nixon’s proposal for healthcare reform
In the 1970s, Democrats tried to create a “Medicare for all” program of health insurance. Facing re-election in 1974, Nixon offered an alternative to universal hea lth insurance where everyone would be offered a minimum level of comprehensive benefits, regardless of how they were covered by their employer. Those who were not offered benefits by their employer would be eligible for a subsidized public plan with costs shared by the federal government. Basically it would be a Medicaid-type insurance plan that was subsidized, not free. Sound familiar? The plan unraveled as the Watergate scandal developed.For more on the Nixon plan, read “Obama’s healthcare dilemma evokes memories of 1974” at: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Checking-In-With/stuart-altman.aspx


HillaryCare defeated

Bill Clinton had campaigned heavily on universal healthcare in 1992. In 1993, The main element of his proposed plan was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely-regulated HMOs. Although the plan did require mandates for employers to provide coverage, it was not socialized medicine and did not dismantle the employer-based health insurance system. Still, many opponents dubbed it “socialized medicine” and “centalized bureaucractic socialism.”

President Obama has not proposed a single payer, nationalized healthcare system. The government wouldn’t own any health clinics, employ doctors, or scrap our current employer-based insurance system under either the House or Senate proposals that critics call “Obama Care.”

Obviously, when any president wants to change the status quo where big companies make enormous profits at the expense of the masses, he has faced a vicious chorus of opponents who spread lies and stoke fears of “communism” or “socialism.” What’s happening today is nothing new, but what is surprising is the level of vindictiveness against a president whose plan more closely resembles Richard Nixon’s proposal for national health insurance than Bill Clinton’s.

###