Politifact's Lie of the Year: 'Government Takeover of Health Care'

Politifact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Government Takeover of Health Care’

PoliticsDecember 2010 • Views: 16,546

politifact.com has selected their Lie of the Year for 2010: the Republican attack line that the government is taking over health care.

By selecting “government takeover’ as Lie of the Year, PolitiFact is not making a judgment on whether the health care law is good policy.

The phrase is simply not true.

Said Jonathan Oberlander, a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: �”The label ‘government takeover” has no basis in reality, but instead reflects a political dynamic where conservatives label any increase in government authority in health care as a ‘takeover.’ “

Jump to bottom

34 comments

Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:50:06am

With so many to choose from it must have been one helluva contest

Kragar Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:51:42am

DEATH PANELS!

jamesfirecat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:53:00am

////Stop Obamacare! Government hands off my medicare!

Stanghazi Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:55:10am

1st runner up?

"Ramming it down our throats"

Kragar Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:55:12am

I still say that saying Palin shot a caribou on TV should rate as a lie.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:56:00am

We've still got people here who seem to quite seriously believe that some sort of NHS is being set up, and they will not be permitted to keep private coverage.

They get sulky if you ask for some sort of proof.

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:56:32am

re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I still say that saying Palin shot a caribou on TV should rate as a lie.

It's just not a very important lie. Except to the poor caribou, but it's out of its troubles now.

wrenchwench Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:56:44am

I liked Politifact the minute I heard they had a "Pants On Fire" rating.

Kragar Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:57:11am

re: #6 SanFranciscoZionist

We've still got people here who seem to quite seriously believe that some sort of NHS is being set up, and they will not be permitted to keep private coverage.

They get sulky if you ask for some sort of proof.

Youtube Video

iossarian Fri, Dec 17, 2010 10:57:50am

re: #6 SanFranciscoZionist

We've still got people here who seem to quite seriously believe that some sort of NHS is being set up, and they will not be permitted to keep private coverage.

They get sulky if you ask for some sort of proof.

Just to further reassure people, I would like to point out that plenty of people in the UK have private health insurance. (Not that you were saying they don't.)

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:02:05am

re: #10 iossarian

Just to further reassure people, I would like to point out that plenty of people in the UK have private health insurance. (Not that you were saying they don't.)

Apparently it was not available in Canada for some time, and many U.S. citizens have never gotten over that.

The fact that there is no national healthcare, and there WON'T BE any national healthcare here is quite beside the point.

mr.fusion Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:03:08am

Well this should put an end to them using "government takeover of healthcare" as a talking point once and for all

Start holding your breath....................................now

b_sharp Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:05:11am

re: #12 mr.fusion

Well this should put an end to them using "government takeover of healthcare" as a talking point once and for all

Start holding your breath...now

Are you supposed to be that colour? Not that blue makes you look funny, it's just ... unusual.

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:07:43am

In a soundbite era, it's even easier to peddle a lie then it is to explain the truth. People don't care about nuance. In their mind, if it makes a noise that reminds them of a bird, then it MUST be a duck. After all, in their minds, an increase in authority MUST be a take over, right?

Stuff like this has happened before, but in the past you had competing papers that both were willing to spin things and work the propaganda angles. You can crack on MSNBC as the liberal equivalent of Fox, but they're not even in the same league. They're not claiming a 'fair and balanced' angle. They're not as popular, and they're honestly willing to take the time to explain things, and give more nuance. Like Rachel Maddow or not, she does take the time to *talk* about things and walk through the explanation, so even when I disagree with her, I understand how she got to that point. Fox, it's ZOMG! Government Take over! or War on Christmas! or Liberals are destroying America! Except with even more exclamation points.

Fox news is the used car salesmen of news. Slick with graphics and catch phrases, but oftentimes devoid of honesty or ethics.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:17:21am

re: #14 bloodstar

One of the key things for me is that for some reason people identify bureaucracy with government bureaucracy. As a longtime veteran of the corporate world, this is hilarious to me. Every corporate job I've ever worked at has been stuffed to the gills with bureaucracy. Every corporation I've ever worked at has also had a lot of shitlheels and useless fuckers who were unfireable, too.

Yet whenever 'bureaucracy' is used in the media, and by most people, it's 99% of the time about the government.

mr.fusion Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:17:49am

re: #14 bloodstar

In a soundbite era, it's even easier to peddle a lie then it is to explain the truth. People don't care about nuance. In their mind, if it makes a noise that reminds them of a bird, then it MUST be a duck. After all, in their minds, an increase in authority MUST be a take over, right?

Had this same discussion with a buddy of mine yesterday.

It's so much easier to just say "Socialism!!!" than it is to say "Well, you know currently we provide emergency services for those who are uninsured, and under the new Health Care Plan it will actually drive down cost because...."

But --- Socialism!!!

jaunte Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:21:19am

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.

Surely a momentary misunderstanding.
/

[deleted] Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:25:38am

jamesfirecat Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:27:15am

re: #15 Obdicut

One of the key things for me is that for some reason people identify bureaucracy with government bureaucracy. As a longtime veteran of the corporate world, this is hilarious to me. Every corporate job I've ever worked at has been stuffed to the gills with bureaucracy. Every corporation I've ever worked at has also had a lot of shitlheels and useless fuckers who were unfireable, too.

Yet whenever 'bureaucracy' is used in the media, and by most people, it's 99% of the time about the government.

///But everyone knows the free market gets rid of useless bureaucracy because its not profitable!

Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:39:09am

Now, why is this lie so effective and pervasive? Think about it this way, rather than dealing with reality, the entire argument of government takeover is a way change the nature of the debate. after all, you can claim it's not really a lie if you say you're arguing somehow in a general sense that because there are Democrats in office they must, by definition want bigger government. So they can claim just using a lie on health care to promote a bigger truth. Now, that bigger "truth" isn't really the case either, but once you win the perception war, truth really doesn't matter.

Think about the general theme coming from Republicans, it's working up the fear of Government to tear down the current administration. After all, rightly or wrongly, the Democrats have been associated with the party of big government for 50 years. Because that perception has been ingrained in the psyche of most American people, it's easier for them to accept any lies that reinforce their perception of reality.

It doesn't justify or make it right, but it can help explain why Republicans would use lies, and why those lies would be so effective.

wrenchwench Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:42:42am

re: #18 MikeySDCA

OT:

Conditions must be created under which agriculture, commerce, and industry may thrive and pay wages and taxes. No government can feed all of the people by gifts, bounties, and largesses from its treasury.

Sen. Henry Fountain Ashurst (D-AZ), Diary, September 21, 1933

This Henry Fountain Ashurst?

I suffer from Cacoëthes loquendi, a mania or itch for talking; from vanity, morbidity and, as is plain to everyone who knows me, from an inborn, an inveterate flair for histrionics. ”
—Henry F. Ashurst

kirkspencer Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:45:16am

re: #20 bloodstar

Now, why is this lie so effective and pervasive? Think about it this way, rather than dealing with reality, the entire argument of government takeover is a way change the nature of the debate. after all, you can claim it's not really a lie if you say you're arguing somehow in a general sense that because there are Democrats in office they must, by definition want bigger government. So they can claim just using a lie on health care to promote a bigger truth. Now, that bigger "truth" isn't really the case either, but once you win the perception war, truth really doesn't matter.

Think about the general theme coming from Republicans, it's working up the fear of Government to tear down the current administration. After all, rightly or wrongly, the Democrats have been associated with the party of big government for 50 years. Because that perception has been ingrained in the psyche of most American people, it's easier for them to accept any lies that reinforce their perception of reality.

It doesn't justify or make it right, but it can help explain why Republicans would use lies, and why those lies would be so effective.

I will never forgive Reagan for making the government the enemy.

That's the core, you know. In the Republican memeset, there is no such thing as 'good' government. There's necessary government, and it should never be trusted.

allegro Fri, Dec 17, 2010 11:52:41am

re: #22 kirkspencer

It seem an appropriate time to revisit Joe the Republican:

... His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”

dragonfire1981 Fri, Dec 17, 2010 12:00:39pm

Guaranteed response from the right: Politifact is run by a bunch of liberal socialist Obama buddies who are doing this to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, because it really IS a government takeover of health care.

Fozzie Bear Fri, Dec 17, 2010 12:06:26pm

re: #24 dragonfire1981

Guaranteed response from the right: Politifact is run by a bunch of liberal socialist Obama buddies who are doing this to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, because it really IS a government takeover of health care.

It's already been done.

Color me surprised. /

allegro Fri, Dec 17, 2010 12:12:45pm

re: #25 Fozzie Bear

This reminds me of conversations I had several years ago with a person who would be an ideal representative of Red State and the like. She would make a talking point Fox-type statement that I would easily refute along with supportive links as proof.

After a while, she would come back with those exact same refuted talking points. I finally asked her why she did that after I had provided absolute proof that her assertions were flatly incorrect. She answered essentially that she read a bit of the links but couldn't go any further because of all the "Bush bashing." I'm like "huh? what Bush bashing?"

I finally realized that facts = Bush bashing in her world. I have seen this repeatedly in others since but I'm no longer surprised.

lostlakehiker Fri, Dec 17, 2010 12:34:45pm

re: #15 Obdicut

One of the key things for me is that for some reason people identify bureaucracy with government bureaucracy. As a longtime veteran of the corporate world, this is hilarious to me. Every corporate job I've ever worked at has been stuffed to the gills with bureaucracy. Every corporation I've ever worked at has also had a lot of shitlheels and useless fuckers who were unfireable, too.

Yet whenever 'bureaucracy' is used in the media, and by most people, it's 99% of the time about the government.

That's because you can't take your business to another government if the one you've been dealing with is unsatisfactory.

I've switched healthcare providers in the past, for good and sufficient reason. But the likely prospect over the next several years, if the law stands as written, is that most private health insurance carriers will fail. As that happens, we civilians will be the ugly duckling, paddling around in an ever smaller circle of open water until it closes entirely.

One main reason they are likely to fail is that customers will see the advantage in waiting until they're seriously ill before buying a policy. As the premium base of healthy policyholders dries up, the cost per member soars. More policyholders quit because premiums are too high relative to their own health situation, leaving only the desperately ill. At that point, the bottom falls out.

Another reason they're likely to fail is that the federal government has expansive views on what must be covered. With Christian Science Faith Therapy, all the way to Sex Change operations, in the must-cover category, the system will be bled dry by expenses that have nothing to do with saving lives or physical health.

Yet a third reason they're likely to fail is that their failure would go unmourned by the Democrats. The health insurance industry is a convenient target for campaign commercials denouncing its practices. Now there are some companies that run a criminal ship, but the criticism extends to the whole lot. And if they do fail, how very, very, convenient. It opens the door to the dearest wish of the left---an NHS after all.

So add it all up, and the fact that the law does not mandate single payer NHS type system, and does not explicitly constitute a federal takeover of the health care system, is not much comfort.

We've already seen insurers giving up on certain markets because there is no way to break even, let alone make a profit, under the rules they would have to operate under. As more of the law goes into effect, one expects more of the same kind of consequences.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 17, 2010 12:37:56pm

re: #27 lostlakehiker

That's because you can't take your business to another government if the one you've been dealing with is unsatisfactory.

Except that this does, in fact, happen. And in many places, businesses function as a monopoly. So this statement of yours is both factually untrue, and practically untrue.

Congrats.

Hey, can you name a single innovation that the health insurance companies have created? Something that's improved the delivery of health care for their customers?

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Dec 17, 2010 1:21:40pm

re: #15 Obdicut

One of the key things for me is that for some reason people identify bureaucracy with government bureaucracy. As a longtime veteran of the corporate world, this is hilarious to me. Every corporate job I've ever worked at has been stuffed to the gills with bureaucracy. Every corporation I've ever worked at has also had a lot of shitlheels and useless fuckers who were unfireable, too.

Yet whenever 'bureaucracy' is used in the media, and by most people, it's 99% of the time about the government.

The stories I could tell you about the horrible blackhearted people we couldn't fire in my olf (non-profit, not government!) health care job would make you choke yourself

WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.] Fri, Dec 17, 2010 1:22:21pm

re: #27 lostlakehiker

you're making assertions with no support behind them

APox Fri, Dec 17, 2010 2:05:44pm

re: #28 Obdicut

Except that this does, in fact, happen. And in many places, businesses function as a monopoly. So this statement of yours is both factually untrue, and practically untrue.

Congrats.

Hey, can you name a single innovation that the health insurance companies have created? Something that's improved the delivery of health care for their customers?

They are really good at pre-screening!
/

lostlakehiker Fri, Dec 17, 2010 2:52:08pm

re: #28 Obdicut

Except that this does, in fact, happen. And in many places, businesses function as a monopoly. So this statement of yours is both factually untrue, and practically untrue.

Congrats.

Hey, can you name a single innovation that the health insurance companies have created? Something that's improved the delivery of health care for their customers?

Taking one's business to another government? That's called revolution. It's a desperate remedy, entirely inappropriate to gripes over medical systems.

As to business functioning as a monopoly, what's your point? The fact is that health care, and health insurance, have not functioned like that, not in my experience.

Health insurance companies include HMO's. Again, in my experience, my HMO tries to do what the name says: maintain health. They give good advice, they try to stay on top of things, etc.

As to health insurance, here's an innovation: if you get sick and you don't have enough money in the bank to pay for the treatment, you're not automatically left to passing the hat hoping for enough donations to cover it. You have a contractual right, a call on the funds of the insurance company from one point of view, but if you look at it strategically, a call in the funds of the rest of the insured pool. You've pooled your resources, in effect, to help each other out if need should arise. The health insurance company takes a percentage to cover the cost of administering this, sorting out valid claims from fraud, and so forth.

Now as I have already granted, there do exist insurance companies that plunder their members and deny coverage on phony grounds. But can we talk about the others?

They evangelize for better sanitation practices in hospitals. They try to educate their customers. Just as fire insurance tries to educate its own customers about why it's a bad idea to store oily rags next to the water heater, or why it's a good idea to keep a little fire extinguisher with the right kind of "ammo" in the kitchen.

So my statement is actually factually and practically pretty much on the mark. You didn't give any valid counterpoint to anything I said.

Obdicut Fri, Dec 17, 2010 3:03:32pm

re: #32 lostlakehiker

Taking one's business to another government? That's called revolution. It's a desperate remedy, entirely inappropriate to gripes over medical systems.

I don't know if you're being disingenuous or just not applying your analogy properly, but businesses really do uproot and change what country they're incorporated in.

As to business functioning as a monopoly, what's your point?

It was very clear: there are many times you can't take your business to another business. The local power utility, for example, tend to be a monopoly, and you have no alternative but to use their source.

This is rather simple and obvious. I'm not sure why you're not getting it.

As to health insurance, here's an innovation: if you get sick and you don't have enough money in the bank to pay for the treatment, you're not automatically left to passing the hat hoping for enough donations to cover it.

That's not an innovation of private insurance. That is simply what health insurance is. It is also provided by public insurance.

The main argument for the virtue of a privatized market is that the competition inherent in it spurs innovation and efficiency. That's what I'm asking for.

Now as I have already granted, there do exist insurance companies that plunder their members and deny coverage on phony grounds. But can we talk about the others?

Are you saying there exist any insurance companies that do not attempt to deny coverage?

They evangelize for better sanitation practices in hospitals. They try to educate their customers.

These are not innovations on their part.

So my statement is actually factually and practically pretty much on the mark. You didn't give any valid counterpoint to anything I said.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, there.

[deleted] Fri, Dec 17, 2010 8:50:35pm

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Politifact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Government Takeover of Health Care’

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud