Was Obamacare a government takeover of health care?

An open letter to PolitiFact

Dear PolitiFact,

In 2010 you named your second "Lie of the Year." It was the GOP talking point that the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, represented a government takeover of health care.

The claim received a number of "Pants on Fire" ratings that year. According to PolitiFact's statement of principles, the "Pants on Fire" rating denotes a claim that is false and not merely false but also ridiculous.

The ACA now has the force of law, and some have expressed concern that spiking premium rates may lead to health insurance death spirals. Such death spirals may lead to insurers abandoning some markets and leaving them without an insurer.

The right blames the ACA. The left blames the Trump administration for not administering the law in a way aimed at helping it succeed.

And all of this leads up to my questions for you, PolitiFact.

If the ACA did not result in a government takeover of health care, then why do health insurance markets across the nation now depend on federal executive action for stability?

Would that have proved the case if the ACA (or something like it) had never passed?

Do you see why it's hard to take you seriously?


Sincerely,
PolitiFact Bias


P.S. Yes, we know your commitment to transparency generally doesn't include responding to criticism.

Don Surber: "Obama proved it was government-run healthcare"

Don Surber notices the same connection between the actions of the Obama administration and PolitiFact's 2010 "Lie of the Year" that I pointed out last week.  We highlight it here at PolitiFact Bias because Surber makes the criticism of PolitiFact so effectively and directly:

On December 17, 2010, as part of its continuous support and defense of Obamacare, PolitiFact boldly declared as its Lie Of The Year “government takeover of health care.”

This week, President Obama’s own actions proved that PolitiFact’s editors were in error. By requiring that everyone’s health insurance (which will soon be mandatory) carry free birth control for women — no co-payments or no deductibles — not only does President Obama violate the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution (religion and equal protection under the law) but President Obama lays bare the lie that this is not government-run health care.

Surber's observation serves as yet another indicator that liberals critical of the 2011 "Lie of the Year" selection were simply late to the party.  Not that a thorough progressivist indoctrination can't detect a full-on conservative bias at PolitiFact.

If PolitiFact has any chance of redemption on this issue, it comes from the doubt as to whether the executive branch has the authority it claims from the health care bill to require insurance companies to provide a service free of charge.

If no such authority exists, of course, it makes President Obama's position to the contrary a falsehood.

Don Surber: "PolitiFact fisked"

We're way overdue recognizing Don Surber's ongoing commentary regarding PolitiFact, but his "PolitiFact Fisked" is as good a start as any:

There is an old saying in the newspaper trade that if you are taking it from both sides, you must be doing something right. The reality is that you definitely are doing something wrong and in the case of PolitiFact, editor Bill Adair and company are doing plenty of things wrong.

Surber's always a great read, especially when he chooses PolitiFact as his subject.  The above is just a teaser for an excellent fisking of PolitiFact.  Read it all.

And could it be a coincidence that PolitiFact uses the fact of criticism from both sides to implicitly claim it's doing something right?

Jim Lakely: "The PolitiFact ‘Lie of the Year’ Is the Lie of the Year About Obamacare"

It's always a good time to review the perfidious PolitiFact treatment of the Democrats' attempted government takeover of healthcare.

This Dec. 2010 item from a Heartland Institute blog ("Somewhat Reasonable") by Jim Lakely makes its point largely through items we have already highlighted, but it's worth a read on its own:

PolitiFact holds itself up as an objective arbiter of “truth” and “lies” in America’s political discourse. But, like any organ played by the MSM, this project of The St. Petersburg Times is inclined to succumb to institutional liberal bias. PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” award for 2010 is a great example.

read it all

Lakely's title may rate as the finest in its specific genre.

Michael F. Cannon: "Why I'm Boycotting PolitiFact"

Michael F. Cannon of the CATO Institute has often served PolitiFact as an expert source.  Today he explained why he no longer cooperates with PolitiFact in that capacity:

Reporters at PolitiFact.com have used me as a resource half a dozen times or so when fact-checking something someone said about health care reform. Sometimes we disagree about where the truth lies, but I’ve always been happy to help. That changed recently, and I should let PolitiFact’s reporters know why.

read it all

Cannon's boycott is conditional:   He will lift it after he is satisfied that PolitiFact has addressed problems with its past two "Lie of the Year" selections.

I'll quote one more important passage, though Cannon's column ought to be read completely through:

Some conservatives think PolitiFact is a left-wing outfit. I don’t think that’s true, and I have defended PolitiFact against that charge. I believe that PolitiFact’s reporters are earnestly doing their best to get at the truth. But there’s a tension between that belief and these errors. Whether PolitiFact recognizes and addresses that tension will tell us a lot about PolitiFact.

I share Cannon's assessment.  It is extraordinarily unlikely that PolitiFact intends to do its fact checking any way other than impartially.  But on the other hand it's hard to reconcile that premise with some of the things PolitiFact puts to print and with some of the errors PolitiFact refuses to acknowledge.

I predict that Cannon will not end up lifting his boycott.  PolitiFact is too invested in its model, given its relative success, to risk tampering with it.

But I'd love to be proved wrong.  Just like Cannon wouldn't mind lifting his boycott under the right conditions.

Logicology: "'Non-partisan'"

Scare quotes!  Run away!

Sean W. Malone shared some thoughts about PolitiFact's nonpartisanship at his blog, Logicology:

Sometimes, I feel compelled to compile a list of my own "Iron Lawz" of politics and maybe of reality in general. If I did, one of them would be as follows:

Any time an organization must be cited as "non-partisan", it probably isn't.

I bring this up because of a post I read recently calling the website PolitiFact a "non-partisan" source for analysis about political decisions. But this is, itself, pretty misleading.

Malone sees PolitiFact's 2010 "Lie of the Year" as a great example of partisan fact-checking.  By all means, follow the link and read it all.

Kaiser Health News: "Just Call Me Liar of the Year"

Kaiser Health News publishes Cato Institute's Michael F. Cannon's politely blistering rebuke of PolitiFact's Lie of the Year for 2010:

ObamaCare is not a government takeover, I learned from PolitiFact, because it "uses the private health insurance system to expand health care coverage."
 
But wait. In my research, I found that distinction between public and private to be illusory: what difference is there between a public system where the government taxes and spends your money, and a "private" system where the government forces you to spend your money in the same way?

 Cannon's column is a must-read.

Though Cannon makes the same point made by other critics including the Wall Street Journal, the Kaiser name carries a certain cachet that boosts the power of this critique.

To reiterate what I've written before, PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" for 2010 will hurt them more in the long run than it will hurt anybody else.  It goes a long way toward cementing PolitiFact's reputation as a partisan news source.

Bill Hallowell (Mediaite): "PoltiFact ‘Lie of the Year’ Falls Flat"

I'm not sure how I missed seeing this column on PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" for 2010.  It might be my favorite so far.

Bill Hallowell scores direct hits on the most important points, so be sure to read it all:

Last Week, PolitiFact designated the term “government takeover of health care” as its “lie of the year”.  While this title certainly holds some surface merit (the final Congressional product does not denotatively constitute a takeover), the way in which PolitiFact dismisses the Republican attack line as a total fabrication is troubling.  Furthermore, PolitiFact brushes off public reaction as a mere byproduct of campaign politics, rather than an overt rejection of big government philosophy.  Accusing Republicans of flat out lying without offering a full context is journalistically irresponsible.

The Washington Examiner: "Is Obamacare a government takeover of the healthcare system? In important ways, it is"

Enjoy yet another fact-based takedown of PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" story, this time from Hans Bader:

PolitiFact based its claim that Obamacare will not lead to a government takeover of healthcare on the false contention that Obamacare is not like European socialized medicine because the "European approach" is "where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees." But that was a straw man argument, since the government does not own all the hospitals or employ most of the doctors even in many European nations long run by Socialist parties.

Bader's critique also encompasses an approving reference to the "Lie of the Year" nonsense that appeared in the Washington Post under Glenn Kessler's byline.

Don't miss the kicker at the end.  It's well targeted.

Ethics Alarms: "'Lie of the Year'? Hardly"

Here's yet another well-reasoned takedown of PolitiFact's "Lie of the Year" for 2010, this time from Jack Marshall's blog "Ethics Alarms."

Marshall provides an excellent summary of the PolitiFact's fundamental error:

The point of disagreement depends on one’s tolerance for  an outside  authority’s interference with free choice. Every new control, regulation or alteration in options reduces the autonomy of individuals and the marketplace. To supporters of government micromanagement of individuals and commerce, this isn’t a “takeover,” because significant choices still remain with the consumer and the industry. To those who object to all but the most unobtrusive government controls, it is a takeover, because the government is deciding which options are available.

Regardless of who is right, and this is just part of a long-standing argument about what is the proper role of government, calling one side’s sincere and defensible characterization of the law  1) a lie, and 2) “the lie of the year” is taking partisan sides, especially obnoxious for a website that promotes its lack of bias.

As usual, read the whole thing.

Reason.com: "Politifact’s Lie of the Year Is An Exaggeration With Elements of Truth"

Hat tip to Jim Lakely at The Heartland Institute.

Reason.com's Peter Suderman wrote a concise and spicy criticism of PolitiFact's choice for "Lie of the Year" for 2010 ("government takeover").

Read it all, but here's my favorite bit:

Nor do they mention that the PPACA sets up a system in which health insurers are regulated so extensively that they are more or less transformed into quasi-public utilities. The new regulations include a rule that caps administrative costs and profits as a percentage of premium revenue—a rule that pushes the boundaries of the government’s regulatory authority so much that the Congressional Budget Office has said that if the rules were any stricter, it would turn the health insurance industry into “an essentially governmental program.”

So no, it’s not a gub’mint takeover. It’s just pretty damn close.

Wall Street Journal-PolitiFiction, True 'lies' about ObamaCare

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page took aim at PolitiFact's 2010 Lie of the Year. They take exception with Politifact's suggestion that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a free market solution to health care issues-

"We have concluded it is inaccurate to call the plan a government takeover," the editors of PolitiFact announce portentously. "'Government takeover' conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees," whereas ObamaCare "is, at its heart, a system that relies on private companies and the free market." PolitiFact makes it sound as if ObamaCare were drawn up by President Friedrich Hayek, with amendments from House Speaker Ayn Rand.

The Journal also joins a chorus of detractors that find PolitiFact's definition of "government takeover" spurious-

Evidently, it doesn't count as a government takeover unless the means of production are confiscated. "The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors," the editors write, and while "it's true that the law does significantly increase government regulation of health insurers," they'll still be nominally private too.

In fact—if we may use that term without PolitiFact's seal of approval—at the heart of ObamaCare is a vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered. The regulations that PolitiFact waves off are designed to convert insurers into government contractors in the business of fulfilling political demands, with enormous implications for the future of U.S. medicine. All citizens will be required to pay into this system, regardless of their individual needs or preferences. Sounds like a government takeover to us.

Finally, the editorial questions PolitiFact's ability to remain as non-partisan as they claim, and suggests they injected commentary into the Lie of the Year piece itself-

PolitiFact is run by the St. Petersburg Times and has marketed itself to other news organizations on the pretense of impartiality. Like other "fact checking" enterprises, its animating conceit is that opinions are what ideologues have, when in reality PolitiFact's curators also have political views and values that influence their judgments about facts and who is right in any debate.

In this case, they even claim that the government takeover slogan "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." In other words, voters turned so strongly against Democrats because Republicans "lied," and not because of, oh, anything the Democrats did while they were running Congress. Is that a "fact" or a political judgment? Just asking.

Read the full editorial here. Also check out letters to the editor in response to the column here. PolitiFact linked to the Journal's criticism on their Facebook page, and the comments from their fans are worth a read.

Carolina Journal-The Sophistry of Liberal Fact-Check Websites

Jon Ham at the Carolina Journal writes a scathing opinion piece that questions both the non-partisan credibility of PolitiFact, and also the merits of their Lie of the Year-

Anyone paying attention remembers that ObamaCare was a government takeover bid. That's what it was when Hillary Clinton was pushing it in 1993, and the 2009 Obama plan was, too. It included a "public option," which was really a "government option" to any objective news outlet. But PolitiFact sniffs that, while this may have been true before the "public option" was taken out of the bill, it wasn't accurate once that onerous provision was excised.

[Quoting PolitiFact] "By the time the health care bill was headed toward passage in early 2010, Obama and congressional Democrats had sanded down their program, dropping the "public option" concept that was derided as too much government intrusion. The law passed in March, with new regulations, but no government-run plan."

Robert Gibbs couldn't have spun that any better. PolitiFact maintains that anyone who continued to use "government takeover" after the public option was killed is a liar, and a big fat "liar of the year," to boot.

Ham goes on to raise the issue of the new authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services-

Even a quick reading of the health care bill reveals an astounding level of government control of health care, even without the public option...The Health and Human Services bureaucracy is given an unprecedented degree of power by the ample use of the phrase "the Secretary shall, by regulation" in the bill. Any objective person would conclude that 2,000 pages of new regulations devoted to one industry constitutes a "government takeover" by definition, but not PolitiFact.

As evidence of their bias, Ham also points out the Lie of the Year runner up, Michelle Bachmann's claim regarding President Obama's trip to India-

This is a textbook example of the half-truth way liberal fact-check sites operate. Yes, Bachmann did say that the Obama trip would cost $200 million a day, but it was not her claim. It was the claim of an Indian mainstream news outlet, the Press Trust of India, and was picked up by other news outlets. Bachmann was simply repeating what had been reported.

The quick determination by PolitiFact readers that Bachmann's repeating of this report constitutes a "lie," and PolitiFact's evident acceptance of that determination, tells you all you need to know about the readers and PolitiFact. Why did they brand only Bachmann as a liar, an not the the many others who repeated what was thought to be an accurate report? I'd venture that it had something to do with the left's Bachmann Derangement Syndrome, second in severity only to Palin Derangement Syndrome.

The entire article can be found here.