Media Matters is at it again. They tried yet again to drum up a faux Fox News controversy and this one fell so flat that even Time Magazine leapt to the conservative cable news network’s defense.
An internal Fox memo told its anchors to stop using the phrase “public option” when discussing ObamaCare and to begin using the phrase “government option.” Media Matters got its hands on that memo and was shocked – shocked, we tell you – by that supposedly blatant manipulation of the truth.
Hard as this may be to believe, Time magazine – liberal Time magazine – offered up this defense of Fox:
Here’s what Kurtz and Media Matters fail to note: Most Americans did not understand what the “public option” was. The term, in fact, seemed almost intentionally non-descriptive. Scores of journalists asked me during the health care debate to explain to them what the public option was – and these were folks interested in the news and paying attention to the issue.
The public option would have been a government-run insurance plan some Americans could have purchased. It would have been supported by premiums with no government subsidization and would be been purely voluntary. Like Medicare, the reimbursements paid by the public option would have been set by the government. Also like Medicare, the plan would not have needed to turn a profit, making it cost less than private insurance. It would have therefore provided tough competition for private insurers and pushed down premiums throughout the marketplace.
There’s a reason they call themselves Media Matters and not Truth Matters.
H/T: National Review
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (13)
SHE IS SO HOT!
"It would have been supported by premiums with no government subsidization"
Anyone believe that "no government subsidization" bit?
I don't.
Thank you. I didn't know what the hell the "public option" was and even searched the internet to find out. What I got back was basically gibberish. You made it understandable. Government option is obviously more accurate that public option unless they state that, Public option means the taxpayer (public) pays for it, but it aint optional. That's confusing.
It's not confusing if you understand socialisim. You get all the options & choices the gov't says you do. If that means only 1 choice, that's your choice. You see, you're just confused by living in America & having all the possible choices that we have been accustomed to provided to us by the free market because of the freedoms we have in this nation.
Does IHTM have any more shots of Megyn Kelly? Offer them as a premium for donating.
I admit I'm ignorant. But how can just one person be so pretty as she is???
And the "public option" is not an option. When the government starts selling insurance for less than private firms do, most businesses will dump private insurance, opting to save money and put their employees on the "Public option". This is going to the post office, or DMV for health care.
Your wish is our command, James. More Megyn coming up soon.
You could do a weekly report of the FoxNews Red Eye "leg chair". With photos/screencaps of course, because it's called the leg chair for a reason.
Oh fer sure about that Red Eye leg chair. There's great eye candy to be found.
Soooo... they got mad because Fox News sought to be more DESCRIPTIVE and TRANSPARENT in their reporting...? O-K...
MMMMMeeegg... ynnnnn... Kellllllllly!
...I'm OK now.
The problem here for MediaMatters is this...
The public option = gov't option.
...ask people this, what is public housing? Gov't funded housing.
What public Golf Courses? They are owned/operated by the gov't.
So then again, what is the public option?
The answer to all those questions is: The sh*tty one.