The video above is an example of good work by the White House to rebut smears that the right-wing has used to create a sense of fear in their base supporters. Linda Douglass, who leads White House communications on healthcare, responds to the false accusations that President Obama is seeking to abolish private health insurance and is pushing for legislation that would prevent individuals from choosing their own doctors. Obviously both are false--and Douglass does a great job of going point-by-point to defend Obama.

What's even more effective is that the video features cuts of President Obama himself stating clearly what he thinks reform should and should not do. For example, the President has consistently said that if you like your insurance plan, your doctor (or both), you will be able to keep them--and he's even proposed eight consumer protections relating specifically to the health insurance industry.

Not surprisingly, the right-wing doesn't have a leg to stand on when they are left dealing with facts and not fear tactics.

Video crops out truth of Obama's comments on healthcare

As chronicled by Media Matters, some of the fabrications on Obama's health care reform plan are so blatant they make you want to jump up and yell "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" at the talking heads, politicians and corporate lobbyists. For example: On August 2rd, a YouTube video surfaced of from an SEIU/CAP event in 2007 featuring Obama discussing health care--specifically, the then-Senator was discussing how health insurance could transition away from a system of primarily "employer coverage."

Cut to Drudge Report and Fox News declaring, "Uncovered Video: Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will 'Eliminate' Private Insurance" and "2007 Video! Did Obama Say He Wants to Kill Private Insurance?," respectively. Funny, we were at that event in 2007, and that's not quite how we remember it.

Here's Media Matters for the fact check:

Contrary to cropped video, Obama did not suggest "employer coverage" would be "eliminate[d]" in 10 to 20 years. Nor did he suggest it would be eliminated by his plan. What Obama actually said [YouTube video cropped the comments in italics]: "But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. 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.

Obama stated during forum that under his plan, employers "still have the option of providing coverage." Following the remarks included in the YouTube video, Obama stated that under that "much more portable system": Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage."

Later in forum, Obama stated that under his plan, pooling options would exist "in addition to the employer based system." Obama stated: "[O]ne thing that I think is important is to recognize that there are a lot of small employers who would like to get health care for their workers but they themselves can't afford it because they don't have access to large enough pools to allow them to save money. That's why I think it's going to be important for us in whatever system that we set up to make sure that in addition to the employer based system that we've got an alternative system that individuals who aren't getting it through the job can access."

For months, we've highlighted repeated attempts by some Republicans to drive wrenches into the movement to fix health care.  Amidst an outbreak of H1N1 virus, they delayed Gov. Sebelius's confirmation as HHS Secretary. And when Frank Luntz's talking points were leaked to the press, it was clear that the GOP strategy on health care was only to confuse, conflate, and scare the beejeezus out the American public. Time and time again, Republicans have chosen partisan politicking over the hard work of crafting substantive policies that work for the American people.

For the most part, Republicans in Congress have left the dirty work of killing health care to pundits and Fox News anchors. Instead, they've pledged to be working in good faith with Democrats, despite their nonstop battering ram of rhetoric (re: "socialized medicine," "rationing of care" and blaming Canada). 

But now, there's been a slip-up. And not just by any Republican - but by a very prominent Republican leader, Senator Jim Demint, who exposed the Republican plan for what it really is--a plot to block health care reform at all costs in search of a desperately needed political victory. Sen. Jim Demint, on a recent conservative group conference call, said:

"If we're able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Make no mistake about it, this is not principled objection to legislation, but cheap, partisan politicking.  President Obama wasted no time in responding directly to Sen. Demint's comments:

OBAMA: Just the other day, one Republican Senator said, and I'm quoting him now, "if we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Think about that. This isn't about me. This isn't about politics. It is about a health care system that is breaking American families, breaking America's businesses and breaking America's economy.

Below is the audio version of the quote:

It'll be interesting to watch Republicans explain away Sen. Demint's comments this week. Don't be surprised if you see some members of Congress talking out the of side of their mouth about "bipartisanship" and their so-called support for reform. Demint is only the latest to confirm what we've known all along - that some in Congress intend to kill health care reform strictly for political gain. We can't let them win.

Despite the fact that:

• The average family's medical costs are projected to reach $18,000 next year and rise to $36,000 by 2020 if we don't reform our healthcare system now;
  
• The average family premium already costs $1,100 more because our system fails to cover everyone; and
  
• The U.S. economy is losing up to $248 billion every year because of productivity losses due to the uninsured...

Rather than pursuing meaningful reform in good faith, conservatives on the HELP Committee are delaying the legislative process by introducing over 350 obstructionist amendments - including provisions to maintain the broken system, "remove empowerment" of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and prevent much-needed competition for the insurance industry by eliminating the public plan. [Coburn 310, Hatch 216, Hatch 222, Burr 201, and Coburn 208]

This is on top of over 400 amendments they introduced in June, which included two separate amendments to create a program in which doctors would conduct undercover investigations on each other [Coburn 11, 87]. These are not serious efforts to get the reform that families need. Senator Dodd has already accepted nearly 90 Republican amendments, showing a commitment to a thoughtful, deliberative and bipartisan process - but most of the amendments being offered now are about keeping the status quo and political posturing.

In a new round of attacks against the Employee Free Choice Act, corporate lobbyists and executives are showing their true, greedy selves.

In recent weeks, corporate lobbyist groups such as the Center for Union Facts, the Chamber of Commerce, and conservatives like Newt Gingrich, have waged war to prevent workers from enjoying what CEOs take for granted: a contract.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, and in a Politico op-ed from Newt Gingrich last month, anti-worker groups have attacked the "first contract arbitration" portion of the Employee Free Choice Act. That provision seeks to stop employers from using endless foot-dragging against workers who have voted for a union, but have yet to secure a contract. The legislation says that if employers and workers can't reach an agreement in a reasonable amount of time - 120 days - either side can bring in a neutral, private-sector arbitrator to settle the dispute.

Besides the foot-dragging, this assault on first contract arbitration is particularly disturbing for another reason: Corporations use arbitration all the time, because they say it's a fast, inexpensive way to settle disputes.

Here are just some of the quotes that opponents of Employee Free Choice have said about arbitration in the past:

"For more than 80 years, arbitration has helped Americans settle disputes fairly, quickly and inexpensively, without having to file a lawsuit or navigate the court system." - Lisa Rickard, president of the US Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform (4/2/08)

"Arbitration is mutually beneficial, which is what we have always thought." - Arne Wagner, assistant general counsel for Bank of America [ABA Journal, December 1994]

"[F]ederal policy... favors the use of arbitration as an efficient, effective, and less expensive means of resolving disputes...Arbitration, has served as an essential valve for the nation's overburdened civil justice system." - Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee signed by US Chamber of Commerce, Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Retail Federation, National Association of Manufacturers, Jackson Lewis, et al (2/7/08)

There's one position that CEOs have been fairly consistent on, however: if it allows them to hold on to their corporate power against working families, then they're all for it. Even if it means being a little "flexible" in their public stances.