New Obama ad in Wisconsin lies about his, her health plan

[jackson_dem]

SCRIPT: Male announcer: "After 18 debates, with two more coming, Hillary says Barack Obama is ducking debates? It's the same old politics, of phony charges and false attacks. On health care, even Bill Clinton's own Labor Secretary says Obama covers more people than Hillary and does more to cut costs, saving $2,500 for the typical family. Obama's housing plan — it stems foreclosures and cracks down on crooked lenders. That's change we can believe in.

Obama: "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hU0EWZcx3NAS1qa1M6s7Q4Ux7E8QD8UQAVM80

It is a fact Clinton's plan covers more people. Her plan is universal, Obama's isn't. Hillary's plan also cuts costs more because of the reasons Barack Obama stated in his own book about how prices decline more when more people are insured and risk is spread out.

Same old politics of phony charges and false attacks? That's the "change" we can believe in with Barack Obama.

The truth:

-snip-

So the Obama plan would leave more people uninsured than the Clinton plan. How big is the difference?

To answer this question you need to make a detailed analysis of health care decisions. That’s what Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T., one of America’s leading health care economists, does in a new paper.

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?ref=opinion

[TwilightGardener]

1. What's the quote from the Labor Secretary (Reich?)?

Because Krugman/NYT is not exactly an unbiased source.

[jackson_dem]

4. There is a consensus among policy experts on this issue

Mandated plans cover more people. Whether they are good policy is arguable but it is a fact they cover more people than an Obama style plan. Even Obama has admitted this by finally admitting his plan was not universal. Well, until he needed to lie about it with his newfound populism.

[TwilightGardener]

6. If Reich said Obama's plan covers more, and there's a quote available, then

it's not a lie. Obama's plan is universal if it's available to all. He's just not going to seize a portion of your paycheck if you opt out of it. He believes adults without dependents have (gasp! the horror!) freewill.

[jackson_dem]

7. Ok. So the new politics consists of knowingly "misleading" voters

Obama is a phony.

[TwilightGardener]

20. He didn't mislead anybody. His plan is to make affordable health insurance

available to everyone WHO WANTS IT. And unless you can refute what the ad says about the Labor Secretary, your "lie" charge just doesn't hold up.

[Hawkeye-X]

44. So are you, my friend.

And one other thing, why are you hiding your profile? Are you ashamed to reveal who you are?

[MNDemNY]

47. The free will to Opt..

out of coverage until the day they get sick? Yes, allowing the young and healthy to opt out of coverage is a GOOOOOD thing! As long as they can opt-in at any time. Good policy obama, you naive unexperienced half-a-candidate.

[mckeown1128]

38. Mandated plans are not guaranteed to cover more people.

You can mandate everyone to buy a lexus... but that doesn't mean they are going to. The argument is about who will make health care more affordable. Obama's commercial says he will cover more people BECAUSE he will make health care more affordable.


Side note: People don't need the government to TELL them to buy health care. People want health care... they can't afford it. By the way... putting a fine on people who can't afford healthcare because of some ridiculous mandate is going to make it HARDER for people to get health care.

[Hawkeye-X]

43. Please, (as usual), back your assertions with link/proof

Which you have consistently failed to do so.

[robbedvoter]

10. Why is Krugman biased? What makes him so?

[Jillian]

12. Because he defends Hillary, and questions Obama.

That makes him a hack.:headbang:

[TwilightGardener]

18. Are you kidding? He's the Taylor Marsh of "real" journalism.

[Thrill]

2. Oh please. Here we go with the Krugman crap

He is a Hack

[anamandujano]

17. Actually it's MATH CRAP darlin. We don't like math but it's a good

way to quantify things.

[Barack_America]

3. Hillary's plan only covers more people IF she can force everyone to buy in...

...which she likely won't be able to.

Her plan is modeled after the Massachusetts plan, which, yes mandates coverage for everyone and, yes, still leaves about 20% of people uninsured.

So there is ample fact to backup the comment you listed.

[jackson_dem]

5. 20% of the uninsured remain uninsured in Mass

That beats the performance of St. Obama's plan. Under Obama's plan at least a third and up to about almost half of the uninsured remain uninsured.

[Barack_America]

8. So you admit that her plan is NOT universal?

Obama's plan only leaves more uninsured only if they opt-out of coverage, which many will NOT, provided it is made affordable enough.

Obama's focus on decreasing the cost of medicine via modernizing records will go along way towards achieving this. This is a focus of Obama's plan, that is not emphasized in Hillary's.

[jackson_dem]

13. I said even using your argument Obama's plan covers less people

The experts agree that millions, about fifteen to twenty million, will not get health care under Obama's plan. Obama is lying about this. There are many people who are eligible for programs like SCHIP and Medicaid who have not signed up for them. It is time for a president who will be straight with the American people.

[Barack_America]

16. Your original argument: "Her plan is universal, Obama's isn't."

This is not true. You have admitted as much. And which one leaves more people insured will only be determined once the cost per person is spelled out, which neither have done.

Whoever does a better job at lowering costs will end up insuring more people. That's the bottom line.

[jackson_dem]

29. Post 28

Hillary lowers costs more for the reasons Obama listed in his book before he began running for president.

[progdog]

9. But they have a choice.

I don't believe a mandated plan will sell to the American people.

[tanglefoot]

11. Her plan is mandatory, not universal

There's a big difference. Making everyone buy insurance does not a universal health care plan make.

[jackson_dem]

14. Which plan covers more people?

[high density]

19. You seem to be missing the point

People are not up for a "nanny state" proposal which makes them pay money (TAXES) for something they may not want. It seems like a non-starter to me. She'd never get it through congress with this mandatory stuff in it anyway.

I think it's a bad idea to go without health insurance, but until we have a single-payer system I think a mandatory subscription into insurance is not going to fly.

[jackson_dem]

26. That isn't what Obama's ad talks about

[Moh96]

15. for your info Hillary's HCP is one of the main reasons that got me to support Obama

[Jed Dilligan]

21. Me too. I hear "mandate" and prepare for the royal shaft

please pass the lube when you're done with it.

[jackson_dem]

30. Obama "may" implement mandates for adults "later"

He just isn't honest enough to say it in his stump speech, during debates, etc. Only when pressed on it in the past did he say it. He also includes mandates for parents. Obama is simply not a straight talker. We don't need another president who doesn't talk straight to the American people.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. He can mandate parents all he wants

Parenthood is optional. There are already a lot of mandates on parents with criminal penalties attached (feeding, housing, having someone watch them at all times). I know I can't meet those requirements so I don't let my semen get into women's vaginas. It hasn't been a problem for me.

[jackson_dem]

32. He has also said he "may" mandate everyone "later"

Why does he hide that from folks?

[Jed Dilligan]

33. Link?

[jackson_dem]

35. Thanks

You are proof Obama has been so dishonest even a staunch support of his, who as a DUer is far more informed than the average voter, doesn't know he has said this.

-snip-

Edwards's approach is preferable to Obama's because it is less susceptible to being undermined by the cost-shifting created when the uninsured end up being treated at emergency rooms. Mr. Obama argues that the problem of the uninsured is mostly a matter of affordability, in which case solving the price problem would do the trick. If not, he says, a mandate could come later, when costs have been driven down enough to make it fair. Still, the Obama plan could leave a third of those currently uninsured lacking coverage.

-snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

[Jed Dilligan]

37. thank you

I'm not necessarily as staunch as you think I am, but I've already cast my primary vote.

I do have a number of reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton other than healthcare mandates, though.

[calmblueocean]

22. Robert Reich on why Obama's plan covers more people

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

[jackson_dem]

28. And virtually every expert disagrees

You can find a few scientists who say global warming is a hoax too.

-snip-

From a quick search:

Krugman makes a strong statement and it's based on two points: the first is that Clinton's plan provides universal coverage (through an individual mandate), and Obama's plan does not cover everyone and does not include an individual mandate (except he does have one for children, which suggests he understands its usefulness). On this the experts agree -- Obama's plan leaves 15 million people uninsured while Clinton's plan leaves no patients behind. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark." Obama has acknowledged this fact, saying that "Fifteen million sounds like a lot ... I'll have 97 percent covered." The Washington Post notes that the "Obama plan could leave a third of those currently uninsured lacking coverage."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080205/cm_huffpost/085144

-snip-

Edwards's approach is preferable to Obama's because it is less susceptible to being undermined by the cost-shifting created when the uninsured end up being treated at emergency rooms. Mr. Obama argues that the problem of the uninsured is mostly a matter of affordability, in which case solving the price problem would do the trick. If not, he says, a mandate could come later, when costs have been driven down enough to make it fair. Still, the Obama plan could leave a third of those currently uninsured lacking coverage.

-snip

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802264.html

[Barack_America]

34. Well, I can consider the second one. But Krugman is a hack.

He has destroyed his credibility.

[jackson_dem]

36. When has Krugman lied?

[boppers]

39. Krugman lied in that post.

Hillary leaves up to 20% behind. He represents this as "0".

[calmblueocean]

42. I think you've missed Robert Reich's point -- it 's not about mandates

The difficulty with Hillary's plan is how she structures the subsidies meant to enable people to afford health insurance.

Obama's plan provides direct financial subsidies through his National Heath Insurance Exchange. You apply for coverage, and if you need help to afford it, you get direct financial assistance to help pay for your insurance.

Hillary's subsidies are only tax credits.

This means:

• You have to pay for the full cost of insurance out of your own pocket
  
• You have to wait up to a year to get reimbursed (if you qualify)
  
• You have to file taxes to get reimbursed (many of the poorest do not)
  
• You have to be aware of the health insurance credit, and know how to claim it properly in your taxes
  

I want to address that last point, just for a second. We can get some idea of how many people might utilize this subsidy by looking at the Earned Income Tax Credit. It's the only tax credit you can claim on the 1040EZ. (Currently, health coverage tax credits are only available through other, more complex, tax forms, but we'll assume for the moment that Hillary is able to find a way to allow these credits to be claimable through the 1040EZ.)

Millions of American families who are eligible for the EITC do not receive it, leaving billions of additional tax credit dollars unclaimed. Research by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Internal Revenue Service indicates that between 15% and 25% of households who are entitled to the EITC do not claim their credit, or between 3.5 million and 7 million households.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit

So that's 15% - 25% of folks who won't get the subsidies they're entitled to, even assuming that Hillary is able to make the 1040EZ compatible with her tax credits. If not, the way it is today, that number jumps much higher. And, of course, the other three points above still apply. For people who can't afford to buy health insurance out of pocket, Hillary's subsidies don't do the job they're supposed to do. Tax credits are just, frankly, a slow, complicated, and ineffective way of enabling people to afford health insurance. That's part of what Reich is pointing out -- that the practical effect of the way her subsidies are implemented means, at the end of the day, Obama's plan will actually cover more people.

This is not meant, on my part, as a criticism of Hillary's healthcare plan overall. Her team has done a lot of eye-opening work, and her plan shows a great deal of research and thoughtfulness. It puzzled me at first why a plan that was so thoughtful in most ways seemed so thoughtless about how subsidies were implemented, but eventually I understood it. Hillary's plans make repeated emphasis on minimizing new government bureaucracies. That's why her Health Choices plan will be implemented as part of the already extant Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan instead of simply being modeled on it, as Obama's is. And that's why she chose to use the IRS to do the means testing and subsidizing rather than create a new entity to do so, as Obama is with the National Health Insurance Exchange. Hillary made a choice here, and I think it was the wrong one, in the specific case of subsidies.

[madrchsod]

23. does anyone actually think that either plan

has a chance in hell to pass the house and senate? by the time it would reach the oval office either plan will look like swiss cheese...

[Omega3]

27. no they won't, in particular to pass the senate it would have to be so watered down

[zulchzulu]

24. Please explain in ONE sentence how Hillary's mandated insurance will be enforced and the penalties

One short sweet sentence. Hillary can't answer that question. She hems and haws and avoids giving a straight answer.

Bonus points for who people are above the poverty line will pay for enforced healthcare coverage when they are already living paycheck to paycheck...

I don't expect an answer.

[johnnydrama]

25. maybe

debtor's prisons will make a comeback?

[Avalux]

40. Does anyone really think these 'plans' will be implemented as is?

If they even have a shred of chance of passing, there will be considerable changes as they move through Congress. I think it's a bit irrelevant to spend a lot of time arguing about $ amounts.

I want Hillary to explain how she will go about garnishing wages and enforcing her mandated plan.

[milkyway]

41. Let me know when Hillary calls her plan Mandatory Purchase of Healthcare Insurance.

[LordJFT]

45. I don't consider forcing people who can't afford health insurance to buy it anyway

to be covering more people.

[sentelle]

46. lets not mistake fact with opinion

Especially with something as critical as healthcare.

It is not a fact that clinton's plan will cover everyone. Its the intent, but realities don't always match intent.

In many ways it is similar to the Massachusettes plan. It 'forced' insurance on people whether they can afford it or not. Some have decided to go to extreme measures, due to low cut-offs.

It is not a fact that it will lower insurance cost by sharing the risk. A bigger, better way is to regulate (or eliminate) the industry, a way neither plan addresses. That's because the insurance companies wrote their plans, and they want their record profits.

Again, in massachusettes, where everyone was forced to come up with a plan, rates went up.

[frazzled]

48. Robert Kuttner on mandates/no mandates on Democracy Now

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Kuttner, let’s begin with you. Let’s talk about the healthcare plans of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

ROBERT KUTTNER: Well, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proposed healthcare plans that are really variations on a plan designed by Jacob Hacker of Yale University, which is an attempt to get to universal coverage without having national health insurance, and it’s not bad, if you can’t have the first best, which is national health insurance. The idea is that if you have employer-provided coverage, and you like it, and it’s decent, you get to keep it. If you don’t have affordable coverage, the government will subsidize you to get coverage that’s as good as the coverage that members of Congress get.

Clinton has what’s known as a mandate. She requires people to get coverage. Obama doesn’t. Clinton and some liberal commentators, like Paul Krugman, have whacked Obama for not having a mandate. I think a mandate is a very bad idea. I think the difference between universal social insurance and a mandate is that universal social insurance, like Medicare, says that, as an American or a permanent resident of the country, you get health insurance, the same way you get Social Security. A mandate takes a social problem and makes it the individual’s problem. And in the Massachusetts version of this, on the website it says “new penalties for 2008.” You get penalized if you don’t buy health insurance, even if the health insurance that’s available is not high quality and is not affordable. Now, Hillary Clinton says that her version of this is better than Massachusetts, because they will have a substantial amount of regulation to make sure that you can’t discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, and you can’t have excessive deductibles and co-pays. So the approach is not bad, but it’s definitely a second best. The first best would be national health insurance.

The other problem with this whole approach is that you don’t get the cost efficiencies that you get from universal health insurance, because you still have all this paperwork, you still have all the profit by private insurance companies, you still have doctors being given incentives to go for the reimbursable procedures. And as a result, the cost-containment pressures hit patients. They come in the form of less care, rather than in the form of less waste.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I’d like to ask you, in terms of the mandates issue, because obviously both Krugman, in his various articles, and Clinton have claimed, on the one hand, that Obama does have mandates—he has mandates for coverage of all children—so that the mandates issue is not a principled issue, it’s a tactical issue as to what you think could be approved. Your sense of that?

ROBERT KUTTNER: My point is that a mandate, in a situation where the whole system is sick, makes that sickness the problem of the individual. Instead of putting a gun to people’s heads, typically people who can’t afford good quality insurance, and saying to them, “You must, under penalty of law, or pay a tax or pay a fine, go out and find decent insurance,” it’s so much better policy to just have insurance for everybody. Then there’s no question of a mandate.

I think it’s a very bad position for progressives to back into, because it signals that government is being coercive, rather than government being helpful. Now, we can split hairs and argue whether Obama is being principled or tactical, but I think his discomfort with the idea of a mandate is something that I applaud. I wish that both he and Clinton had gone all the way and said, let’s just to do this right and have national health insurance. I think they could have used this as a teachable moment. They could have bought public opinion around. Medicare is phenomenally popular. Medicare is national health insurance for seniors. Let’s have national health insurance for everybody.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/8/examining_clinton_obamas_stances_on_the