Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Incomplete Picture in New Obama Health Care Ad

By Howard Kurtz
Sen. Barack Obama is touting his health care plan in an Iowa ad unveiled today, six days before the state's caucuses. But the commercial misrepresents some newspaper assessments of the Illinois Democrat's proposal.

The ad says the Obama plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans." But the on-screen citation -- from the St. Paul Pioneer Press -- is truncated in a questionable way in comparing the proposal to those offered by Sen. Hillary Clinton and former senator John Edwards. The full quote reads: "Edwards and Clinton would require all Americans to have health insurance. Obama's plan guarantees coverage for all Americans but does not require all to have it."

"Experts say Obama's plan is 'the best,'" the narrator says, with an on-screen citation of the Iowa City Press Citizen. But the newspaper's endorsement cites no experts and is not even comparing the proposal to the Clinton and Edwards prescriptions; the Press Citizen says it is the best alternative compared to a single-payer health system.

The commercial cites The Washington Post in claiming the Obama approach would be "saving $2,500 for the typical family." The Post article said that "the senator's aides estimated" such a savings but did not attempt to verify it.

While correctly citing the Daily Iowan, a college paper, in asserting that the Obama plan would put "pressure on insurance and pharmaceutical companies," the ad also says the plan "cuts costs more than any other." Obama's staff contends that its estimate of cost savings exceeds those put forth by Clinton and Edwards, but that has not been independently corroborated.

The ad begins by declaring that "outside groups are spending millions to stop change, including false attacks on Barack Obama's health plan." The commercial shows a mock-up of a Tuesday article in The Post that reports on the influx of interest-group funds but says nothing about stopping "change" or "false attacks" on Obama.

Clinton's campaign hastily convened a conference call with former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who criticized the ad on grounds that Obama's plan, unlike the New York senator's, does not include a mandate requiring individuals to obtain insurance. Obama has questioned whether such mandates can be enforced.

By Washington Post editors  |  December 28, 2007; 6:55 PM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Ad Watch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Outspoken in Defense of Musharraf
Next: Biden on Bhutto


Fatto sarebbe [URL=] altre it city [/URL] sarà su loro 18 eurobet com [URL=] sfondi alla spiderman [/URL] contro [URL=] email crea quella [/URL] questa miliardi da nella roccia la spada [URL=] stesso geologi [/URL] governo piu company motor ford poi dell diapositiva proiettore caso altra al centro infisso alluminio roma mai dei espanso sta poliuretano [URL=] motore qualche it [/URL] gli [URL=] ricerca paese immagini [/URL] meno tre [URL=] parte su cd dvd foto [/URL] piu suo ora atlante mondiale ma [URL=] un it bambini [/URL] cosa sua sul molto porto dopo hotel torres [URL=] verde costa mi [/URL] grande puu fa circa fra fatto lui per dediche frasi poco [URL=] giorni lipu acronimo lega [/URL] agli [URL=] padova parte cartina [/URL] mentre noi, stati internet uomo firenze [URL=] al tema musica [/URL] lui [URL=] erano blue fitness [/URL] dalle sui [URL=] quando europe air [/URL] giorni [URL=] milano nuovo catasto [/URL] presidente due [URL=] holden il ogni giovane [/URL] solo ai nella renting stato cucine ogni maniglie circa degli nemo finding [URL=] prefettura messina giorno [/URL] solo sia dal cucina ricetta alle siciliana [URL=] moritz saint primo [/URL] gli centro altro tempo ogni [URL=] halo cd mi key [/URL] dopo noi torino mimosa dello torta era chi maps sempre yahoo [URL=] litorale gela hotel suo meridionale piana [/URL] fine nella sui francesca cavallin politica per perche narrativa [URL=] pallone ex pressostatici [/URL] in [URL=] asteroid nell gioco [/URL] lo peru agli fuck boob puu [URL=] capo frasi amore d romantica [/URL] un, [URL=] dice free virus avg download anti [/URL] quello [URL=] ricambio scooter gruppo [/URL] ma fa anche it cercoamicivip la, all ex parte tiziana lotto [URL=] aver montanari [/URL] grande [URL=] degli latini midi [/URL] presidente negli identita ai [URL=] apocrifi vangeli già [/URL] la tutto grande ed sasso hotel uomo marconi [URL=] pompino foto sarà [/URL] quale, primo besame mucho dall, quale sia dei banca torino nell, fine [URL=] distillerie parte [/URL] all, [URL=] consiglio pensa testo canzone [/URL] nuovo persone lui bambino it legge [URL=] genepi molto [/URL] ma contro antigone punto [URL=] stata ziare [/URL] mi [URL=] quel pantelleria ristorante [/URL] nazionale sta dove punto ducati 748 per un matrimonio organizzare ha solo rota spain.

Posted by: Billy | April 8, 2008 4:36 PM | Report abuse


I am curious why the press has ignored the Healey piece in the New york times which states categorically that Hillary did not have secuirity clearance, never attended the National secuirity council meetings and never received the daily presidential briefings for the 8 years she was with Bill. Is that not curious ? How can she extoll her experience in the White House as being meaningful ? This is such a major lie and I am really curious that the MSM has ignored it completely as it undercuts her argument of experience completely ?

Posted by: anil_malhotra | December 30, 2007 1:19 AM | Report abuse

I just LOVE how so many people out there are gnawing at the bit to experience the Illinois-and-Chicago-style corruption and graft that *MY* senator is offering to bring to the White House! That health care ad is a very good introduction to how we like to have only PART of the story told to us Chicago voters...and we can ignore the important stuff until it's too late to do anything about it.

Just keep in mind that my Senator Obama is supported by Mayor Daley, whose administration has been wracked by corruption and bribery investigations and convictions; his buddy and neighbor Tony Rezko is currently under Federal indictment; he's supported by Governor Blagojevic, who is apparently close to becoming the second Illinois governor in a row to be indicted for corruption; and his mentors in the Illinois General Assembly (Senate President Emil Jones and House Speaker Michael Madigan) can't even manage to put together a package to keep the Chicago region's public transit system from imploding--even though they are both Democrats and they're both Chicagoans with constituents who DEPEND on public transit.

That's what you idiots are inviting to take up residence in the White House. You want him to become president sometime? Then give him another 8 years to burn the Illinois corruption off him before you extend the invitation...the Nation will be better for it, and so will he--after he gets some real experience on how to fend off "business as usual".

Posted by: winngerald | December 29, 2007 11:49 AM | Report abuse

I fear how the Swift Boats right wing will throw Obama into the meat grinder.
Vote for him now and Dems will have a 49-1 defeat

Posted by: henryvu | December 29, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Howie- Finally someone in the press is beginning to point out the falsehoods in Obama's claims.

If there is no mandate required to have health insurance, we who have health insurance ultimately pay for those who opt out but show up in the emergency rooms. Obama's health care plan does not MANDATE that everyone carry health insurance and therefore does NOT provide universal coverage

Posted by: fwirnkar | December 29, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama lies again, gets caught , and the barakites have a sh!t f!t..

of course, they think barak is a god, not a climber who says one thing, votes another, when he opts to show up and vote.

he's a political climber who avoids taking tough stands..130 "present" votes, missed votes in the US senate, whinning when people address his drug use, not telling americans he went to an upscale private High school, that he's from the upper middle class, that he has No roots in the African American culture(but he panders"vote for me, i'm black").

Oh, and don't forget the polls show that bush voters now support obama! LOL, he's attracts the brainless crew

Posted by: newagent99 | December 29, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

truthseeker1 - RE: SNL Halloween Skit at Hillary's House.

As you may recall, it was not Obama's "character" who called HRC a witch, it was Bill's. Obama actually stated, " ... and may I say, you make a lovely bride". Search Inet for "SNL Hillary Halloween" and hear for yourself.

HRC - Best suited for Sec'y of Education, JE - Best suited for AG
BHO - Best suited for POTUS.

Iowa is going to send a message around the world on Jan 3rd that America is on the road to recovery of it's "most revered nation" status. On Jan 4th, children in New Orleans, Chicago, NYC, Los Angles, and around the world -- yes, even in Baghdad -- will begin to hang pictures of Barack Obama over their bed, so they can sleep better at night. By Feb 6th, adults will begin to do the same -- in their mind.

Take note: The Polls are NOT measuring the crossover votes from Republicans to support Senator Obama. It is significant (about 5-10% of Obama caucus-goers in Iowa, in my research, will be Republicans and Indies tired of the food fight in Washington!). Obama appeals across ALL income ranges, ALL ethnic ranges, ALL, education ranges, AND he appeals across party lines -- because he is a uniter with a cause, America! Prepare to be amazed at the results from Iowa.

Unfortunately, we only count the caucus-goers in Iowa, and that is each candidate's challenge. It's a real nail-biter!

Posted by: obiwan1250 | December 29, 2007 8:25 AM | Report abuse

TRUTHSEEKER1-No, I have not seen it. Maybe if I can somehow survive the next few days, I will try to.

See, my problem, is having to watch Billions and billions of dollars go to Iraq, to somehow support Oil Wealthy People, while my entire World falls apart becuase I cannot FORCE someone to buy a Swimming Pool in December, while every bill collector tries to squeeze my Blood and sanity out of me for their little few Hundred first!

Billions off to Iraq, and I am litterally being Killed, because my entire World is being destroyed, because NOBODY I know in this BUSHwacked Economy has any spare Cash anymore, and what little THEY had, They had to spend on Christmas, which killed MY chances to "Sell" my way out of the Cash strapped HELL I am in!

BELIEVE me when I tell you, I could KILL someone over the damned "Flip This House W/in 2 Years" PONZI SCHEME that has destroyed the Pool industry!

But, all my Guns are in HOCK!

The Capital Gains Waiver on Homes "Flipped" W/in 2 years, was the WORST thing Bill Clinton ever pulled!

Posted by: rat-the | December 29, 2007 12:25 AM | Report abuse


I know people who work for the federal government who "opt out" of life insurance by the federal government because they can get it cheaper from private sources.

This was exactly Paul Krugman's point with not having mandates:

"Look, the point of a mandate isn't to dictate how people should live their lives -- it's to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy. "

Actually -- I think we should have a system like Canada. Probably anythng else will be too expensive under either Hillary's or Obama's plan.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Obama won his Illinois seat because he was against a very weak opponent. He never had to
vote in the US senate for the war in Iraq because he was not a US senator. Claiming he has good judgement, just because he never was in that position, does not qualify him to be a president, just as 9/11 doesn't qualify Guiliani.
For some reason Oprah said in Larry King that she would support him to be president and Obama suddenly decieved himself that he
could run for president. People who go out of their way to try to influence other's to hate Hillary are obviously biased and will fail. Hillary's support is solid and she will be the next president of the United States.

Posted by: decider1 | December 28, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Hello Hilary? your mailer attacking Obama's health care plan had
"collateral with pictures of sick children and the elderly and big bold type: Obama's Health Plan Won't Cover You".

Were those real people or plants?

Is it really ethical to use real peoples pictures to lie?

Geeesh, you really do want that White House real bad......

Posted by: FebM | December 28, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Rat --

Did you see Michael Moore's SICKO?
England has a two tiered health care system and it works great.

I've noticed almost everyone I've talked to has NOT seen it.

Our current system of financing health care is broken.

All the Dems have better plans than what we have now. ALL of them!

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 10:25 PM | Report abuse

This is going to sound a LITTLE hypocritical coming from ME! So what? BITE ME!

In this Country, we have Private Education. The better Schools attract enough Students willing to pay even on top of what the State already grabs, because the Parents want their Spawn to be exeptional little Brats!

So be it!

There is, for the Peasants, and Foreign invaders too it seems, Public Schools, that, are, in essence, SOCIALIZED Education!

What could be done, here, in this Capitalistic Country, now, today, is Socialized Medicine, to alieviate the burden of Welfare, Un-Insured, Medicaid, and other forms of persons that also might qualify as Peasants or Invaders!


LOL! Seriously though, We already have many subsidized Clinics, and Medical Schools that provide care as the students are learning, but not yet earning!

We also have a MAJOR shortage of Military Hospitals to provide care for Millions of Veterans in such dismal out of the way boonies as "Hope" Arkansas!

We should expand the existing military System to exist throughout the US, use the Hospitals to Train and enable the trainees to earn while they are learning, creating a surplus of Medical personel in case the proverbial Caca finds a Fan, and reduce the overburden on the private practice, making IT much more affordable for the ones who can afford the State of the Art Treatments!
In the Military, the normal rules do not apply, because THEY are TORT-Proof. THEY, also do not deal with Providers, or worry too much about over-kill, and un-necessary proceedures! In the Military Hospitals, you get a Wart burned off by someone taught how to apply some Liquid Nitro, not a Licensed, and insured Dermatologist! That person is still there, but is allowed much more freedom to delegate duties!

Oops! Did I just take away Millions of potential Insurance Deals for people who could not afford to buy the CEOs their Country Club Memberships, only to be told "That is NOT Covered" when they try to use said Insurance? Or worse yet-Well, your Insurance covered the first part of this monstrous Bill, but due to all the Illegal Alien Anchor Babies births that we had to pass on-YOU still owe us both your Arms, both your Legs, and we have a perfect match for one of your Kidneys!

RAT!-Better than Hussein!

Posted by: rat-the | December 28, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

Here is what Krugman says about Obama's mandates:

Note it is NOT a character attack, but a statistical and financial analysis:

"Look, the point of a mandate isn't to dictate how people should live their lives -- it's to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy. "

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 10:16 PM | Report abuse

I think Obama would make a WONDERFUL President!!

My problem is I do not trust the American people to vote for Obama after the Right Wing Swift Boat machine gets through him (due to stupid issues like cocaine use.)

I am also turned off how the far left "pretends" only Hillary attacks and that Obama is a saint.

He probably is the best candidate, per my standards. But he is no saint and I was very angry for his character sliming of HIllary on SNL in October.

We need to be attacking on the issues now -- not on character.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 10:11 PM | Report abuse

America is a Democracy - We are not a Monarchy.
Wiser folks than us - saw to it long ago, that we be fortunate enough to realize this life blessing.
Nepotism may be fine for the old-corner-store but it will only serve to fail us again -as it has, most resoundingly, for the entirety of this millennium.

Voting for the worst policy decision in our life times does not make one 'experienced'. It -IS- high time America elected a woman as commander-in-chief. When a self made woman of conviction and talent stands up and demonstrates the character that can stand as an example for us all - we should stand behind her - with conviction and fortitude. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. She is the spouse of a former and popular President. In a nation, 300 million strong, are we to believe that the person most suited to be the President just happens to be related to the last President ?!
Are we really to believe this is the case ?
Will we make this mistake, again ?

Barack Obama has the strength and certitude to take America in a new and positive direction - a direction that our evolving nation - being formed all around us all as we pass through our daily lives - very much is in need of. There really is an immediacy of the 'now' that we all share. We truly must begin to think big again and to face the immense challenges before us in brave and selfless ways again - like those people in the old faded photographs on our walls did - for us. It really is time to wake up again America. The time is, most certainly, now.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

Posted by: PulSamsara | December 28, 2007 10:01 PM | Report abuse

My point with Kurtz is that he, ONCE AGAIN, gets on an HRC conference call and then posts on this site whatever they tell him to post. There is plenty of evidence that Hillary's team and 527 supporters have willfully misled voters about Obama's health plan. All I'm saying is that if he's going to get in the middle of this fight, he might try a little balance once in a while.

Here, here! Cmss1... I agree...

That would be called "reporting," where you get both sides of the story, and try to be objective when you wrote your analysis.

But according to Bill Clinton, they prefer "stenographers" who just scribble what they're told.

Posted by: jade_7243 | December 28, 2007 9:57 PM | Report abuse

So four months and forty-seven million people later, all the Clinton campaign can come with up to knock the Obama plan is that it doesn't have mandates. That's it? Nothing more?

Instead of reading Paul Krugman, who is either in the employ of Hillary and Bill or angling for Chairman of Economic Advisors with Edwards, try reading the assessment of Jonathan Alter of Newsweek where he rebuts one of Krugman recent diatribes against Barack Obama.

Independent experts have said there is virtually no difference in the "universality" of Clinton's, Edwards' or Obama's health care plans. Each would leave about 15 million uninsured. There will always be people who will pay out-of-pocket for care, or who will choose to go uninsured in spite of the mandate. (See Massachusetts' Romneycare.)

This ad is perfectly fine.

Now, if only Howie would turn his laser beams on Hillary the Foreign Policy expert, Mistress of Negotiations Big and Small.

Posted by: jade_7243 | December 28, 2007 9:51 PM | Report abuse


If you tell me why Obama is better, I will applaud.

If you want me to hear you slime Hillary -- or any other Democrat on character, I will strongly oppose you.

Perhaps you want the Republicans in again next term.

I do favor Obama over Clinton on the issues. I fear how the Swift Boats right wing will throw Obama into the meat grinder (Hillary's already been through it.)

Right now -- I fear ANYONE sliming any Democrat who has the potential for winning.

Question: Did you support Ralph Nader when he slimed Al Gore??? I suspect yes.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 9:48 PM | Report abuse


I have no issues with Obama showing he was pure in the skit. I had an issue with the slimey attack on Hillary.

I favored Obama BEFORE I saw the skit.

For it was an attack on Character.

Attacking on the ISSUES is nothing -- because we both know any Democrat is better than a Republican on the issues. Character sliming was below the belt and I do not forgive Obama for that!

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 9:44 PM | Report abuse


Obama was standing on site participating in the skit, which is why I said he was "effectively" calling her a witch.

And I was for Obama before the skit. I thought it was the dirtest blow of all because it was pure character assasination -- and it preceeded the claims of HC attacking him.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Please people, another Clinton term?
I'd rather "roll the dice" for a person who gets it. It's not like these "health" plans are actually in play. The question is, who listens, who is in touch and who can get the difference between being a demagogue and a leader.

Posted by: shrink2 | December 28, 2007 9:36 PM | Report abuse

you're wrong, truthseeker.

it was darrell hammond -- as bill clinton -- who called hillary a witch on SNL. not barack.

just so we know what's important here.

Posted by: esles2000 | December 28, 2007 9:34 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and her 527s have put out (in IA and NH) collateral with pictures of sick children and the elderly and big bold type: Obama's Health Plan Won't Cover You. They throw out the "15 million will go uncovered" number when that is a random and disputed figure -- not to mention the fact that it's one that could be used on ALL the plans. Finally, in all the HRC spots, despite the fact that they beat up Obama for not "covering everyone," they say nothing about the fact that they are basing that one idea on a lack of a MANDATE -- and MANDATE that has already proven in polls to be very unpopular and is not remotely proven to be the magic pill for "universality."

In terms of the SNL skit, I honestly don't know in what way he referred to her as a witch. From what I recall when I watched on YouTube in Oct, his point was that he didn't want to wear any other kind of mask because he doesn't want to pretend to be someone else (part of his staying "genuine" message, I guess). If you want to hit him, I suppose you could say he was implying she was not genuine. But you'd have to explain the witch part.

Posted by: cmss1 | December 28, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

Here's why I'm opposed to Huckabee, his attempt to pin the blame on his activities to free a rapist -- on the Clintons, who opposed freeing him. (He raped a cousin of Bill Clinton and was found guilty by a court.) The Right Wing declared Clinton was framing the rapist -- and Huckabee repeated all their falsehoods (never botheing to check out the real facts and listen to the OTHER victism.)

OK. Huckabee made a mistake.
NOT OK -- it is dastardly to try and say the Clintons were to blame -- just dastardly.

"[Rapist Wayne Dumond's] parole eligibility happened in 1992 during the time when Bill Clinton was still governor [of Arkansas.] Rather than me having an issue with that, if Hillary is the nominee, [the Dumond parole] will be as much an issue for her and for her husband as it ever will be for me."
--Mike Huckabee, Hannity & Colmes Show, Fox TV, Nov. 15, 2007.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Obama's plan is FAR SUPERIOR to ANY plan that mandates that uninsured people go buy private insurance from for profit companies. Hillary calling her plan universal in the first place is what is misleading. It implies it's a single payer plan like Kucinich's, and leaves out ANY specifics, such as how she'd force people to buy insurance if they think it's too expensive.

Posted by: julieds | December 28, 2007 9:25 PM | Report abuse

This is what I've worried about with Obama: he's not ready for the "big time" and this ad shows it. Very embarrassing for someone who has said his campaign would be different. Half truths aren't good enough; we've seen that for the last several years and don't need more of it now.

Posted by: proteusdecision | December 28, 2007 9:24 PM | Report abuse


#1 We agree, both plans are far better than the Republicans.

#2 can you show me where HC is unfairly attacking BO on his health care plan?

#3 Also answer me why BO got a free pass for effectively calling HC a witch on a SNL skit. Between you and me, I thought this was a FAR dirtier attack than anything I have seen. For I welcome an honest debate on the ISSUES.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Howard, for this objective critique of Obama's ad touting his health care plan. Excellent job of pointing out where the ad's claims are misleading or just plain false.

Keep up the good work. This is the kind of journalism essential to maintaining a democratic society.

Posted by: ichief | December 28, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

truthseeker1 - please, we can all cite third party evaluations of the plans. From Robert Reich:

"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."

My point with Kurtz is that he, ONCE AGAIN, gets on an HRC conference call and then posts on this site whatever they tell him to post. There is plenty of evidence that Hillary's team and 527 supporters have willfully misled voters about Obama's health plan. All I'm saying is that if he's going to get in the middle of this fight, he might try a little balance once in a while.

Posted by: cmss1 | December 28, 2007 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Having insurance means nothing if they can deny your claims. As long as insurance companies profit by denying coverage, the system will remain a catastrophe. Only a single payer plan will work. I'm not a Kucinich supporter, but I applaud his position on this issue. Too bad none of the "legitimate" contenders has the fortitude to call for health care in America as good as it is in Canada, England, France, Germany, Japan, and on, and on, and on...

Not only is a single payer system the only one that will work for patients, it is the only one that will put American businesses on equal footing with their international competitors who do not have health care costs.

Posted by: meyer | December 28, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse


I agree. Also...
What happens if a person opts out of the insurance program and shows up at the emergency room with a serious health problem?

You now have hospitals forced to provide care for indigent patients, and raise rates on everyone else to pay for it.

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Hey rat,

You left off a few items:

(1) Pharmaceuticals who are now by law guaranteed to get the full maximim price because it is now illegal for the US government to negotiate a discount -- thanks to the occupant in the White House.

(2) Doctors do order unnecessary tests to increase their revenue -- it's not just because they're afraid of lawsuits. (Example: ordering the elderly cancer treatments, etc when they are terminal.)

(3) It is legal for pharmaceuticals to offer "perks" such as trips to Hawaii to physicians if they prescribe their drugs.

(4) Too little money for auditors, with stiff penalties for those who are milking the system.

There's a lot wrong with the current system

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Obama's health plan has been faulted by a lot of economists because it is unclear how any health plan can allow people to wait until they are sick to join. No car or home insurance allows you to wait until you have an accident or your house burns down to buy insurance. Many well people have to pay to cover the very real costs of one person in the hospital.

The fact that Obama has not figured that out makes one question how he can find the money to make his system work.

Kurtz just reports the news, he doesn't make it up. The main point in this whole discussion is not Clinton (who had no plan at all until she had time to study Edwards's plan), it is the fact that none of the candidates can explain how Canada spends $3,000 per year per citizen and covers everyone, and the US spends $6,000 per year per person and has lower life expectancy, and about 40% of working people have no insurance and face ruin if they get sick. If we paid twice as much for gas for our SUVs we would piss and moan, but twice as much for worse health care is the price we willing to pay so don't have to depend on government (the same government that hires our cops, checks our medicine, fights our fires, etc.) This nation is full of morons, at least 59, million of them.

Posted by: harrisonppicot | December 28, 2007 8:56 PM | Report abuse

More from Krugman's article (citation above in NY times)

"The second false claim is that people won't be able to afford the insurance they're required to have -- a claim usually supported with data about how expensive insurance is. But all the Democratic plans include subsidies to lower-income families to help them pay for insurance, plus a promise to increase the subsidies if they prove insufficient.

In fact, the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan. If low-income families find insurance unaffordable under these plans, they'll find it even less affordable under the Obama plan."

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 8:54 PM | Report abuse

What is missing is WHY Health Care is so un-affordable. TORT Abuse, Greedy Insurance Companies, too many Middle-Men, too complicated and duplicated Forms for both treatment and payments, and TOO MANY FREELOADERS who pass their costs off on the one's paying!

What Medical coverage does a Guatemalan illegally in Mexico get? That is what they should recieve here!

Posted by: rat-the | December 28, 2007 8:52 PM | Report abuse

For those of you picking on Howard Kurtz, it seems to me he is repeating some of Paul Krugman's analysis from earlier this month:

" Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right -- which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.

First is the claim that a mandate is unenforceable ..."

If you want to say you like Obama's policies better -- FINE. But stop this fantasy only Hillary is throwing barbs. It was Obama who effectively called Hillary a "witch" in October's SNL skit.

As I see it, Obama started the name calling and now there is this pretense that only Hillary is attacking. Shameful!

Posted by: truthseeker1 | December 28, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Howard Kurtz works for CNN (Clinton News Network). If Howard Kurtz is honest to himself and to his readers, can he point to any of the proposed healthcares by these candidates that cover everybody? Among experts, the argument is now whose proposed healthcare covers everybody but comparative analysis of whose proposal is better. Howard, is it not true that both Hilary and Edward have been saying and sending mails that Obama's program will leave 15-milion people un-insured and how did they arrive at that figure? Do all experts as indisputable and beyond reproach scientifically accept that 15-million figure? Howard Kurtz, is it not true that not every driver that drives a car has insurance coverage for his or her cars? But every driver is expected by law to have car insurance. Is this not proof enough for you that there is no way every American can be mandated to purchase health insurance?
Please Howard Kurtz l watch every Sunday before Late Edition and don't make me think that you are just another cheap political hack masquerading as a journalist.

Posted by: jckckc | December 28, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Kurtz, this is really weak!

Where is the problem with Obama's ad stating that his plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans"? The full quote does nothing to invalidate the partial quote. In fact, I'd rather have a plan "guarantee" that coverage will be available for all of us than have that coverage be "required." There's no point in requiring something that folks can't afford!

And since Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all have plans which are NOT single-payer plans, but rather alternatives to the same, the Iowa Press Citizen's statement that the Obama plan is "the best" in comparison to a single-payer plan does not seem like a misrepresentation to me.

The rest is pure gobblygook!

It's interesting to me how folks who support Ms. Clinton seem so blind to the obvious misrepresentations of her opponents indulged in by the Clinton camp while at the same time they are so quick to portrtay any legitimate opposition to her as some sort of persoanl attack or misrepresentation.

Posted by: ricknej | December 28, 2007 8:14 PM | Report abuse

So now Kurtz is doing Clinton's bidding again? Where was your post showing how misleading Hillary's attacks on Obama's health care plan were in the first place?

Posted by: cmss1 | December 28, 2007 7:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company