RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Which Health Plan Is It, Sen. Obama?

“[The A.P.] reported that Sen. Obama could have ‘a pretty good debate‘ with himself: “If he wanted, the Barack Obama of today could have a pretty good debate with the Barack Obama of yesterday.” — The Fact Hub

(The transcript of last night’s debate is below the fold.)

Here’s what Elizabeth Edwards had to say, via CBS News, on the highly misleading radio ad that Barack Obama ran before the January 3rd Iowa caucuses. The radio ad claimed “that Obama’s health plan covered more people than either Edwards’s or Hillary Clinton’s plans”:

“It’s just complete untruth,” [Elizabeth Edwards] said. “I’ll speak on behalf of Senator Clinton as well. Both Senator Clinton’s and John Edwards’s health care plans cover one hundred percent of Americans and Senator Obama’s does not.”

That’s from my story, “Elizabeth Edwards on Health Plans, Obama’s Lobbyists, …” Then there’s what NYT columnist and eminent economist Paul Krugman had to say about Obama’s health care plan and Obama’s misleading, factually untruthful radio ad:

Obama goes Harry and Louise

A friend sends me this:

Have you seen or heard about the radio ad that Obama is running in Iowa about health care?

It has a man and a woman talking, with the man leading off saying that health care mandates “force those who cannot afford health care insurance to buy it, punishing those who don’t fall in line.”

This is what I’ve been complaining about. I was willing to cut Obama slack on the lack of mandates in his plan, even though the economics says they’re necessary; I figured that in practice, if elected, he’d end up doing the right thing.*

I started ramping up the criticism when he started attacking his opponents from the right, making the lack of mandates a principle rather than a compromise — because that was poisoning the well, making it much harder for any future Democratic president to implement a plan that will work.

– From my article, “A Paucity of Hope (A ‘Mendacity of Hope’?).”

Here’s the segment from LAST NIGHT’s CNN TRANSCRIPT OF THE DEBATE in South Carolina:

CLINTON: [I]f you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know — and our members of Congress know — you’ll never get there.

If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean. I think it is imperative that we have plans, as both John and I do, that from the very beginning say, “You know what? Everybody has got to be covered.”

There’s only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid.

I think that the whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I’m not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care [AS DOES OBAMA'S PLAN].

Secondly, we have seen once again a kind of evolution here. When Senator Obama ran for the Senate, he was for single-payer and said he was for single-payer if we could get a Democratic president and Democratic Congress. As time went on, the last four or so years…

As time went on, the last four or so years, he said he was for single payer in principle, then he was for universal health care. And then his policy is not, it is not universal. And this is kind of like the present vote thing, because the Chicago Tribune, his hometown paper, said that all of those present votes was taking a pass. It was for political reasons.

Well, when you come up with a universal health care plan and you don’t have any wiggle room left, you know that you’re going to draw a lot of political heat. I am not running for president to put Band-Aids on our problems. I want to get to universal health care for every single American.

[...]

OBAMA: Right, exactly.

Here’s the policy question: if, in fact, we are not making it affordable enough, which is what’s happening right now, and you mandate on families to buy health insurance that they can’t afford and if they don’t buy it you fine them or in some other way take money for them — this is what’s happening…

EDWARDS: But, Barack, you’re ignoring that we subsidize…

OBAMA: John, I haven’t finished. John, let me finish.

EDWARDS: OK, all right, go ahead.

OBAMA: Now, what is happening in Massachusetts right now — there are articles being written about it — which is that folks are having to pay fines and they don’t have health care. They’d rather go ahead and take the fine because they can’t afford the coverage.

My core belief is that people desperately want coverage. They desperately want it, and my plan provides those same subsidies. And if they are provided those subsidies and they have good, quality care that’s available, then they will purchase it. That is my belief. Now, it’s fine for us to have a debate about how the best way to get there is, but to suggest somehow that I’m not interested in having anybody covered, or to suggest, as Hillary just did, that I was in favor of single payer — I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single payer. What I said was that if I were starting from scratch, if we didn’t have a system in which employers had typically provided health care, I would probably go with a single-payer system.

What’s evolved, Hillary, is your presentation of my positions, which is what’s happened frequently during the course of this campaign.

Blah, blah, blah. Just like he always does, Obama explains and explains, but can’t recover from his gaffes.

Here are two more key references:

Then there’s the must-read column by Paul Krugman in December, “The Mandate Muddle“:

Imagine this: It’s the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they’ve concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance — a so-called mandate.

Without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it.

But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he’ll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form. And he’ll have trouble responding — because he made the very same misleading attacks on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the race for the Democratic nomination.

O.K., before I go any further, let’s be clear: there is a huge divide between Republicans and Democrats on health care, and the Obama plan — although weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plans — is very much on the Democratic side of that divide.

But lately 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. … (Read all of “The Mandate Muddle.”)

“Attacking from the right” … “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. …”

Just like Obama has also done on Social Security and any number of other issues.

As Krugman pointed out at his NYT blog, Barack Obama is “poisoning the well, making it much harder for any future Democratic president to implement a plan that will work.”

  • Pingback: Democrats @ 2008 Presidential Election » Which Health Plan Is It, Sen. Obama?

  • Cee

    Yaaaaawn…

    The Politics of Hopelessness
    by davidsirota
    Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:14:31 AM PST
    “You were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.” – Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, 1/22/08

    The exchange lasted about 3 seconds – if you flipped the channel for a moment, you might have missed it. That was the amount of time the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for president spent talking about the corporate takeover of our government – the issue that almost singularly drives American politics and that is at the core of our country’s most fundamental problems.

    Clinton, of course, declined to address this part of her past – the part where she helped direct Wal-Mart, arguably the most efficiently rapacious, environmentally destructive, and anti-worker creation in all of human history. She cynically parried by mentioning a campaign contributor of Obama’s who has been in some legal trouble – as if we are expected to forget the name Norman Hsu, much less Clinton’s status as the top recipient of health industry cash in the entire Congress – Republican or Democrat. And thanks to moderator Wolf Blitzer, the debate was quickly shifted to topics less uncomfortable for the corporate media like, say, how Barack Obama voted “present” in one half of one percent of his votes as a state legislator in Illinois. The horror.

    Later in the debate, when John Edwards gave perhaps the most eloquent answer of all on a question about poverty, Clinton tried to one-up everyone by saying “when I graduated from law school, I didn’t go to work for a law firm. I went to work for Marian Wright Edelman at the Children’s Defense Fund.” Yes, folks – forget about her time at Arkansas most powerful corporate law firm. Forget that she ignored potential conflicts-of-interest to serve at that corporate law firm even as her husband was governor of the state. Forget her role helping build Wal-Mart into the monster it is today. Forget even her sitting by and cheering as her husband’s administration – which she now overtly asks voters to re-embrace with her candidacy – rammed NAFTA and welfare reform through Congress, throwing millions of people into poverty. Yes, just remember that for a few moments right out of college, she worked at a non-profit.

    This is truly the politics of hopelessness – a politics mastered by a Clinton machine deft in all the dark arts of corruption and demagoguery.

    It is a machine fueled by tens of millions of dollars of corporate cash from moneyed interests looking for the kind of candidate who appears on the cover of Fortune magazine and laughs at workers who were crushed by Clinton administration policies.

    It is a machine that is all too happy to champion a former president who, according to today’s Wall Street Journal, is happy to personally pocket $20 million windfall from a well-connected crony.

    It is a machine headed by a candidate who pushed the country into war, yet a candidate happy to attack an opponent for not opposing the same war more strenuously.

    It is a machine only too thrilled to use innuendo to play the race card.

    It is a machine, in short, that is ready to once again prioritize the ugliest impulses of two dynasty-seeking egomaniacs using vapid soundbites (“I’m a hand’s on leader”) and intelligence-insulting slogans (“Delivering Real Change”) to run “over the dead bodies” of Americans hoping for something different.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/22/125712/692/244/441136

    • Cee

      Update

      UPDATE: Adding to this post’s passage on Clinton citing her work with Marian Wright Edelman as supposed proof of her commitment to ending poverty, note this New York Times article from 8/1/96:

      “President Clinton’s decision to sign a Republican welfare bill brought qualified praise from political opponents, muted criticism from some close political allies and expressions of deep dismay from an array of social welfare organizations, religious groups and advocates for the poor. The most scathing response came from Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund and a friend of Mr. Clinton and his wife, Hillary, who worked as chairwoman for the organization from 1986 to 1992. The legislation will ‘hurt and impoverish millions of children and abolish the 61-year-old national safety net for children’ and ‘makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children,’ Ms. Edelman said in a statement. ‘It will leave a moral blot on his Presidency and on our nation that will never be forgotten,’ she said.”

      But quiet down, Jon and Jane Q. Public – don’t pay attention to that. Pay attention to Clinton telling you she cares about poor people.

      http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/22/125712/692/244/441136

      • norris morris

        this is all true, but Edelman wanted all or nothing and they fell out.

        believe it or not Hillary has done a lot for children’s welfare. I didn;t like this at the time….but do you want GOP or faker like Obama?

        we are not being realistic. we’re on the floor and need a tough realistic who can work through this.

        Obama will be devoured, and he’s not honest. read my posts on this blog about Chicag/Obama.

  • Brenda Stewart

    well personally, I do not like clinton or obama. I would like to see edwards get the nomination. oh I know the machines of the media and both candidates will see that he ever gets anywhere close to it…I seriously doubt either of them will be a good president for us in America

  • MPinSC

    I think the wheels are falling off the Magical Unity Pony that the junior Senator from Illinois has been riding. He is not ready for the bigtime. The Repugs would take him apart.

    • norris morris

      Eat him for breakfast,lunch, and dinner.

      Karl Rove will be Headwaiter.

  • http://democracylover.blogspot.com Charley

    After last night’s debate, I think we should call on the party to dump all 3 of these losers and draft someone that actually represents the interests of the Democratic Party rank-and-file and has always done so and has a record to prove it. There are at least a couple of possible candidates with relevant experience. Maybe if we spared them the primary nonsense and pulled a last minute surprise switcharoo on the Republicans, we could catch Karl with his pants down and win this thing.

    Oops, sounds like the alarm is going off…was I dreaming?

  • Lukeness

    Here we go again… you criticize Obama for not being as progressive as Edwards, ignoring the fact that Clinton still isn’t as progressive as Obama.

    • http://OUTRAGEDBUTNOTSURPRISED bama_barrron

      sorry luke you are going to have to prove to me that obama is more progressive then hillary … i have seen nothing in his policies statements that would support this comment.

      i have to wonder if obama is a progressive at all. his health plan which does not include all americans appears to me to stuck in the old mind set that health care is a privelege and not a right. the edwards and clinton plan at least insist upon universal health coverage. i could give more examples of why i’m unconvinced about obama’s progressive pedigree … but i shall refrain for now.

    • norris morris

      Obama’s shennanigans in low housing deals with fundraiser,slum lord Tony Rezko is all over the place, Learn about what and how Obama gamed the government subsidized low housing rehab market through his law firm in Chicago with Rezko’s help’

      Rezko has given him sweetheart personal real estate deal,& kickback scheme and over $200,00 in contributions past 15 years.

      Read all about Mr. Pure in Chicag Sun-Times which has extensive stories on this. Rezko has just been indicted by Patrick Fitgerals [that one...Libby] for corruption,fraud, corrupyion. He goes to trial 2/24/. Obama’s law firm handled Rezko’s subsidized property that was in disrepair, notg heated, and all foreclosed. Forclosures paid by taxpayers.

      There is much, much more. Go to http://www.suntimes.com
      writer Tim Kovack, and others Obama archives

    • norris morris

      You have no hard evidence Obama is more liberal because he isn’t.

      he’s involved in messy deals made in low income housing deals and his benefactor, donor, and client has been indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald for fraud,corruption, and kickbacks…Tony Rezko.

      Rezko was one of Obama’s largest contributors, and used govt subsidized low income housing to promote his scams which were to allow them to rot and put them in foreclosure, thousands of apts he was to rehab are gone. Obama’s law firm handled deal and permits issued from Obama’s district in Ilinois senate.

      you can access all of this by going to Chicago Sun Times where a complete Obama dossier exists, complete with evasions and retractions.
      go to http://www.suntimes.com see- Obama Archives

      Obama’s community work was slight but it blended into this activity. Rezko had sweetheart real estate scheme with Obama for Obama personal property as Rita Rezko sold a backyard lot for $300.00o less than she paid for it to Obama.

      He has voted liberal, but given $4200 for Joe Lieberman’s re-election in Conn, and many of his votes are horribly conservative. See them at WashingtonPost online in their politics-voting records of all of congress. surprises. Lieberman gave him budget[unrevealed], and made him Chairman of Foreign Policy Subcommitte on Europe. Never convened a meeting, and did nothing, Waiting to haord the bucks ’till he’s elected?

      Mr. Vision is far less liberal than Edwards or Clinton Oh yes, it’s about change and hope.

  • http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

    I prefer Hillary’s plan. It would cover more people. But it’s still not good enough….

    • norris morris

      if you aren’t aware of what a miracle it would be to get just that, you know nothing about the resistance of GOP legislators, drug co, and insurance community.

      get real. If we could only be smart enough we’d have an effective president for a change.

  • http://www.evergreenpolitics.com shoephone

    Get a load of Obama’s new “But realy – I’m a Christian!” brochure:

    http://www.correntewire.com/bush_latte_obamas_christianist_brochure_another_fucking_dogwhistle_to_the_right_wing

    This stuff makes me sick. I wish candidates would just STFU about their religion.

    • http://noquarterusa.net/ SusanUnPC

      In the interview with the Christian Broadasting Corp., which CNN excerpted, Barack Obama denied he is a Muslim and went on and on offering proof that he is a Christian — he got married in the church he still attends, his children were baptized there, and he LOVES Jesus Christ.

      NOT ONCE did he say that there’s nothing wrong with being Muslim.

      I.e., as opposed to people who say “I’m not gay, but it’s alright to be gay,” he left the distinct impression that it’d be not so good if he were Muslim.

      • http://OUTRAGEDBUTNOTSURPRISED bama_barrron

        my worse nightmare is if obama get the nod, he will insist on running a harold ford campaign. the only democratic challenger in 06 to lose a senate race. the easy excuse was because of the race issue … sure, race played a part in the race but he lost when he tried to be too christian and too moderate and he forgot the election was about iraq and republican corruption.

        any candidate can make nice after an election … dont forsake your base during an election. if your a frigging democrat … quack like one and waddle like one … hey.

      • http://www.evergreenpolitics.com shoephone

        And the door is permanently closed to an atheist running for high office.

  • http://thumbsnap.com/v/78mn2yFc.jpg 1Watt, eggumacated

    I did not see it but comments from other places said that the media juxtaposition Hillary & Obama. Making it look like Hill. started the conflagration.

    • TeakWoodKite

      Susan Malvo did with the question she asked and Obama took the bait. I got the impression that Hillary wanted to do the “I support the military” thing since SC is according to the MSM they are an important “voting block” in the general election.

  • justsomeone

    Hillary’s health care plan MANDATES everyone purchase health insurance & Hillary decides how much people who can’t afford to pay (or a few who just don’t want to) will pay in fines. Fines!!!! Obama highlighted the fact in the debates that in Massachusetts there are already people who are paying the fines because its cheaper than paying for the insurance. I think the fine is $900 a yr. Hillary’s plan is Mitt Romney’s plan that he enacted in Massachusetts & almost a carbon copy of AuNold’s California proposal. People here don’t seem to be getting this. I’m so friggin’ happy to hear how progressive it it. It’s a damn republican concept. It benefits the insurance giants.

  • justsomeone

    I can’t believe how much you progressives love NAFTA & Walmart. It’s funny. It’s sad but it is funny. & you guys think Obama is contradictory. Hillary could have a real firebrand debate with herself. I weigh ramming NAFTA down America’s throat & being on the board of Walmart against hanging out with an iffy windy city fixer & I ask myself which of these has done the most damage to the most people & the enviornment. Hillary doesn’t want to fine employers who don’t provide health coverage to their employees, she wants to fine the low income employees for not getting it. It’s crazy.