On Fox, Huckabee misrepresented Obama plans for health care, taxes
SUMMARY: Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely claimed that, under Sen. Barack Obama's health-care plan, "the government will be in control," and that "we're going to be rationing it." In fact, Obama has not proposed government-run health care. Indeed, Obama's website specifically states that, under his proposal, individuals "will not have to change plans."
During the August 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee falsely claimed of Sen. Barack Obama's health-care plan: "[W]hen I hear about, you know, his plans for health care, what it means is not so much that everybody is going to have it, but we're going to be rationing it, and the government will be in control." Huckabee's claim echoed Sen. John McCain's false attack on Obama's health-care plan. In fact, as The New York Times reported in a May 3 article, Obama's plan does not call for the government to take over the health-care system in America and "ration[] it." Indeed, a Q&A about the proposal on Obama's website specifically states: "[Y]ou will not have to change plans":
Q. I like my current insurance coverage. Will I have to change plans?
A. No, you will not have to change plans. For those who have insurance now, nothing will change under the Obama plan -- except that you will pay less. Obama's plan will save a typical family up to $2,500 on premiums by bringing the health care system into the 21st century: cutting waste, improving technology, expanding coverage to all Americans, and paying for some high-cost cases.
Huckabee also claimed: "I think that the best hope for America is cutting taxes, not raising them, as Obama would propose to do. That's really going to hurt small business. Let's not talk about taxing the wealthy; that's not what the issue is. It's taxing small business operators." In fact, Obama has proposed raising taxes only on households earning more than $250,000, and the Tax Policy Center has estimated that only 1.5 percent of tax filers declaring small business income are in the top two income-tax brackets -- which include all filers with taxable incomes of more than $250,000. Obama also has proposed eliminating capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses. Obama has also proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families; indeed, McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
From the August 28 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
CARLSON: Yeah, but the fact that you're also from Hope, he made, towards the end of the speech, he said, and I'm from Hope, and, you know, hope for this party.
HUCKABEE: Yeah.
CARLSON: Obviously your sense of hope is different.
HUCKABEE: Well, it is. I think that the best hope for America is cutting taxes, not raising them, as Obama would propose to do. That's really going to hurt small business. Let's not talk about taxing the wealthy; that's not what the issue is. It's taxing small business operators. And when I hear about, you know, his plans for health care, what it means is not so much that everybody is going to have it, but we're going to be rationing it, and the government will be in control. I think these are very sincere people, I just think their ideas are wrong, and in the long term, we're going to be more harmful than helpful to America.
DOOCY: Right. Now, Governor, we know that, tomorrow, you're going to be busy, because, according to sources, tomorrow at 11 o'clock -- 12 o'clock out in Ohio -- John McCain is going to announce his number two pick, and we also know that you and Mitt Romney and some others are going to be part of a "Unity" tour and then make a three-state trek across the country. What can you tell us about this?
Wasn't the Democratic's universal health care plan essentially having the government take over?
Now sure, Barack can be against UHC, but I think what the Huck is doing is generalizing Barack's HCP.
I really think that health care isn't the issue, insurance is.
In Obama's Plan For America written by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingram, and edited by Karl Rove.
But TBH, I haven't seen such an implication or expression from the source itself.
... but as we know, the issue about Barack Obama isn't his policies, it's his funny name, his skin color, and his deviation from all those who grace our money.
Wasn't the Democratic's universal health care plan essentially having the government take over?
The government would essentially become an insurance company.
Not just Limbaugh, but others who agree with his philosophies. And some of those have had insurance horror stories, and apparently things would be much worse under UHC.
Now, if it operated under a structure similar to our shipping system, where government competes with companies, that could be a different story.
One question: How will government do a better job of providing insurance than the private sector? The government can't even handle critical national issues properly!
I mean, come on, could you picture GOP and DNC hacks bickering about whether or not they wanna send you money? "Well, we would send you the money, but we don't want the DNC receiving credit for it." "We wanna' give you the money, but the GOP won't let us!"
At least in the private sector, where there are numerous options, I can replace ineptitude. We only have one choice under UHC.
I tell you, the best insurance policy is to never get sick. Once you do you're ruined...
Why would the government have a monopoly? The insurance companies could always lower their prices and stop cherrypicking to compete. Isn't that how the market works?
Of course, if the insurance companies continued to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and raise their rates 50% a year, they probably would be put out of business.
Personally, I'd rather have my claim decided by an indifferent Government Bureaucrat than a Corporate Bureaucrat who gets a bonus for denying my claim.
And what would stop the government from doing the same thing? It's their money and they're allowed to do what they want with it, and we know how difficult it is to sue the government.
Why would the government have a monopoly? The insurance companies could always lower their prices and stop cherrypicking to compete. Isn't that how the market works?
Again, according to what I've heard and assembled, you would have a choice of either the US government, the US government, or the US government.
Of course, if the insurance companies continued to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and raise their rates 50% a year, they probably would be put out of business.
Not if they're the only show in town.
Isn't that McGrampy's healthcare plan? Actually, his advisor told the press that everybody already has universal coverage: the emergency room. He really said it.
You're missing the point, entirely.
Sure, most towns/cities/burgs have an ER. Sure, you can go to the ER when necessary. But paying for it is another story. Have you gotten an ER bill lately?
Recently, my partner was in the ER. The bill came to over $7,000 for a four hour stay in the ER (3 hours of which were spent waiting in the waiting room).
We have good insurance, and thanks to California law, my partner is covered under my insurance. However, the insurance company is denying most of the claim, as epididymitis (sp?) isn't an emergency, in their eyes.
Whatever. The symptoms were much like appendicitis. <sarcasm on> Wanna risk not going to the ER with symptoms of appendicitis? Who needs treatment for appendicitis anyway? <sarcasm off>
A person should be able to access health care without breaking the bank. It's disgusting the way these insurance companies work. See you in court, Cigna.
Work with us, DaWUSS. You might learn something.
The government can't even handle critical national issues properly!
Add the words: "republicans in" before government and you would be correct.
It doesn't matter anyway. Stay with your private insurer if you don't want the government to insure you.
If you listened to Obama's speech last night, you would remember that he said that those of us who choose to continue with our private insurers would see a drop in our premiums. There's a six letter word in there which most Republicans don't like: CHOOSE, as in CHOICE. You have the choice of staying with your private insurer or going with the Government's plan.
PAY ATTENTION!!
Since that is what Obama is proposing, it is the issue, Dingleberry.
This reminds me, I saw Huckleberry a week or so ago on Fox, and he provided a great example of that GOP projection and constant building of the fantasy world that suports their party. To be fair, it was really just an excuse for the Huckster to get in his "A" material joke, but it's what he does, with his "Aw Shucks" (I think that's Jeter's description) persona.
His comment was about Obama's inexperience, and his joke was that a president needed to kow that an invasion of Georgia did not threaten Alabama. I think he was with Hannity, and they laughed and laughed.
Sure, the Georgia/Georgia connection was already made by every late night monologuist days earlier, but it wasn't just that the joke was obvious and tired. It's that it was directed at the candidate that had not had trouble with geography (let alone different groups of foreign people).
What I'm getting at is what was being discussed on another thread, that most of this BS isn't blatant BS, but little jokes and off-the-cuff remarks that, while having no basis in reality, are pounded into the average American's head.And the average American starts to confuse it with the truth.
It's that it was directed at the candidate that had not had trouble with geography
As my public service for the day I will now spare the Gang of The Collective IQ of 14 from having to post a followup.
57 States!!!! St. Louis/Kansas City!!!!!! 57 States!!!!!!
Hitler socialist commie muslim America hater!
If you want a look at what government run health care would look like, just walk into your local VA Hospital and see the way they treat the men and women who protect our nation. Before you blame George Bush for this mess, ask an old time veteran from WW11 or the Vietnam War or a Korean vet and they will tell you the story. Not one administration has ever put the proper funding into these hospitals. Why would they they make it any better for the average person?
Also, if Obama is going to just tax the rich, why would they keep their money and business here? Won't they just pass that along to the average consumer or move their business and money off shore? Why would corporations expand and employ people if they are going to be taxed at higher rates? Most people who have 401k plans and pensions are invested in the stock market, won't these tax hikes effect them as well?
Gee, why did they keep their money and businesses here before the Reagan Tax cuts, or the Kennedy tax cuts, or the Bush tax cuts? How did they ever create the U.S. industrial juggernaut with such high taxes? Why didn't they just pack up and leave after Clinton's "biggest tax cut in history"? If this old Republican myth were true, the U.S. would have lost all its rich people decades ago.
For some reason, our manufacturing jobs continue to disappear, even after President Numbnuts cut taxes on these benevolent rich bastards. Why is that?
Also, if Obama is going to just tax the rich, why would they keep their money and business here?
#1 General Accountability Office, Congress's investigative agency, has a report out today that says most corporations didn't pay taxes between 1998 and 2005. Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
Won't they just pass that along to the average consumer or move their business and money off shore?
#2 More than 3 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 1998, and the Economic Policy Institute estimates 59 percent—or 1.78 million—of these jobs have been lost due to the explosion in the U.S. manufacturing trade deficit over the period.
Goldman Sachs estimates 400,000–600,000 professional services and information sector jobs moved overseas in the past few years, accounting for about half of the total net job loss in the sector over the period. A Deloitte Research survey found one-third of all major financial institutions are already sending work offshore, with 75 percent reporting they would do so within the next 24 months.
States are outsourcing public sector jobs as well, though most state governments do not know exactly how many. At least forty states contract out administration of electronic benefit cards for the food stamps program offshore. In one audit, the state of Washington found 36 out of 41 agencies were contracting out work overseas. A recent study by INPUT Research projects outsourcing of state and local government technology contracts will grow from $10 billion last year to $23 billion in 2008.
Why would corporations expand and employ people if they are going to be taxed at higher rates?
See #1 & 2.
No need to get more detailed here. The GOP/Fox News folks have no trouble saying that raising the capital gains tax would hurt almost everyone because almost everyone owns stock.
If they don't have to mention that most folks own very little stock and, the stocks we do own are in 401(s) which aren't entitled to favored capital gains rates (they are taxed as ordinary income) why should we make their arguments for them?
But we can always hope.
Snoops,
w
Snoops,
Way back in the late 60's or early 70's my gramps, a WW11 veteran would fight with my mother about going to the VA in Brooklyn. The place was a filthy mess and he always complained about the care he recieved there.I do believe since then we have had a couple of DemOcratic Administrations as well as Republicans and NEITHER has put in the money and resources that our men and women deserve. For once let's agree that both sides are lacking in this area. Again,ask an old time veteran about the VA from any era and they will most likely sing the same song as my gramps.
The fact that VA hospitals weren't as good as public hospitals has nothing to do with them being run by the government and everything to do with both the desire to make people who could afford health care to go elsewhere and a lack of respect for poor vets AND the lack of competition.
Both of those root causes are removed when everyone has health care, whether they get it through one of many private providers or they get it from the government.