Pittsburgh Post-Gazette repeated McCain's claim about Obama's health-care plan without noting that it's false
SUMMARY: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Sen. John McCain's assertion that Sen. Barack Obama's health-care plan "will force them into a new huge government-run health care program" without also reporting that the claim is false.
In an October 21 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, reporters James O'Toole and Tracie Mauriello reported Sen. John McCain's false charge that Sen. Barack Obama's health-care plan "will force them into a new huge government-run health care program." However, at no point in the article did O'Toole and Mauriello note that McCain's charge is false.
As Media Matters for America has noted, Obama's health-care plan does not provide for a government takeover of health care; rather, Obama's plan allows individuals to keep their current insurance if they so choose, or enroll in either an "approved private plan" or "the new public plan, which will offer benefits similar to what every federal employee and member of Congress gets." According to the Office of Personal Management (OPM), federal employees are able to choose from "the widest selection of health plans in the country." A Q&A released by the Obama campaign says: "His plan will not tell you which doctors to see or what treatments to get. Under the Obama health care plan, you will be able to keep your doctor and your health insurance if you want. No government bureaucrat will second-guess decisions about your care."
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." Similarly, PolitiFact.com noted that "Obama's plan keeps the free-market health care system intact, particularly employer-based insurance. It is not a goverment-run [sic] program and is very different from the health care systems run by the government in some European countries."
From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article:
The Arizona senator, who appeared with his wife Cindy, also drew distinctions between his and Mr. Obama's health plans.
"He will force them into a new huge government-run health care program," Mr. McCain said. "I will bring down the skyrocketing cost of health care with competition and choice [that will] lower your premiums and make it more available to more Americans."
Mr. McCain has proposed providing families with $5,000 tax credits so they can buy private health insurance.
Democrats are critical of the plan. They say it would give too much control to insurance carriers who could refuse to cover pre-existing medical conditions. Critics also say the funding mechanism -- a new tax on health insurance -- would encourage companies to drop medical coverage for their workers.
Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, who spoke with reporters after the rally, said Mr. McCain's plan is bad for seniors because it would be funded by cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
It's even worse. Barack Obama's health care "plan" is not a plan at all, since it's not mandatory. Voluntary Universal Health Care would work about as well as Voluntary Social Security. It will never replace overpriced private health care plans, which means it will never solve the problem of 45 million uninsured (and millions more underinsured) Americans.
I think it's a riot that the Right Wing Yakkers keep calling Obama a Socialist and claim he's going to fundementally change our economy and system of government. Nothing could be further from the truth- he's a right-leaning moderate who tailers his "principles" to the moment and will govern as a "Centrist." Meaning that the Corporate Powers that Be can breathe easily, as I suspect most of them are even as the radio bloviators pretend to be concerned at Obama's "Socialist" ideas.
In a few months, the Democratic Party will have an 80-seat majority in the House, a 15-seat majority in the Senate, and the Presidency-- and nothing will change. I wonder what their excuse will be then. Oh, right- "it takes sixty seats in the Senate to get anything done."
First, his plan may not be a big government run health care system. But it does open the door for it. Plus it adds more and more government regulation which they do not have authority to do under the Constitution.
Second, one question that needs to be asked of Senator Obama about his plan is the following: If his health care plan is going to be so affordable that anyone will be able to get on it, what incentive will an employer have to continue providing benefits to their employees? He says we can keep our current employer based healthcare if we want, but if the employer sees they can save a lot of money by dumping the program and having us use this national system, what is stopping them? For exampple, say GM spends a billion dollars on their employee healthcare. If I was the CEO I would look at that and say we could re-allocate that money to projects to get us out of debt and our employees would still have healthcare through this national system.
Third, it is a sort of government run healthcare. Because who is going to be the administrator? Who is going to choose the plan options we have? What happens if we cannot afford that basic healthcare?
All excellent points. If everyone has the option to either keep their current, employer-provided healthcare, or sign on to a government-sponsored program, of course businesses will simply stop providing health insurance to their workers and force them on to the government's plan. The problem is that there isnt going to be any government plan- Moderates and Conservatives will block it for the very reason you describe, and Obama will then be able to claim "hey, I tried."
Except, proposing a program that can't pass congress is NOT trying. If Obama were a sincere Liberal, he would devote a great portion of his first year as President selling the idea of National Health Insurance, including allowing government to negotiate drug prices. Pharmacutical companies who don't want to participate can forget about their R&D grants- in fact, they can forget about selling their stuff in the US, period. Of course, no American money= No Pharmecutical companies, so they'll fold and sell the drugs at a reasonable profit. Then the govt can run our health care system.
This won't happen because, as I said before, Obama is not a sincere liberal and won't fight for radical, neccessary change in the way we do business. He'll propose half-measures that he knows won't work and won't pass, and when he runs for re-election in 2008 his campaign slogan will be "Hey, I Tried!:
When he runs in 2012, not 2008, of course.
I disagree 1000%. Personally, I feel your analysis is off-track. Anyone attributing future motives to Obama's actions which are diametrically opposed to what he is saying now is being dishonest. It's a fact that nobody can say for sure what the candidates will actually do. It's all speculation - and nobody, not even the candidates, know for sure. It takes more than the President to push through legislation, you know. There are many roadblocks on the way to approving legislation. That's the way it's supposed to be. If Congress doesn't like the plan Obama outlines, then it won't pass. I believe that Obama is a sincere left-leaning centrist, (not right-leaning), and a bit more liberal than WJC.
Vote for the candidate whose ideas resonate with you. Vote for the candidate who gives you the most hope for the future. Vote for the candidate whose plans for our future most align with your needs. IMHO, McCain doesn't offer any hope for the future - only the continued failed policies of the Bush administration. If you compare McCain/Palin to Bush/Cheney, you really see that they are peas in pods from the same pea plant. McCain = Bush; Palin = Cheney (especially Palin and her wish to elevate the powers of the vice presidency above what the Constitution allows). So much for her respect for the Constitution and rule of law in this nation.
And to answer your question re: "...what incentive will an employer have to continue providing benefits to their employees?" I believe Obama said that he would give those businesses tax credits to continue to provide benefits for employees. Of course, it may not be a tax credit on the level that Repubs would like to see (as in, no taxes at all!), but it's better than the alternative, which is an ailing work force.
So you're a "faith-based" voter, huh?
If you can't take what a candidate says now and use it to speculate on what he might do as President, I'd love to know what you think the point of campaigns are. Vote for the guy in the shiniest suit?
What difference does it make what you "believe" Obama will do, once you've admitted that you don't take into account anything they say while they are campaigning? Obama was against FISA during the primaries, then for it the moment he clinched the nomination. He was going to accept public financing for his campaign during the primaries, then did a 180 the moment he clinched the nomination. He's against offshore drilling, then he's for it on a "limited" basis. So, what ideas am I supposed to use to judge Obama - the ones he had in April, or June, or maybe Election Day?
I'll vote for Obama, but I have no faith that we are going to see real progressive change during his Presidency, because I don't think Obama is grounded in any strong principles other than Getting Barack Obama Elected. It's more of an anti-Bush years vote than a pro-Obama vote. At least I won't be dissapointed, as you surely will be.
I don't believe I said that I didn't take into account anything the candidates say. Please use your imperfect mind-reading capabilities on someone else. The point of my response is that there are people on the right who say that Obama is a leftie and he's going to do such and such because he is a leftie (i.e. he's going to raise taxes on the middle class, cuz Dems always raise taxes). We know this is bull-hockey. These righties are speculating that he will do something totally opposite of what he says. You have to listen to what the candidates say - and think about what the candidates want to do while in office, not speculate on what the candidates want to do while in office based on what others (i.e. general public, media, etc.) think the candidates would do in office. In a nutshell, I'm advocating thinking for yourself based on what the candidates offer - just in case you didn't get that. I never 'admitted' that I "...don't take into account anything they say while campaigning." You put those words there.
On another level, NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY truly knows what the candidates are going to do. Things change - and I would hope that whoever is elected would have the strength and courage to work with the change, instead of being a hardliner who balks at the change, at the detriment of the country and it's citizens.
But we go back to the whole speculation game. We see what the candidates would like to do while in office. We agree or disagree and we vote based thereupon (unless you're a partisan hack, which I admit to being most of the time - Conservatism is a proven failure of an ideology). The larger point: vote based on your own-self interests and in the interests of your familiy. Which candidate is the embodiment of your self-interests?
As for the 'faith-based' voter comment, what's that about? Again with your imperfect mind-reading capabilities...?
I'm very happy that you're voting for Obama, but I'm sad to see that you don't have any faith in him. Unlike you, I believe Obama does have strong principles and I do believe we will see real progressive change during his presidency.
And please, don't assume that I will "...surely be disappointed with Obama." You have no idea how I will feel in the future, as I myself am not sure. Are you?
I didn't think so - unless you have access to some crystal ball that none of the rest of us know about.
Allow me to join the millions who are commenting at Media Matters. MM is quick to point out the article by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in which it failed to point out the false hood of McCains assertions about Obama's healthcare plan. Of course we know this to be true because Media Matters says so. Gee, what a objective source Media Matter is. But to back themselves up MM also use Politifact.com as another sorce. But wait. At the end of the Post Gazette article the Post-Gazette quotes Democract Gov. Ed Rendell stating McCains plan is bad for seniors because McCains plan would be funded by cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Well, according to Politifact.com this assertion by Rendell is simply not true. Did the Post-Gazette point this out? Nope. Does Media Matter care about this particular omission? Of course not. It does not help their cause. Talk out selective journalism.