An August 1 New York Times article reported on the health care reform proposal unveiled by former New York City mayor and Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani in a July 31 speech, but reporter Marc Santora gave no indication that he asked Giuliani the cost of his plan or otherwise tried to determine it. By contrast, when Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Barack Obama (IL) and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) unveiled their respective health care proposals, the Times noted that the campaigns provided cost estimates, and it reported those estimates.

Additionally, the article quoted no one critical of Giuliani's plan. By contrast, other reports on Giuliani's proposals noted that many health experts were “skeptical” of Giuliani's plan and argued it was not likely to significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans. The article also reported that, in the speech, Giuliani said that universal health care was a “socialist” solution that “would bankrupt the government” and quoted him saying, “That is where [Democratic presidential candidates] Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are taking you.” The article included no response from the Clinton, Obama, or Edwards campaigns.

From the article headlined "Giuliani Seeks to Transform U.S. Health Care Coverage":

Rudolph W. Giuliani on Tuesday called for transforming the way health care coverage is provided in the United States, advocating a voluntary move from the current employer-based system to one that would grant substantial tax benefits to people who buy their own insurance.

[...]

[H]e proposed tax exemptions of up to $15,000 per family, allowing individuals to direct that money toward the purchase of health insurance and other medical spending. He also said he opposed any government mandates that would require people or businesses to buy insurance, which is central to the universal health care plan neighboring Massachusetts passed in April 2006 when Mitt Romney, a Republican rival, was governor there.

And to help the poor or others struggling to afford health insurance, Mr. Giuliani said he would support vouchers and tax refunds, but he gave no details about how he would pay for them.

[...]

But Mr. Giuliani's speech offered very little in the way of specifics. He said his goal was to outline his “vision,” with more details to come in the fall.

In proposing a tax exemption of up to $15,000 for a family and $7,500 for individuals, Mr. Giuliani said that money could be used by consumers to buy an insurance policy of their liking. The money left over, he said, could be put into a “health savings account” to be used to pay for deductibles or other uncovered medical expenses.

Mr. Giuliani said the resulting flood of competition among insurers for customers would lead them to reduce the costs of their policies, estimating that only 20 million to 30 million of the 120 million who currently get their insurance through an employer would need to sign up for individual insurance plans for that to happen.

While Santora's article provided no critical analysis of Giuliani's plan, a July 31 Washington Post article reported that Giuliani's plan “would cover far fewer people” than “the plans put out by Democratic 2008 contenders [Sen.] Barack Obama [IL] and John Edwards,” and that “health-care experts said the plan resembles a proposal from President Bush in his State of the Union speech this year calling for coverage of 7 million of the uninsured.” An August 1 Newsday article -- headlined “Rudy health care plan echoes failed Bush scheme” -- further noted that Giuliani “admit[ted] it could take years for his plan to help those without insurance and makes no promise that all the uninsured would be helped” and went on to report that “health-care policy experts yesterday were skeptical of Giuliani's claims, saying it will be hard to entice people to leave employer-based programs and also difficult to push marketplace prices down so much that the uninsured can jump in.” Newsday also noted that “Democrats balked at” Bush's health care proposal based primarily on tax incentives “and are balking at Giuliani's plan -- because they say it would discourage employers from providing insurance and could make even more people uninsured.” From the Newsday article:

“I don't think it's likely to increase coverage of people to any great extent, and I don't think it's going to get a handle on health care cost inflation in this country,” said Alan Cohen, executive director of Boston University's Health Policy Institute.

But politically, analysts say, it is reminiscent of the plan Bush espoused earlier this year in his State of the Union address. He proposed creating a $15,000 deduction for health insurance coverage while eliminating its tax-free status.

Democrats balked at that -- and are balking at Giuliani's plan -- because they say it would discourage employers from providing insurance and could make even more people uninsured.

While Giuliani's hard-nosed fiscal conservative approach might play well now among Republican primary voters, he might have a tougher sell if he makes it to a head-to-head contest with a Democrat.

“It may resonate with Republicans, but in the general election, Democrats will paint this as status quo, recycling Bush's ideas,” said independent political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. “Anytime you can attach the president to anything, it hurts.”

Additionally, an August 1 New York Daily News article reported that "[h]ealth care experts dismissed ... as simplistic" a comparison that Giuliani makes between health care and plasma TVs and argued that, in the end, Giuliani's plan was not so much about providing health care for all as restructuring the health care market and relieving pressure on businesses to be the primary providers of insurance." The Daily News reported further:

They said his plan would benefit high-income people more, because those in higher tax brackets would get a bigger break from the $15,000 exemption.

“A slice of the 46 million [uninsured] will be helped, but many will not be,” said Robert Blendon, a professor at Harvard University's School of Public Health.

Blendon was skeptical that better-off individuals would walk away from employer-based plans and go shopping on their own. And he surmised that insurers would continue to try to cherry-pick only the healthiest individual buyers.

Giuliani, who did not address such details, may simply be playing to his base. A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that while 79% of Democrats believe government should require people to get health insurance, only 44% of Republicans want a greater government role.

Democrats wasted little time in firing back, noting that as mayor, Giuliani slashed funds to city hospitals and, more recently as a private consultant, collected big fees from drug companies.

“Rudy's record of cutting health care services and his financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry show that his 'commitment' to affordable health care is nothing more than empty rhetoric,” said Democratic National Committee communications chief Karen Finney.

While the Times article failed to include any criticism of Giuliani's plan, it nonetheless reported his attacks on Democrats' health care proposals:

In his speech here, he excoriated Democrats for advocating a “socialist” solution to solving the problem of the nation's 44.8 million uninsured, saying the party's candidates encouraged a “nanny government” by proposing a greater government role in health care.

[...]

Using explicitly partisan language, perhaps intended to stir memories of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's failed bid to reform health care as first lady more than a decade ago, Mr. Giuliani cited horror stories and selective statistics about health care in foreign countries that provide universal coverage. Mr. Giuliani said that a “socialist” model would bankrupt the government.

“That is where Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are taking you,” he said. “You have got to see the trap. Otherwise we are in for a disaster. We are in for Canadian health care, French health care, British health care.”

The Times gave no indication that it had solicited a response from any of the Democratic campaigns.