The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

They scare me!
MS should be put in charge of healthcare!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

It would be nice if in the future presidential contenders are able to present their proposals such civilized way. However, I do not believe much to what Mrs. Clinton campaign is advertising. The main reason for that - her plan looks very costly, which the creators admitted, placing the price tag on it, and everybody knows, and Mrs. Clinton admits herself that there is no money or practically no federal money currently available. So, it would be another hoax promise of Mrs. Clinton (or Clintons). So, I would not trust her proposals, and would not pick her.

let's see, you all say obama is lying more, but it's equal noses.

wow... talk about biased!

One thing you did not cover is that Clinton is not saying how she will Mandate coverage. She is not willing to say what penalties she will put on people who don't buy coverage. What will she do to poor people who have to choose between insurance and paying the rent. What will be the consequences? How much subsidy will there be? And a tax credit sounds great, but what about people living pay check to pay check? How can they wait a year for the tax credit? I think mandates are very scary, and Obama is right to get the program started and then see if mandates are needed.

There is one critical difference between the Clinton and Obama plans -- the person proposing them. Clinton is driven to push her agenda through Congress. The only thing that has really changed since 1992 is who has her ear this time around. Her approach to politics generates resistance and anger among her opposition, limiting future progress.

Obama is far more open to listening to others so he arrives at the best solution to a problem or issue. His consensus building is far more likely to produce a positive outcome that others can accept and embrace.

Neither candidate provides a truly optimum health care plan. But, who would you rather have leading the drive for health care change? A consensus builder like Obama or a person who figures its "my way or the highway." That is the real choice we face.

My health insurance now costs me less than $70 a month, and I have great coverage and benefits. I won't be voting for anybody who would require me to pay more and get less. End of story.

At the end of the day, which candidate is more likely to succeed? It doesn't matter how many people are covered under what plan if that plan dies before enactment.

Clearly it doesn't take a genius to see that Obama has a MUCH better chance of getting any health care plan implemented. Fair or not, the truth is that Hilary Clinton and Health care have become synonymous with large government bondoogles. I particularily like the fact that Obama is willing to incorporate reasonable Republican ideas and put together something that could actually happen. This is one of the reasons I support Obama for president.

I'll take the Obama plan.

I'm curious as to how one "mandates" -- that is forces -- people who can't afford health insurance in the first place to get coverage. From whom? At what cost? At what penalty? Are you going to put them in the modern day equivalent of debtor's prison?

I'd rather have the concensus builder looking for way to bring about coverage than the former First Lady.

And Fact Checker, how do you come down on the side (once again) of the Clinton plan? When as I read your article, the Obama plan is acknowledge as the better of the two. And I might note, you did not report the number of uninsured the "Clinton mandate" (HA!) leaves out in the cold.

And finally as you report: "But he (David Blumenthal) claims that Obama will do a better job than Clinton in reducing the cost of health care premiums."

You might not be aware of this, Fact Checker, but it is the expensive premiums that keep most people from acquiring insurance coverage. Even the SCHIP bill, which Mr. Bush loves to veto, is designed for those working families who cannot purchase insurance because the cost of premiums is exorbitant.

Seems to me the correct allocation of Pinocchios is 2 or Clinton, 1 (maybe) for Obama, and 1 for Fact Checker, who tried too hard to make Clinton come out on top once again.

Had to prove me right, eh Mr. Dobbs (for others, see my comment in the previous article 'Four Pinocchios for Ron Paul')? Had to give the two Pinocchios, just like I said you would for Obama and Hillary? WaPo...what are you paying Dobbs for? I'm doing his job better than him. This fact checking blog is joke. Dobbs reminds me of that other idiot blogger Penelop Trunk.

Quality Vs. Quantity

What health plan do you believe would maintain quality of health care?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1029

.

"I won't be voting for anybody who would require me to pay more and get less."

That leaves all of the candidates as options. Guess you still have some whittling down to do.

Hillary & Obama...Hillary & Obama. Why doesn't the mainstream media talk about the ONLY candidate that can actually WIN in 2008....John Edwards. John is a TRUE advocate for the poor and un-insured, an articulate orator, an intelligent and reflective thinker, and plain speaker who actually admits mistakes when made, and he's a SOUTHERNER. Ask yourself when was the last time a candidate from above the Mason-Dixon Line actually won the White Hous?. The answer...John F. Kennedy in 1960, almost fifty years ago. And he ran against another Northerner. We need a Southern Democrat who has already proven he can win in a RED state...North Carolina. We need John Edwards in order for the Dems to win back the White House.

Clinton proved that she is untrustworthy. The 1990's sham of an effort that resulted in her dropping the topic like a hot rock, after Bill was elected to his second term proves she is a con-artist.

Obama is unelectable.

The only hope for the Democrats is John Edwards.

QUIBBLE: "Universal health coverage" can be taken two ways, abstract or concrete. The former is what Obama obviously meant, i.e. access. It's not honest to talk about the latter until it's true, i.e. everyone has been covered. By the same token, Hillary is wrong to say that Obama would leave out 15 million, because she can't know whether everyone would sign up. Likewise, she's wrong to say her coverage would cover all, because everyone might NOT sign up. If Obama simply asserted his plan is universal, he earns ZERO Pinochios. I'm a Hillary supporter, but fairplay requires me to request that Obama NOT be done in like Gore. Hillary's point of view shifts from "seller" to "buyer" applying the former to her plan, and the latter to Obama's plan. I'd give her 3 p's for being "shifty".

does rudy's health plan leave out anyone? How about Kuccinich?

Why is this column titled "The Fact Checker" when it is really just another opinion piece?

"MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber" says one thing in support of the Clinton plan.

" ... said David Blumenthal, a professor of health policy at Harvard university " in a counterpoint opinion.

"The Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank ..."

"According to John Holohan, one of the authors of the study ..."

Name-drop much?

Who is to say any one of these peoples' OPINIONS, or your own (fact-checker), are more valid than any other opinion, since you don't provide any evidence or facts, but instead just a bunch of heresay?

Obama's not credible. Again. He's an empty suit with a nice smile and oratory skills. The opposite of Bush.

His high estimate is $65 billion to insure 45 million Americans, plus help those who do have coverage. I've heard him in speeches describing his plan: "...if you have insurance, the only difference is your premium will go down..." but leave that aside for now.

$65 billion divided into 45 million is a bit short of $1,500 per person per year. What kind of coverage would THAT buy?

The real costs are much higher, and Obama Bin Barack knows it.

A fact is something like: 2 + 2 = 4.

It would not be possible for someone to post a comment saying, "No, your're wrong, 2 + 2 is not equal to 4" without being, well, just wrong.

What is an opinion? Well, a good example of an opinion is the first sentence that the "fact-checker" wrote under the heading "The Facts":

"The truth is that neither the Obama plan, nor the Clinton plan, guarantees 'universal coverage' for all Americans, although they both aspire to this goal."

See, that is an opinion, not a fact.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
http://www.votenic.com
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

I just wanted to clarify what I told Michael Dobbs for this story. There is an enormous difference in the coverage effects of the Clinton and Obama plans. While it is technically true that the mandate won't bring us to 100% universal coverage, it will take us much farther than a plan without a mandate. The debate here comes down to universal access (obama) vs. universal coverage (Clinton), and should be cast in those terms.

Thanks, Mr. Gruber, for your clarifying comment.

Although the Clinton or Obama health plans would be big improvements over the current mess we have with our health system,the best solution would be a single payer plan like the one proposed by Dennis Kuchinik.What he advocates is Medicare for all.Iknow the right wingers will scream and holler that that's socialized medicine,but the fact is that the overwhelming majority of senior citizens would be up in arms if Medicare was taken away from them,even senior citizens who are Republicans would be outraged.Our current health care system is very expensive(about 14% of GDP);overhead for for insurance companies fees cost about 20% for every insured person compared to under 3% for Medicare;our health outcomes are rated 37th in the world;our businesses' ability to compete internationally are hampered by their health care costs;and when compared with other industrialized nations that have national health care,our wait time to see a doctor no better and in some cases longer.It's time for national health care for every American and if that's socialism,I'm all for it!

How is hilary going to reduce healthcare cost when she takes campaign money from big drug companies, it's been brought up that anti-biotics should be over-the-counter like every other countries out there. That along can save you a trip to Doc office everytime you get a bad cold. And she is not the one who can make this happen. Go Obama 08!

(Obama supporter)

Boos and hisses to both Clinton and Obama for using the term 'universal.' Neither plan is truly universal, though for different reasons. The media needs to get into the full substance of their proposals rather than continuing a false debate about universality.

P.S. If I read Professor Gruber's clarifying comment above correctly, he says the Clinton plan does not actually provide universal coverage, but it should be described as a universal coverage plan anyway.
I hope the media does not follow that suggestion. Let's avoid use of the word universal.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.