The headline was matched by the lede, another finger-pointing gotcha:
HANGING ROCK, Ohio – Senator Hillary Clinton, who has accused rival Barack Obama of sending misleading mailers to voters about her healthcare plan, misstated his healthcare views before an audience yesterday in rural Ohio.
You need to really substantiate a lede like that in the guts of the story. Something that really nails it, like,
Senator Clinton said Obama’s plan “would not cover a single veteran.” However, Senator Obama’s health care proposal, available on his web site, has a section called “Covering Veterans” that proposes making universal health-care for veterans “our nation’s top priority.”
(Of course I made that up–it’s an example.)
So what’s the smoking gun?
Clinton argues that Obama would leave 15 million people uncovered by not extending his mandate to adults.
Obama, though, has made healthcare a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, and he, too, has proposed a detailed plan to cover the uninsured, pledging to have affordable coverage available for all Americans by the end of his first term as president.
That’s it. That’s the sole basis for “Clinton misstates” in the headline and the lede.
She’s done. This is an especially gross example, but it’s how she is being covered by a spoiled press corps that really, really hates her. (Note to Scott Helman, the reporter who penned the story: Hatchet jobs are more effective if they maintain the veneer of objectivity.)
Depending on your point of view I guess you might think this is a good thing. But who says Obama won’t be next? Seems like there’s no loyalty on the campaign trail, and the press gets bored awfully easy.
People on this website are probably tired of hearing me say that once the media tires of dancing on Hillary’s political grave, they’ll rush back into McCain’s manly arms.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh0…
<
p>On the other hand, we’ve heard a troubling line of thought on Tucker this week. Jeanne Cummings voiced it on Wednesday night. Trust us-these people actually are this short on basic professionalism:
<
p> CUMMINGS (2/27/08): The bar for [Obama] is very high. And the media, all of us, have set that bar there for him because of our respect for what has been the Clinton machine. And so I don`t necessarily agree with your premise that everybody is in love with [Obama]. Frankly the relations on his plane are not so great.
CARLSON: Right. That’s true.
CUMMINGS: Because he never interacts with the media.
Carlson had said the same thing several times this week, at one point citing this Politico story. Uh-oh! The press corps is annoyed with Obama because he doesn’t spend time with them.
A rational person would make an assumption: Something like this couldn’t possibly affect Obama’s press coverage. But this is not a rational world-this is the world of the celebrity “press corps”-and the precedent set by Bill Bradley’s campaign is fairly plain in this regard.
The Howler has also published a series on the Times’ coverage of McCain. They’re linked on the same page.
The Howler summary of the press corps’ role in defeating Gore is here: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh0…
I really, really can’t stand any of the press for this campaign – and that generally extends to the national blogs. I’m boycotting them until Hillary finally loses, because man do the nat’l blogs just absolutely, positively hate her. I’d probably be fine with that, but I still fail to see why Obama would be a better choice among any of the issues progressive bloggers tend to care about – health care (he’s worse), Iraq (he’s funded this thing; he owns it), and beyond. Believe me, I wish I had a better option than Hillary in the Massachusetts primary, but that better choice never gained enough national traction and bowed out just before Super Tuesday.
I’m with you, my friend. It’s time to thin the herd down to one and get this over with.
<
p>Amazing that we are still only in the primary season. The real show has yet to begin.
Ryan! I had no idea you were for Mitt!
<
p>Seriously, welcome to my world. Think about this. The AP does a HUGE story about Mitt and Ron Kaufman, National committee man and advisor to Bush 41 and Reagan who was accompanying Mitt in his travels, trying to make Mitt look like a lobbyist ridden hack – and ALL THE WHILE the NYT was SITTING on its McCain lobbyist story – which couldn’t have been much of a secret as the WaPo was able to rush ITS version into print the same day. Naturally, both those papers carried the Johnson AP story as well.
<
p>This was not accidental – it was deliberate.
<
p>I seriously believe that the National Media wanted the weakest, oldest GOP to run against brave young Obama to ensure his victory. Watch – all the flaws you have noticed already will continue to be swept under the rug until after the election, not unlike certain Governors who shall remain nameless…
<
p>I’m not a big conspiracy person, but watching Russert et al hound Clinton – it’s really hard to reach any other conclusion.
if the TNR behind-the-scenes story is to be believed, the NYT was spending its time trying to nail down whether McCain and Iseman had an affair, as well as fending off threats from McCain’s legal team. That was undoubtedly a poor use of their time, but it does (perhaps) explain the delay in publication. Plus, the NYT endorsed Clinton! (Oh right, I forgot — there’s a firewall between the reporting and editorial sides. BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!!)
It ain’t pretty.
<
p>But I’m not criticizing the press because they might do it to Obama someday. I’m criticizing them because it’s sloppy, self-indulgent, lazy, and wrong.
I can’t see any of this healthcare issue as anything but campaign talk. Something to tell the proles to get some votes. Who is to pay for this free lunch?
<
p>If you’ve been to the supermarket, you’ve seen the prices shoot up about 30% in the last year. The taxpayers are taxed to the breaking point. Trillions of dollars are spent on the endless war. (Remember when a million was a lot of money?) The banks’ lobbyists are buttonholing Congress for multi-trillion dollar bailouts while the FDIC is calling back retired employees to deal with anticipated bank failures. The dollar is sinking and Americans are spending more to buy less. The US government can’t even provide adequate healthcare to veterans shot up in the government’s wars.
<
p>Well, should we emulate the UK where they are talking about denying healthcare to the elderly, smokers and the obese because those people tend to use a lot of healthcare? Or maybe we should emulate the Canadians that have a great system, but you can die in the wait to use it.
<
p>
If we rolled them all into one, and conscripted the elderly to fight from vehicles we would reduce the 3 funding problems to one.
<
p>If we passed tax legislation that provided a steeply graduated tax to fund the war, we would soon see a lot more support to leave Iraq.
Both sides talk foolishness. Little heed is given the magic solutions to life’s problems that are given out by baby kissing politicians. All will be forgotten the day after the election. Relax…
<
p>I’m curious how much the Commonwealth made in penalties on those that couldn’t or wouldn’t get health care. Since the vast majority are lower wage earners, will they stop filing if they can’t pay the tax? Will the Commonwealth reap a windfall? Has someone done the study or do we have to wait until after April?
Food inflation in 2007 was just about 5%, according to the CPI. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good hyperbole.
Where can I get groceries for only 5% more than last year? Please let me know as I have a family to feed. Everywhere I go the prices seem about 30% more than last year.
<
p>Thank you.
Has anyone believed a CPI or unemployment estimate in the past few years? Does anyone believe Mr. Bush’s statement the other day that there will be no recession?
<
p>Many people have given up on the truths from Washington as just an alternative reality. Maybe those are the people that get out more.
Has he or the government as a whole ever lied to us?
<
p>;o)
Obama’s brother-in-law Craig Robinson on Hillary:
<
p>
<
p>H/T TPM.
He had a job to do, and while he did his job, they didn’t make the tournament, because Tommy Amaker’s men couldn’t get the W in Ithaca. For those of you who do not know what I am talking about, Craig Robinson is the men’s basketball coach at Brown, and they destroyed
Penn 75-43, tying the school record for wins in a season, but they lost twice to Cornell during the season, so when the Big Red beat Harvard last night 86-53, they clinched the Ivy League and an automatic bid into the NCAA tournament. I sincerely hope that Brown gets invited to the NIT.
<
p>Speaking of which, Brown and Harvard are playing Friday night at Lavietes Pavilion in North Allston; perhaps some of you would like to go and see him in action (among other things), with the likelihood that his team could break the win mark. đŸ˜‰
That’s what, a 9th seed at best?
Princeton was a 16 once (I think it was 1989) and scared Georgetown. When Princeton beat UCLA, who were the defending national champions, they were a 13. Penn was a 15 the past couple of years. Joe Lunardi says that Cornell is a 13 right now. However, Penn did make the Final Four in 1979 as a nine (out of ten teams!).
…is, unfairly, treated as worse than sexism and misogyny.
I like Scott, and I think he’s a good reporter. But it’s quite unfair to Hillary to say that she “misstated” Obama’s health care views. There can’t be any serious dispute that Hillary’s plan will cover more people than Obama’s, even if I’m not crazy about the mandate mechanism. This strikes me as a rare but pretty significant misstep by Helman.
“This strikes me as a rare but pretty significant misstep by Helman.”
<
p>I disagree entirely.
<
p>Reasons why are elaborated on in comments to “Mandate Datente” post on the Ezra Klein blog over at TAP
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b…
scroll down to comment entry Feb 28, 7 pm by Ann Malone
It’s one thing to say that a mandate is bad policy. It’s another entirely to say that a plan with a mandate won’t result in more people being insured than a plan without one (excluding single payer, of course). The former is an important point for debate; the latter, I think, is almost certainly untrue.
It’s not that no mandate would enhance universal coverage, but another element of the plan proposed by Obama that may make it more effective. That is the federal government is to be the insurer of last resort (a cap on max insured cost by the insurer) for longterm or catastrophic illnesses. Such a cap on costs should make the policy more affordable, and that may well be more effective in extending coverage than the penalty of a mandate.
<
p>Now if only someone would bring that cap down far enough that we get to single-payer without the intermediary insurance companies, we should all be better off and actually achieve universal coverage.
If, arguendo, that is true, the way to cover such a complex argument is to cite facts and quote experts and others in the field (including those that don’t agree with you, Joe). Not turn your news story into an editorial that does not back up its main accusation with a shred of anything.
the devil is in the details, and the details are purposely avoided.
<
p>Excerpt from article in the Eugene, OR Register-Guard:
“Two factors determine the effectiveness of mandates: the cost of complying and the penalty for noncompliance. Clinton has been deliberately vague about how her mandate would be enforced, noting that a specific mechanism would have to be worked out between the president and Congress. This weakens her assertion that her plan is unquestionably superior.”
<
p>Now, exactly how has the MA mandate achieved universal coverage?
in order to get “universal” coverage?
<
p>”Penalties for Massachusetts residents who can afford health insurance but do not purchase it in 2008 could quadruple compared with the maximum penalty in 2007, according to draft regulations released by the Department of Revenue yesterday.
<
p>The maximum penalty for those who flout the law and do not buy health insurance would be $912 a year, compared to $219 in 2007.
<
p>The higher penalty is intended to get those who are on the fence to buy health insurance. For those wavering, it could make more sense to pay for insurance than to pay the penalty.”
“…it could make more sense to pay for insurance than to pay the penalty.”
<
p>This point doesn’t hold if you’re a person who actually needs health care services and the care you need is subject to the $2,000 to $4,000 deductible, or the 20% coinsurance, or the significant copays. This is the very disingenuous and unethical way that the Connector (in cahoots with the insurance companies, of course) has made some of their insurance policies “more affordable”.
<
p>Under the individual mandate law you’ll be paying your monthly premiums, all right, but it’s quite likely that many people won’t be able to afford the additional payments for actual healthcare. MA Blue Cross and Blue Shield knows this.
<
p>MA BCBS is a primary architect of the MA individual mandate plan and has given a “grant” to a research group – either at the Harvard School of Public health or the Access Project, I think – to track how many people go into how much debt as a result of the MA mandate law. MA BCBS is likely paying for the “research” at the request of MA legislators and others who were involved in passing the law.
<
p>Do they think we’re idiots? Apparently so.
Under the status quo ante, a person who needs all of that healthcare and has no insurance gets the healthcare anyway, winds up with a big debt that is never paid, and the taxpayer foots the bill.
<
p>Under the Connector plan, the person consumes the health care anyway, and is laible for the co-pay and a deductible, and the rest is paid by insurance.
<
p>So, taxpayer get a big bill, versus taxpayer getting a small bill. What;s not to like about that?
Under the individual mandate law many of the moderate income MA residents who are now being forced to purchase crappy insurance under threat of tax fines will very likely end up in debt, either from the monthly premiums they can’t afford to pay along with all their other bills, or should they become ill and need significant care will amass large debt from high deductibles, copays, and “uncovered services”.
<
p>Why don’t you focus on the real problem here: health care being treated as a commodity rather than as a public good.
Under the current horribly dysfunctional system we’re all being ripped off (some “only” financially and some losing their lives).
<
p>http://www.HealthCare-Now.org
David, point taken. My concern is that the devil’s in the details.
<
p>The healthcare reform issue is more complex than whose plan can get the highest number of people into some arbitrary column marked “insured”, isn’t it?
<
p>Forcing more people to purchase insurance under threat of a punitive individual mandate law while not having any guarantee of the quality or cost of that insurance is a very real likelihood and is disingenuous at best.
<
p>Look at the Massachusets individual mandate experience; the additional cost-sharing in regard to deductibles, copays, coinsurance and the like, that exist and that come ON TOP OF paying the monthly premiums is an all too real scenario.
<
p>Is the goal having insurance or having health care?
..and you won’t vote for him now, since he was never going to accomplish universal health care. Obama’s plan to not cover 15 million people is the way to go?