and of course the clintons are known for their great honesty...

Funny how the citation for the "cracks down on crooked lenders" statement is BarackObama.com.

I'm sure that website is not biased. ;-)

Funny how the citation for the "cracks down on crooked lenders" statement is BarackObama.com.

I'm sure that website is not biased. ;-)

is clinton even running ads in wisconsin?

The point is that Obama isn't ducking debates, he's participated in all of them. Irrelevant whether it was one on one or not.

As for the 15 million left off, is that more or less than Hillary's plan? Probably less as Hillary's plan won't be passed. Point being, Robert Reich said something, Hillary didn't deny Robert Reich said that. So, how is that false?

AP cite was misleading if that's how it went down.

How dare anyone make fun of Hillary all she's been through!! She lost EIGHT STATES in a ROW!! Her daughter was called a pimp on national television, her husband cheated on her while in office, and now she's running for President!!

All you people care about is votes and delegates, crucifying her in news stories, SHE'S A HUMAN!!!

What you don't realize is Hillary is making this world better, and all you do is write a bunch of crap about her. She's been promised the White House for YEARS!!! Her campaign is called "Working for Change, Working for You" for a reason...and all you people want is CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE!!!

LEAVE HER ALONE!!

Oh that's precious........Hillary's campaign doing a 'fact' check. Just by reading what they have put out, one can tell that someone needs to check her 'facts'. She is a congenital liar, and the country is not going to stand for it.

Can't I just get a president who really is honest, up-front, and not trying to be duplicitous? Really disapointing. If Obama wants to keep me as a voter on his side, he needs to correct these ads now. There are plenty of factual, positive things for him to campaign on, so why does he need to resort to half-truths? Stupid.

"Obama covers 'more people' than Hillary"?!? What a bold faced lie. Hahahahahahahahaha!

I am eager to see how Obama supporters spin this around their POV that their candidate represents a "new kind of politics."

Isn't the Obama campaign wrong on this
"On health care, even Bill Clinton’s own Labor Secretary says Obama covers more people than Hillary"

Marcus@7: nice fact free comment there, bub. It's people like you who give your candidate a bad name.

"Obama covers 'more people' than Hillary"?!? What a bold faced lie. Hahahahahahahahaha!

True, Obama's plan won't shove Health Insurance down your throat, it won't 'garnish your wages' for refusing to participate, it won't throw you in a mental hospital for for refusing to participate.

Based on those facts alone the choice is clear. =)

@6 off topic much? I can't really figure out who 'you people' is in the context of the 5 comments preceding you or from the slog post.

Cato@12:

it won't throw you in a mental hospital for for refusing to participate.

What the hell are you talking about?

This fact check is silly because none of the assertions in the ad is directly contradicted by the fact check.

It would be like running this fact check:

Savage: Kittens are cute.

Fact: But ice cream is tasty.

You didn't hear about Hillary's new Health Care Refusal Plan?

Basically if you feel the need to defy Big Brother coming in and forcing Health Care on you, you get tossed in a Mental Hospital.

It's based on the fact that no sane person would ever refuse Mandatory Govt. Enforced Health Care.

Does anyone know what exactly Robert Reich said in regards to the two health care plans and in what context? It seems odd to me, but I note that the Clinton campaign didn't directly refute it (which presumably it would have done if it was just plain wrong). Their refutation notes that other people have said the Obama plan would leave a certain amount of people uninsured (which is obviously a possibility if the plan is optional, and I prefer it being optional if one is going to keep a multi-payer system in place), but they never say Reich didn't say that.

@16
Are you kidding me? I hope you are a Republican - because no self-respecting Democrat with dis universal health care. Talk about using a line right out of the Republican play book. That is disappointing, actually disgusting.

Fifty million people live without health care and it is the number one cause of bankruptcy.

We need universal health care now... FOR EVERY AMERICAN.

We need universal health care now... FOR EVERY AMERICAN.

I agree, but Govt. provided Health Care should be a CHOICE, not a mandatory item like a SSN. If people feel they can have better Health Care through a private provider then give them that CHOICE. We should not be forcing Health Care on you, we should be giving you the OPTION to enroll.

That's how Hillary differs from Barack, he understands that people want CHOICES in Health Care and will not 'garnish your wages' to get to Universal Health care.

I saw a Hillary ad that claimed she has been fighting for health care for 35 years. I don't have any evidence that that claim is false, but it certainly smells like bullshit to me.

@2/3 - you do realize that 'Fact Hub', which is cited as the source for "Hillary's plan does everything Obama's plan does to cut costs, plus more." is Hillary's website, don't you?

@2/3 - you do realize that 'Fact Hub', which is cited as the source for "Hillary's plan does everything Obama's plan does to cut costs, plus more." is Hillary's website, don't you?

He cites his own website to back up a claim? Well, Hillary Clinton is the best candidate in the race (Source: www.hillaryclinton.com). What a bullshit ad!

Cato- Googling "Health Care Refusal Plan" returns no hits. I say again, what the hell are you talking about?

And Obama fans: whether or not Reich is correctly quoted, you and I all know that the statement attributed to him is false- hell in this very thread people Obama supporters have been arguing that her plan *shouldn't* cover everyone.

Obama has a requirement to not parrot lies. Put another way, if Clinton quoted some dumb ass who said for instance that Obama wanted to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, you guys would be all over her.

Bottom line: your candidate is human.

@15 The non sequoiters aren't quite that bad. It's more like
Savage: Kittens are cute

FACT: DOGS are man's best friend.

Savage misleads people about kittens. Are you really willing to trust him with YOUR country?

Fuck Obama. I'm so mad I voted for him. The only reason I did was because I thought he didn't do this kind of shit. If I had seen this before, I would have voted for Hillary
@15, don't pretend like just because he doesn't outright say certain things that the implication isn't clear. He is being purposely dishonest, and only a fucktwat would try to defend him for this particular ad.

Does anyone ever get the idea that commercials and responses aren't about facts, and fact checks, than they are about impressions and feelings?

I do.

@20 - LOL ... Not 35 years in a row !

annalisa didnt really vote for obama. feigned outrage from fake obama supporters is silly

has hillary explained how her mandates will be enforced yet? the mandate is really the only difference between the 2 plans as far as i know.

this is the part i do not understand: how do you force people to buy something they cannot afford? it's not as though people who don't have health insurance don't want it. and the plan will have to be vetted through congress before passing anyway, so i suspect no matter which plan you start off with, the end product will likely be the same.

well in any case i welcome the clintons' critiques of obama. it forces him to clarify his positions, which he generally does quite well, and ultimately shows him to be the more appealing candidate in the end. more, please.

hillarys health care plan wont pass. therefore her plan would cover less people than obamas which will pass

"Mandates" won't work-first, because no corporation is going to provide the expense if they know every employee must buy it anyway and two-what profit incentive is there for any insurance company to lower its rates?
And if we are considering a federal health insurance deduction on our paychecks (how else are you going to collect) what are the chances that the money generated won't be used to fund other programs-just like your Social Security is today. Topped off by the simple fact that millions of the un-insured are also the un-employed-how does one "mandate" the barky lady who lives in the Beacon Hill Greenbelt under a blue tarp-when the SPD isn't bulldozering her home?
BOTH candidates are offering less than realistic options-the reality remains that if insurance companies remain profit driven, hospitals remain profit driven, doctors, nurses, clinics, drug companies, pharmacies, medical supply houses, ambulance services, home care, etc etc etc are all businesses based on profits, then there is no way we as a society will be able to continue to care for the currently insured let alone the 47 million citizens without coverage.
I personally am tired of disucssions about HEALTH INSURANCE reform - we all need to look for some solutions for HEALTH CARE reform.

Hillary's campaign is just lame. Her entire campaign has been run incompetently by yes-men and yes-women. Is THAT what we need? $500,000 on parking? WTF? I'm sorry, but after her "caucuses don't matter b/c I dont' win them" craziness and her INSANE "I want Michigan's votes to count (now but not originally)" I just don't trust her.

Her votes in the senate haven't been about believing in anything. They've been about positioning herself for her inevitable run to be our inevitable president. And look where it's gotten her? I shudder to think of her as our nominee.

@8: Yeah, this is disappointing. Why give the Clintons ammunition? Why alienate all the people who are sick of bullshit politics?

We need universal health care now... FOR EVERY AMERICAN.

@18: I completely and totally agree. But there's a giant difference between free, universal, single-payer health care, and mandatory-purchase, multi-payer private health care. Obama is right in that the problem is not that people don't want health insurance (which is an insane notion), it's that people can't afford it. From what I understand about Hillary's plan, it's tantamount to holding a gun to the heads of both you and your insurance company and forcing you to get along.

Obama's plan doesn't cover as many people initially, but it's a stepping stone in the right direction, and he's said as much that its just a first step (I'm sorry I don't have a link for you . . . it'd be impossible to find the exact video). He realizes that we've been poisoned against any kind of socialistic ideas thanks the the cold war, and the drug and insurance companies have paid a hell of a lot of money to make sure the government and media make us afraid of socialized medicine in particular. Hell, there was actually a record Ronald Regan released titled "Ronald Regan on Socialized Medicine".

The flaw with both plans is that insurance companies are still going to fuck with you any way they can. But Obama is being shrewd about it. We're like little kids; we won't swallow the socialized medicine pill wholesale, but we can take it if the pill is cut up into little bites.

@28,

Did you know that Hillary is only 60 years old? So if she hasn't been fighting for health care for 35 years in a row, when has she been fighting for it?

60-35=25

LOL LOL LOL

@8 & 26: But Obama doesn't need trolls to bash his opponent in order to boost his ego and pump up his hackneyed image.

It's stuff like this that shows that the ethical gap between Clinton and Obama is a lot smaller than some would like to believe. Watch him for a few years and I'm sure we will all be (at least a little) disappointed.

@35 - Single-payer health care isn't 'free.' It's funded by mandatory payments in the form of taxes and there is no opt out.

I'm bagged out on Obama. HRC is getting my vote. Nice job, Stranger....

@40: Enjoy having your wages garnered, sucker! haha

RE: Obama's Health Care Plan Would Cover "More People" Than Hillary's. "I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help -- including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people." Robert Reich, 12/3/07

The point is that Hillary's plan doesn't actually "cover" people. It just puts penalties in place to punish them if they don't pay for their own health care. What kind of solution is that?

At least single-payer would be honest about it, and would use a progressive tax to pay for it. But democrats are afraid to utter the word "taxes". Hillary's alternative is to pretend she can get blood out of turnips, and she'll be pretending that right up until people realize that she has AGAIN set back the cause of health care reform by fifteen years. Why anyone wants to give her that chance, when she can't even admit to mistakes and show signs of learning from them, is beyond me.

@40: Enjoy having your wages garnered, sucker! haha

@39,

Thank you for pointing that out. The only thing about single-payer that gives me pause is this notion that it's free.

I used to work for a medical clinic and every last patient expected Cadillac health care. Imagine how they'd behave if they assume their health care is free.

Dear All, if you just wander over to Robert Reich's Blog at http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html you will find that the ad is accurate. In case you don't want to click over there, here it is...quote from Reich --
"She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people. "

@45 and 42. Thank you. I feel more confident now that the Clinton campaign is indeed the one playing the most word games in their "fact check" on this add.

Okay, we've gone into the ridiculousness of Clinton's factcheck, but here's one more jab for the record:

"Wall Street Journal: ‘Mrs. Clinton charges that Mr. Obama's plan would leave 15 million people without insurance. Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark.’ [Wall Street Journal, 12/04/07]"

Just slowly read and reread this "fact" that Clinton's campaign is using to prove Obama wrong. She quotes the WSJ referencing her attack on Obama as proof of her claims' veracity. Isn't that what she criticized O for in the last section of her fact check? It sucks when it comes from either side, but at least he's subtle about it... They're both starting to really piss me off...

Just curious: do any Obama supporters dispute that Clinton's plan covers more people than Obama's plan? If not, how do you feel about Obama posting an ad that claims (whatever the citation) otherwise?

Because that's what it's about. You can go link to web site xyz that says abc about the subject, but pretty much everyone agrees that Clinton's plan covers more people, yet Obama posted an ad that says her plan covers fewer people.

Doesn't that bother you? As I've said umpteen times, I like Obama and will be fine if he's our candidate. But this particular thing bothers me quite a bit. It seems like such an obvious, demostrable lie.

doesnt bother me if clinton cant get her health care plan through but obama can get his.

also sven, facts are decided by the majority are they?

And this is why getting into specifics is stupid. Neither plan would do anything until it is passed. Hillary's claim that it will cover everyone is complete BS from the get go. All of it is just speculation. Politician's plans are not worth the paper they are written on.

Perhaps we should argue about how many angels are dance on the head of a needle.

Bellevue, answer the question. Do you dispute that Clinton's plan covers more people than Obama's plan? If not, how do you feel about Obama's ad?

doesnt bother me if clinton cant get her health care plan through but obama can get his.

That's not what Obama said. He didn't say that Clinton's plan was unrealistic. He said that his plan covered more people.

So a lie is OK if it serves a greater political truth? Just checking.

Obama's ad quoted Robert Reich as saying that Obama's plan would cover more people. Robert Reich did in fact say that, and backed it with a reasonable argument.

Many states have mandated auto insurance. Does this mean that no one is driving without auto insurance? Of course it doesn't. Reich claim is that Clinton's plan would just mandate insurance without doing enough to ensure that people can afford it. Obama's plan would do more (says Reich) to ensure that affordable insurance would be available. In Reich's opinion, this would get more people insurance.

You can disagree with his reasoning, but it's not in any way a lie. He said it, he believes it, and he has a coherent argument that is not idiotic.

The Clinton rebuttal doesn't even have a single quote that contradicts Reich. It just says that various people estimate the number of uninsured under Obama's plan at around 15 million. How many will be uninsured under Clinton's plan? It looks like we're supposed to assume that with the mandate in place, we'll get 100% of people covered, which is ludicrous. Could it be that even with a mandate, 15 million or more people still wouldn't buy health insurance? If so, then Reich's (and Obama's) position is reasonable.

For myself, I think we don't know how many people would or would not have insurance under either plan. But clearly a mandate will not get us to 100%; it never has before. Only a system that is tax-supported (i.e. single-payer) will get us to 100%.

Don

i havent seen clintons plan. she hasnt talked about the specifics in public sven. i dont know how her plan works because she doesnt talk about how her plan works. she just says universal health care.

why would reich be lying?

Don and Bellevue Ave-

Thank you both for addressing the specifics of the question.

I think Clinton and Obama both discussed their plans at length at the debate prior to the Super Tuesday caucuses.

AS for coverage, Factcheck.org- not affiliated with either campaign- finds that Obama's plan would leave ~15m uncovered and Clinton's ~1m and that Reich's position w.r.t. both plans was misquoted by Obama's campaign (though to be fair they find fault with some of Clinton's assertions, as well.)

This article seems like a good primer on both plans, as well.

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

MESSAGE

MESSAGE