Fact Checking the Fact Checkers: The Washington Post Gets its Pinocchios Dead Wrong on Biden, Palin and Health Care
As a policy wonk who has long been involved in presidential campaigns, I greatly appreciate the role that independent fact checkers play in keeping all the candidates on the facts and keeping the debate focused on the issues. In general, you can count me as a fan of the work that Michael Dobbs and the Washington Post do with their already famous "Pinocchio" rating. But their awarding of two "Pinocchios" -- for "significant omissions or exaggerations" -- to Joe Biden for his health care exchange with Governor Palin in last night's debate was just plain off the mark.
Full disclosure: I advise the Obama campaign and in that role had a chance to offer my two cents to Senator Biden's team in preparation for last Thursday's debate. But the facts below make clear that from any perspective, Senator Biden was precise and accurate in his statements Thursday night. In fact, while the Washington Post unfairly criticizes Joe Biden, they remain inexplicably silent over the repeated and significant omissions from Governor Palin and John McCain on their health care plan.
Let's start at the beginning. The McCain health plan calls for completely eliminating the current tax exemption for employer-provided health care. Viewed alone, it would raise as much as $3.6 trillion in tax revenues. Yet, the McCain plan uses the revenues to provide a $5,000 tax credit for families and a $2,500 credit for singles as a replacement for the current exemption. The McCain team has consistently argued -- and Sarah Palin last night reinforced -- that their plan is "budget" or "revenue" neutral.
As with any revenue neutral tax reform, the McCain plan creates both a group that benefit and another group that would be worse off. While virtually every American would be better off with the Obama plan as opposed to the McCain plan, it is the case that there are some -- such as young, healthy and currently uninsured workers -- who would be better off under the McCain plan than under the status quo. The fact that a tax reform proposal leaves some people worse off should not, of course, automatically doom the idea. But it is fair to ask those making such proposals to be transparent and clear about its impact. Unfortunately, during the entire campaign the McCain-Palin ticket has gotten away with describing only the sugar in their plan and never the medicine. Even when pressed, Senator McCain tries to suggest that those paying higher taxes would just be the well-off with "Cadillac plans." But the truth is that even in the short run, his plan would likely raise taxes on millions of middle class families who live in high-cost areas or who negotiated to give up higher wages for good insurance with low deductibles and co-payments. Virtually every analysis shows that over time, health inflation will move millions and millions more middle class families into the 'tax increase' category.
There is another downside to the McCain plan that even its serious advocates should acknowledge. If you end the tax exemption for workers for health care provided by their employer, it becomes less attractive for employers to keep providing it. Moreover, as young and healthy workers move into the individual market, the remaining pool for employers to cover becomes even more costly to insure and expensive for employers to cover. A study by several economists in Health Affairs found that 20 million people will be dropped under McCain's plan. An earlier study from the Journal of Public Economics found that a plan similar to McCain's would lead to 28 million people being dropped.
This is a real problem for two reasons. One, only in the idealized world of economic modeling would employers who drop coverage for workers make up the difference by instantly handing over big raises to those workers -- especially in the midst of such a weak labor market. The 20-28 million who would see their employer provided coverage dropped would thus be left to try buying the $12,680 family health care (the national average) policy they previously had in the individual market with only a $5,000 tax credit.
Two, without the rock-solid proposals to eliminate discrimination due to illness that Obama has proposed, families who are dropped and who have a child or spouse with a pre-existing condition face a real danger of being shut-out from insurance altogether or be forced to choose coverage at extremely high premiums. Even experts who support proposals like McCain's acknowledge that without strong and bold new reforms of our unforgiving, wasteful and discriminatory individual market for health care, the results for families with pre-existing conditions could be devastating.
In this context, let's review what the candidates said on health care in Thursday's debate. Governor Palin said McCain is "proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage." This is the McCain Campaign's consistent line. It gives anyone watching the clear impression that this credit is free. There is not a word of recognition that the new credit will be offset by eliminating the tax exemption for employer provided health care. Not a word of recognition that for at least 20 million families, this proposal will mean they no longer have the choice of receiving health care through their employer. Yet on these rather remarkable omissions -- the Washington Post is silent.
So what did Joe Biden say? He first asked:
"Do you know how John McCain pays for his $5,000 tax credit you're going to get, a family will get?"
In this initial sentence Biden acknowledged that families would get a tax credit under McCain. He simply asked what the McCain and Palin never wants to answer -- how they propose to pay for it. Thus, Biden, unlike Palin, was willing to talk about both the benefits and pain of the McCain health proposal.
His second sentence was.
"He taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who has a health care plan through your employer."
If the Washington Post or anyone can take issue with this sentence, I welcome their explanation. Biden clearly states that the tax is on those who have employer based coverage -- and not everyone. This is unquestionably true.
His third sentence states,
"That's how he raises $3.6 trillion, on your -- taxing your health care benefit to give you a $5,000 plan, which his Web site points out will go straight to the insurance company."
Again, Biden -- unlike Palin -- is painting the whole picture, acknowledging that families will get a tax credit while stating how McCain's own team describes how it is paid for. And it is hard to see how anyone in McCain's camp can complain here when his top economic advisor Doug Holtz Eakin is described as telling both the New York Times and McClatchy newspapers that "the government would save $3.6 trillion over the next decade by eliminating the tax break that currently goes to encourage employer-based health coverage" and that "[McCain's] tax measure would generate about $3.6 trillion over 10 years, which would pay for the tax credits, making the entire proposal budget-neutral."
Biden goes on:
"And then you're going to have to replace a $12,000 -- that's the average cost of the plan you get through your employer -- it costs $12,000. You're going to have to pay -- replace a $12,000 plan, because 20 million of you are going to be dropped. Twenty million of you will be dropped."
Contrary to the Washington Post's erroneous claim that Biden "gave the impression that most Americans would be worse off financially as a result of Sen. John McCain's health-care proposals," Biden said was careful and clear in stating -- twice -- that he was not referring to all Americans but as he said, the "20 million who would be dropped." Then he closed with:
"So you're going to have to place -- replace a $12,000 plan with a $5,000 check you just give to the insurance company. I call that the 'Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.'"
I am hard-pressed to see how anyone analyzing this statement could find it anything other than a highly precise and accurate statement that deserved praise for its accuracy.
The Washington Post oddly also writes that Biden should have somehow noted that a Tax Policy Center study shows that McCain's plan would be a tax cut for middle class families on average. Yet, the Washington Post fact checkers fail to mention that this Tax Policy Center analysis assumes that the McCain plan costs $1.3 trillion over ten years -- on top of the trillions they have already committed to their corporate tax and upper income tax cuts that they have not offered any serious way to pay for. The McCain camp has for months been arguing as mentioned above that it "generate about $3.6 trillion over 10 years" to claim as Palin did in front of 70 million people that the proposal is "budget neutral." It is puzzling that the Washington Post would want to reward this 'a have it both ways' and "all gain-no pain" effort to flip-flop on their description of their health care plan by occasionally telling a reporter or someone doing a tax analysis that it is suddenly a tax cut that costs $1.3 trillion.
I do appreciate that the Post did state that "according to several studies, the McCain plan would lead to a modest increase in the number of people covered by health insurance in the first year but could lead to an increase in the number of uninsured over the long term" (emphasis added).
But to give Joe Biden any Pinocchios at all for such a narrowly-tailored, precise and factually accurate statement while giving the McCain-Palin team a free ride is baffling. They got the Pinocchios completely backwards in this case. As good fact checkers, I hope the Post will review their analysis and admit that they got this one wrong.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The Republican motto: What's truth got to do with it? We don't tell the truth because truth has a liberal bias to it.
They get away with it too because the news media cant call them liars without also calling the Dems liars, even when it isn't so. The repugs control the media. Will we ever fight back?
and we don't need no stinkin' facts!
The "average" would be $12,000. Imagine a larger family finding itself being taxed on $20,000 policy or more!
My disappointment with the Democrats is their failure to promote universal health care. Watch Michael Moore's movie on health care.
Without this approach we can not call ourselves humane or fair. And it is totally affordable if we stop shoving needless dollars into useless weapons systems---just to name one thing.
In the interview in Des Moines, McCain was asked how he could be against government backed medical coverage when he had been under it for all -- repeat all -- of his life. He really had no reply for that. (Imagine, McCain has lived under a socialist medical coverage plan for all of his life, in the Navy and in the Senate, and to boot he takes a government pension for his service in the Navy.)
I'll bet that even though he get a Navy pension, a senate wage and his wife makes over 6 million a year, he still draws Social Security. I don't think that anyone making more than $100k should be allowed to draw SS even though they paid into SS. People cry that they are patriotic, but they still want their SS checks when they can spend that on a good meal with their rich buddies.
The sad part is that Social Security was originally created to help those without existing pensions, income, or retirement accounts to retire with some dignity. It was also meant to help those that are unable to work due to true disability.
Unfortunately, it has become an entitlement. People think they pay in, that they have the money waiting for them. That is not the way the system was designed.
The money that goes into Social Security today is for those that are currently retired or need the assistance. Our children (and grandchildren's) incomes will be the one that pay for us when we retire.
That is how the system was designed to work. I find it rather disconcerting, if true, that someone with McCain's income would even consider drawing on the benefit.
He has to keep the medical coverage and the pension in play, because his wife is so trusting of him that she made Mr. Wonderful sign a prenup. If she decides to unload him, that's all he will have.
On his 2007 return McCain made $23,157 in social security (the maximum amount as I recall). As you point out he paid into the system and is of the proper age so in some respects it is only fair that he get his money just like any other person over 65.
He made $54,000 from his navy pension all of which was 100 percent tax exempt. Again he served his 22 years and deserves the pension. Whether he should be classified as 100 percent disabled and the pension be tax free is another story entirely,
This article and the posted comments make clear that the only solution to the health care crisis in this country is a single payer system. To have a profit based health care system is in itself, morally corrupt! When medical decisions are based on cost and profit, and not medical necessity, then your system is broken. Insurance companies interfere with and deny medical decisions made by doctors, if they deem the cost is too high, with little or no regard for the patient. Health insurance providers should be eliminated from the health care equation.
Any health plan that involves the insurance companies is doomed to fail because insurance companies will let greed color their coverage.
How correct you are and I have shared this disdain for profit driven health care for years now. How can you justify allow or disallowing procedures, tests and other medically requested services based on whether it serves the bottom line? The original intent of managed care was to rein in undue spending, not create a profit incentive. The keepers of the gates have become the robbers of the very trough they were created to protect. Capitalism at it very best, and worst.
I completely agree, Healthcare should never have been a for profit industry. As one of your impliers mentioned, insurers that are linked at the hip are also part of the problem, also because they are for profit when they should be not for profit. If insurance and healthcare were both seen as necessary evils instead of guaranteed cash cows, they wouldn't feed off each other to increase their collective profit.
OF course, the argument is that when that somehow being for profit drives efficiency and lower costs. My wife and I recently had our first children, twins. The bill before insurance "payed" their 80% was over 9000 dollars. When I was born 27 years ago, it cost my mother 200.
I think it's obvious there's a problem here.
Both the Obama and McCain plans will enrich health insurance companies at the expense of citizens. Both will leave millions with no coverage at all, and leave many more millions dangerously underinsured, at the mercy of healthcos who make money by denying coverage.
Too bad Nader was not a participant in the debates to point this out, along with the egregious nonsense of stifling any discussion of the role of the healthco lobby has played in creating and supporting both plans.
And so we will continue to send $1 billion per day down the drain, just to keep health insurance "private", rather than pass single payer HR 676.
For more on the $3 trillion robbery advocated by both McCain and Obama, see
http://wha
We could do worse than copy the Canadian health system. So what if it is socialistic. Why should we be afraid of that? Nobody has an answer for that except the FUD from the government.
It isn't just Canada. Every other wealthy country, and some of the poorer ones, have some form of national insurance system that covers virtually everyone.
NOBODY IN THE WORLD SPENDS MORE ON HEALTHCARE THAN THE USA. Nobody. The waste in our system is about $1 TRILLION per year (we spend about $2 trilion for $1 trillion worth of delivered care)
You add that to the waste due to military spending (nobody in the world spends more on that either)... and that's way over $1 trillion wasted. Our whole economy is less than $14 trillion. Do the math: We waste more than 10% of our entire economic output. Raise your hand if you think you can be competitive with a 10% handicap? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
A new report from the Center For American Progress Action Fund finds that a key piece of John McCain’s tax plan — cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% — would cut taxes by almost $45 billion every year for America’s 200 largest corporations as identified by Fortune Magazine.
Eight companies — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Bank of America Corp., AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Microsoft Corp. — would each receive over $1 billion a year.
The following table shows the tax savings to America’s five largest firms. See a full list of all 200 companies and their savings under McCain here:
MCain Corporate Tax Cuts
So why arent we telling people that McCain is basically doing to double the Bush tax cuts for the Very Rich and Corporations?? Its an easy number to get across... 2 ... 2.... 2 tax cuts in 1...
http://won
This is the problem with both candidates - you can spin things in your favor that are 95% true. But there is that 5% that changes things and people don't know who to believe. Both sides do it.
Mr. Sperling thanks for setting the record straight. The idea of taxing health benefits at all is the worse idea in American history. Health care is a necessity for all Americans and should never be taxed. I live of a disability income and have no insurance right now. This plan would not help me at all because I pay little taxes because my income is so drastically lower than when I worked. It would actually hurt my efforts to get insurance.
While you may be correct re: McCain plan, let us be fair and not ignore that the Democratic plan will not do much for individuals who work alone for themselves and not as a licensed co. Just as Sen Biden felt the frustration of people assuming that only women somehow cornered the market in love for their children, I feel the frustration that somehow all breaks are given to families and productive single individuals are ignored and bear extraordinary high cost burden. For all their talk, Dems, particularly Sen Clinton, are hypocritical when it comes to health care. Having just recently moved back to NYC from CA, I found that I cannot afford the $1,500/ month cost for individual health coverage and that too with $1,500 deductible. The cost in CA for individual coverage, with 0 deductible, is $214/ month and is even lower in FL. Sen Clinton advocates as a champion of healthcare, yet people in her own state cannot afford individual health coverage. I am not alone; it is an extensive problem in NYC. Sen Obama does not offer any solution either which means all I can afford is coverage for hospital under severe cases and will pay for doctors/ medicine out of pocket. My taxes seem to go to bailout and subsidize programs for everyone else; while I cannot afford health care for myself. My only hope is never to get sick!
I feel you. I heard that Obama is thinking of the Conyers plan as the healthcare model. That might help.
I thought Sen. Obama was against H.R. 676; he has not endorsed it although many others have, including Al Gore. His plan is not a universal health care plan.
rationalin
In all seriousness, WaPo is no doubt in bed with the obscene sums of money embedded in the health care industry, and may have some concern that the future dismantling of this industry through single payer health insurance somehow is a threat to the American financial "way of life," and they can clearly see that a progressive and popular Obama Administration would, in a second term, be politically empowered to respond to the will of the voters and implement such a system. Therefore, out of some unstated fear they engage in half-truths such as these way off-base "pinocchios" to undercut the Obama campaign wheere they can.
Just another (and in this case tragic and corrupt ) case of money blinding the path to compassion for the citizens of this country and social cohesion.
No doubt I am grossly disappointed in Barack Obama's plan for health care in the USA. But part of the decision '08 process is weighing all the platform offerings and picking the one that best gels with your mindset. I am equally disparate over his choice in voting for the bailout. What can you do? These are our choices. Some good with the not so good. Maybe there is greater flexibility in Obama's camp than I can foresee in McCain/Palin's. Maybe if we get off our asses and complain a bit more, something good will come of it.
HuffPost's Pick
Here's an extra piece of information on the McCain Health Tax Plan...
That $5000 tax credit? That (from what I've heard him say) is supposed to be a NON-REFUNDABLE tax credit. This means that only the people who would have owed $5000 in taxes would get the full credit.
At the lowest tax bracket of 10%, a person or family would have to be making $50,000 a year ABOVE the standard deductable, plus 10 times the amount of the other deductables (savings credit, child credit, dependant deductables, etc.) to get the full credit.
This seems to leave out a whole bunch of people...m
That's not an aside - That is HUGE. Another thing that bothers me about the McCain plan is that there is no group buying power, as one has through an employer. For those electing to purchase their own insurance (if they qualify, as you have noted) as private policies are priced or written today, if one has had to blow one's nose at all during the last ten years, one is deemed to have a pre-existing condition. So the bottom line here is "NO Change". Yikes!
Slightly off topic, I saw the last part of a McCain ad in which he seems to be paraphrasing/ plagarizing Sen Obama's 2004 keynote speech, stating we are not Democrats or Republicans of America, but "We are the United States of America". Seems like he's positioning it as an original idea - I cant find it on the intenet. I'm hoping that one of Huffington Post's more influential can call that to America's attention. Or, it would be a great one of Jon Stewart's side by side comparisons.
I believe that this is, in fact, the goal of the McCain Health Tax Plan.
As a person who pays out of pocket for insurance, the McCain plan would only reimburse me for a fraction of the cost, and only to the extent that I owe taxes, which effectively punishes me for not owing more taxes or making more money, but has no problem with my insurance company jacking up my rate every year for no good reason besides what an actuarial chart says?
The more I hear, the less I like.
SOT
It's painful watching shows that pit pundit against pundit to "argue" whether Biden or Palin did the better job. That's like judging how much Bill Gates knows about computers compared to a class of second graders (that is the grade Palin said she was in when Biden started his career, isn't it?). If this wasn't all so serious, it would be a joke.
It's not just Palin's lack of knowledge or experience, it's how the McPalin camp keeps going OVER and OVER how they're here for the people....
Those are just two very basic issues all Americans have to think about in the next month. After seeing how both parties view Iraq and the economic crisis, I can't imagine a Palin/McCain, I mean McCain/Palin, White House.
Excellent post - I need not add to it, thank you.
Well, this is like the statements made by the Greedy Old Party that are blatantly not true. If you can spew the same vile comments over and over regardless of their veracity it doesn't matter becuase most people will never verify or check the statements in the first place.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels
GObama/Biden '08/'12!
Isn't it also true that they tout the ability of individuals to go across state lines to get the "best deal" anywhere in the country?
What happens when individuals have an issue with the provider and they won't pay legitimate charges? Will there be a new national bureaucracy created with a hotline they can call to appeal? Or will they be left to the mercy of the "customer service" functions of the insurers?
This is just another of the "you're on your own" policies of the Repubs and this one could literally cost you your life!!!
The American Public all in all should be reading and digesting what you say-- the American voters have to stop their 8 year silly season of choosing Presidents they'd like to have a beer with!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
