The "Fundamental Weakness" of Sen. Obama's Health Care Plan

Note: I'm the Clinton campaign's Internet Director

As Hillary said on Wednesday: "If we don't get universal health care, then we will be betraying the Democratic Party's principles. And it's important that those who will caucus on January 3rd understand this difference. Senator Obama's plan does not, and cannot, cover all Americans. He called his plan universal, then he called it "virtually universal," but it is not either. When it comes to truth in labeling, it simply flunks the test."

Paul Krugman today: "From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama's plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn't cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing. Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan's weakness is actually a strength. What's more, he's doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a "crisis" -- attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points. ...

"The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack. But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn't -- and his attacks amount to cheap shots. ...

"Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that "my plan begins by covering every American," it didn't -- and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true. Now, in the effort to defend his plan's weakness, he's attacking his Democratic opponents from the right -- and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform."

More on the differences between Hillary's plan and Sen. Obama's plan on the Fact Hub:

"Sen. Obama claims there is no significant difference between his health care plan and Hillary's health care plan. But unlike Hillary's American Health Choices Plan, Sen. Obama's plan is not universal. Even Sen. Obama admits that his plan is not universal, and does not guarantee coverage. Experts estimate that Sen. Obama's plan will leave 15 million people uninsured. Sen. Obama has offered a variety of explanations for failing to cover all Americans. Sen. Obama's spokesman claims that requiring coverage should be left to the states; Sen. Obama's advisor says mandates are too ambitious and unpopular with middle class voters, and Sen. Obama says that he'll figure out how to cover everyone later. But Sen. Obama's Health Care Task Force understands that Sen. Obama's plan just isn't good enough. Back in 2004, Sen. Obama sponsored legislation that created a Health Care Task Force. Now in 2007, Sen. Obama's Task Force has recommended an individual mandate to provide universal coverage."

UPDATE: Full text of letter from Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle to Obama campaign manager David Plouffe:

David Plouffe
Obama for America
P.O. Box 8102
Chicago, IL 60680

Dear David:

I am writing concerning a false advertisement you are currently airing, in which Senator Obama claims that his health care plan would "cover everyone." Your advertisement not only contradicts the judgment of health care experts, but public statements by your campaign and your candidate. Senator Obama has pledged to put "honesty first" in this campaign. In that spirit I respectfully request that you stop running this ad which is misleading voters in New Hampshire.

In today's New York Times, noted economist Paul Krugman wrote that Senator Obama proposed "a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although [Senator Obama] declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that 'my plan begins by covering every American,' it didn't -- and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true."

Health care author Jonathan Cohn looked at the data and concluded that, under the most optimistic scenario, Senator Obama's plan would leave "15 million people who are uninsured." The Washington Post reached a similar conclusion, finding that Senator Obama's plan would not cover "a third" of the 47 million Americans who are currently uninsured.

Additionally, a constellation of the nation's top health care experts - including MIT's Jonathan Gruber, the Kaiser Family Foundation's Diane Rowland and the Urban Institute's John Holland -- have concluded that plans like Senator Obama's, which does not include a requirement for all Americans to have health care, would leave a substantial portion of the American public without coverage.

Even Senator Obama himself has admitted that his plan would not cover everyone, calling the plan "virtually universal." Your top health care advisor, David Cutler, acknowledged that Senator Obama's plan could leave "significant pockets" of people uninsured and said Senator Obama would "deal with that when the time comes, possibly by mandating insurance."

On an issue of this magnitude Americans are looking for more than a nice ad or a good speech. It's not enough for Senator Obama to say he covers everyone, especially when that is inaccurate. The American people need a President who will take the action necessary and fight for health care for every single man woman and child. Until the time comes when Senator Obama has a plan that will cover everyone, you should stop running this false advertisement. The American people deserve an honest debate about health care.

Sincerely,

Patti Solis Doyle
Campaign Manager
Hillary Clinton for President

Follow Peter Daou on Twitter: www.twitter.com/peterdaou

Comments

[lafrance]

are you kidding me. the hillary blogger is on here criticizing Senator obama. lol.
have you ever concidered that because of Hillary's authoritarian dictates of a mandate she is providing enough fodder for the right to have a field day and even carry it through to making sure we again don't get health care reform. I believe the last time was because HRC FAILED
Obama not only successfully reformed health care in Illinois, he is also savvy enough to not give fodder, talking points and scare tactics to the right with the mandates.
Besides, Mr. Daou, how is your master going to enforce her precious mandates? Put us in jail?
You need to put the koolaid down and go ask her.

[OETKB]

Quite frankly all the presidential candidates continue to try to put a square peg in a round hole on this subject of health care policy. Any plan that does not cover everyone and does not tackle the question of lowering the overhead of administrating care is not worth a dime. It may even add to the expense.

Preventive care and EMRs add quality to care but they do not lower cost. The extra people treated to accomplish this add to the bill. Further the highest expense we have is care at the end of a healthy life and with more people happily reaching that age, it also adds to the cost. Eighty per cent of the cost is generated by 20% of the population. There is no way to "prevent" our way out of that.

Either we go to single payer or require insurance companies to lower their overhead significantly. We also need our care more coordinated to avoid duplication. In today's over-competitive environment various health institutions rush to do the "me too" act.

These are the true issues to be addressed, not these smoke screen issues that protect the status quo. It is against this type of analysis that each plan should be scrutinized, free of political heat.

[xrayman]

I am a Clinton supporter, but this is a non-issue. Like it or not, the health care issue is being used by the Democrats like the abortion issue is used for the Republicans.

In other words, it is just a red meat issue and no matter whether Clinton, Obama, or Edwards get into the white house, we are not headed toward any kind of universal health care. This issue has been on the board now for over 30 years, just ask Ted Kennedy, and the Republicans are not going to suddenly roll over on this one.

A Republican will not over-turn Roe v. Wade, and a Democrat will not get Universal Health Care passed through congress.

[cloudy]

Since Clinton operatives of significant connexion to the campaign are (which is fine) participating at Huffpo, we need to ask -- who are the comparable individuals from other campaigns, like Obama and Kucinich, at Huffpo. If there aren't any comparable (and merely being a sympathizer isn't the same thing, especially for political nonprofessionals) figures for other campaigns, it would behoove Huffpo to VERY SOON correct that serious imbalance. I have no doubt that, eg, the Obama campaign would hardly be unable to or reluctant to furnish someone. (I am a supporter of Obama & have donated to his campaign btw).

The Krugman piece, like the slimy pseudojournalism about Kerry by Matt Bai in the NY Times was a 'doing the job' -- I usually like Krugman but this was a transparent hitpiece. (Curious how his attacks on Obama for supposedly embracing rightwing talking points has been so eagerly taken up by such shining progressives as RealPoliti­c.Com WHO ARE THE "EXPERTS" who have estimated 15 million, and how do they arrive at that figure? Are these experts people in or consulting with the Clinton campaign?

(I would happily write my own rebuttal to the Krugman piece, even though I am no expert on health insurance, if I could get this kind of exposure, but surely there are those with similar sympathies who are more knowledgeable)

[genmalia]

Thank you for at least clarifying that you are, in fact, a paid Hillary Clinton staffer at the onset.

Allow me to do the same. I am an unpaid Obama volunteer and supporter. While I understand your comments about Obama's healthcare plan, I must disagree with your assessment about which plan covers all Americans. Demonizing a plan because it is not the same as Hillary's is politics, and hardly constructive.

Like it or not, there are Republicans in this country - about half, in fact, and we cannot pass anything unless we have some support on this bill. Senator Clinton will force everyone to purchase health care whether they can afford it or not - yet she cannot explain how she would enforce this. John Edwards has been honest in saying he would deduct a person's wages. Forcing Americans to do anything imposed by the government is very difficult to gain Republican support on.

Senator Obama's plan would lower costs, more so than any other plan out there (approx. $2,500/year), thereby making it more affordable, and thereby covering every American without criminalizing those who cannot afford it.

Thus, Obama's plan makes it not only smart, but also more passable in a Congress that is sure to have at least a few Republicans we will count on to pass universal care.

And further testament to why Obama is more qualified than Hillary Clinton as the candidate of change. We may not like having to work with Republicans, but we can at least accept that we need to work together to move the country forward.

[slc20]

I would like you to address the fact that Hillary's plan doesn't "cover" anybody, since it is an "every man for themselves" type of plan that just tells us all to go buy insurance.

[Countess]

Mrs. Clinton's health plan will certainly help the Insurance industry have more business which is the main aim of the plan to begin with. She is a reactionary democrat with little vision except taking money from the worst elements in society.

[melanie]

Obama is the more conservative and less progressive than Hillary. He came out with a timid proposal, and is trying to spin it as more progressive.

[usna73]

While Ms. Clinton's "plan" is more extensive, please remember that it is just a "plan." Later she'll use it as the starting point for the numbing negotiations that will go forward to exact any health care reform. Perhaps Mr. Obama is merely being more realistic from the start.

More importantly, I am still skeptical of Ms. Clinton's cozy acceptance of campaign money from both pharma and health care insurers.

Perhaps both Obama and Clinton should heed the advice of Mr. Edwards, after the Dems win back the White House and appoint Mr. Edwards to the post of Secretary of HHS, asuming he is interested.

[sunwolf78]

Does it make sense to carp on trivial policy differences such as whether to force people to buy health insurance, when there's such an enormous difference in integrity among the top candidates?
http://unitedagainsthillary.wordpress.com

[oldpotsmuggler]

And the kettle calls the pot black. Here's a fact. Any plan that builds on our current system of private insurance company based health care locks us into that structure indefinitely. There truly can only be maximun benfits from going universal on health care if it is structured around some other vehicle. If the support for single payer is not there in the first year of the new term, beat the drum for four or eight years until it is.

It's a reality that we can afford no new program that is going to put a further burden on the federal budget, even for a goal as laudable as health care. BUSHCO is leaving this country in such dire financial stratis that the first order of business must be to clean up the budget. Single payer would do that because it would actually provide for less cost on a society wide basis. This "health care premium" would then be available to dedicate to deficit and debt relief. By stressing this point the country can eventually be won over to supporting the only system change that is worth fighting for. If that takes time, so be it. Work the issue, hold out for the real deal, and don't do anything stupid just because it's popular with people who don't really understand what they are supporting.

[jmpurser]

Yes, Obama has proven he's not the guy. Let's quit pretending.

Hillary's out too.

[trustedcommenter]

You guys just don't get it. Sen. Clinton (Crypto-Republican, NY) is the last person in the world who should be talking about "the Democratic Party's principles"!