You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities
2008-10-30
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.
Obama's assertion that "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond" the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by "eliminating programs that don't work" masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are--beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A sampling of what voters heard in the ad, and what he didn't tell them:

THE SPIN: "That's why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year."

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it's not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

THE SPIN: "I've offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost."

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama's policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years--and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: "Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years." The analysis goes on to say: "Neither candidate's plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified."

THE SPIN: "Here's what I'll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we'll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. "

THE FACTS: His proposals--the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more--cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged--although not in his commercial--that: "The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals."

THE SPIN: "I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care."

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: "I want to start doing something about it." He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

THE SPIN: "We are currently spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, when they have a $79 billion surplus. It seems to me that if we're going to be strong at home as well as strong abroad that we've got to look at bringing that war to a close." These lines in the ad were taken from a debate with McCain.

THE FACTS: Obama was once and very often definitive about getting combat troops out in 16 months (At times during the primaries, he promised to do so within a year). More recently, without backing away explicitly from the 16-month withdrawal pledge, he has talked of the need for flexibility. In the primaries, it would have been a jarring departure for him to have said merely that "we've got to look at" ending the war. As for Iraq's surplus, it's true that Iraq could end up with a surplus that large, but that hasn't happened yet.
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#12  Steve White:

Thanks for identifying me as a "nattering IT people". My company installs EHR aka EMR. Since the Bush veto override in July our hottest product has been e-prescriptions. The docs got a 2% incentive instead of a 10% cut in Medicare reimbursement.

My wife, Kilo Hotel and I also have Kaiser. We enjoy the online convenience.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-10-30 19:16  

#11  Or, as they used to call it, "money down a rathole"...
Posted by: tu3031   2008-10-30 13:45  

#10  "Spend and hope it works out" seems to be his plan.

And if it doesn't, there is a well established tradition of what to do.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-10-30 13:43  

#9  For a good (or bad) example of an national EMR implementation look at the NIS in England or the VA system in the United States.

Will a 'Healthcare Czar' (like Michelle Obama - working in a Hospital qualifies her right?) dictate national practices for orders, prescriptions, procedures? Will they be based on 'best practice' or 'least expensive'? Will the Doctors and Practitioners now be Unionized like the teachers union - where innovation and excellence is discouraged?
I don't think having your local Hospital run like your school district would be a very good idea.


Posted by: CrazyFool   2008-10-30 11:20  

#8  Always been in the semantics, he's a GD lawyer; just like he has never clarified whether 250000 200000 or 150000? net or gross so people assume its net when really it would be gross.

Why would the government spend that amount of money except for access to and control of medical records?

Iraq's surplus, based on the price of oil, is needed to rebuild infastructure and train police/troops with new equipment.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-10-30 10:55  

#7  We're trying to implement an electronic medical record right now (Epic) and let me tell you, it isn't easy. Some organizations, like the VA and Kaiser, have done it well, and some have done it poorly. 


My major concern over the EMR is privacy. I can handle the inefficiency part, the clunky interface, the additional time it's going to take for me to find stuff, and the nattering IT people who are going to tell me how to practice.



But the first time an Obama administration federal health care administrator decides to help herself to Joe the Plumber's EMR just to see if she can find some dirt on him, I'm going to get pretty mad.




Posted by: Steve White   2008-10-30 10:20  

#6  "Spend and hope it works out" seems to be his plan.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-10-30 10:21  

#5  Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs

The major hospitals in our city already use electronic medical records. My doctor uses electronic medical records. So does this mean that Washington will have access to all medical records under BO? Does this mean another agency will be created to handle this?

Another empty promise. Seems that Obama skips over a lot of realities. I guess he figures the "devil is in the details so forget about it. Don't worry about it. Er, er, we're busy measuring the Whitehouse for new drapes. I'll get back to you after I'm elected."
Posted by: JohnQC   2008-10-30 10:16  

#4  That's his out. "Woah. Damn. Sorry folks I can't do all that good shit I told yas about. And, yes, I will be blaming Bush. Probably for about four years."
Posted by: tu3031   2008-10-30 09:56  

#3  and Biden said $150,000. Tell me, it's great to constantly use "families" but how much per head?

Does that mean a single making $100,000 gets socked?
Posted by: AlanC   2008-10-30 09:53  

#2  Obama also said "Americans" (i.e. individuals) earning less than $250K a yr would get a tax break - now, as of last night he said "American Families" (i.e. dual incomes) earning less than $200K a yr. It's all in the semantics....figures can lie but liars always figure.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2008-10-30 09:14  

#1  You know your gambit stinks when your own minions in the press start mocking you.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-10-30 08:38  

00:00