Health care plans

There was a lot of information thrown around last night during the VP debate on the campaigns' competing health care plans.

Here are some of the comments and my best read on what the facts are. If you don't have time for all of this, skip to my next-to-last paragraph. And take an aspirin.

John McCain's plan

Senator Biden, responding to a question about subprime mortgage lenders, spoke of Senator McCain's support of deregulation and said, "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do for the health care industry deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."

FactCheck.org says this "relies on a single phrase from a journal article under McCain's byline, in which he said he would reduce regulation of health insurance "as we have done over the last decade in banking." But the full context reveals that McCain was referring narrowly to his proposal to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines." The full article from the Sept/Oct issue of "Contingencies" with John McCain's byline is here. I encourage you to read it to get a better sense of Senator McCain's thoughts on health care and insurance.

Meanwhile, Governor Palin and Senator Biden strongly disagreed on what Senator McCain's health care policy would cost taxpayers. Governor Palin said Senator 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. That's a smart thing to do. That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything."

In response, Senator Biden said,

Do you know how John McCain pays for his $5,000 tax credit you're going to get, a family will get?

He taxes as income every one of you out there, every one of you listening who has a health care plan through your employer. 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.

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.

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."

FactCheck doesn't review Senator Biden's explanation of Senator McCain's plans, but it does refute the notion that the plan is "budget neutral. FactCheck says, "The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's plan, which at its peak would cover 5 million of the uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Obama's plan, which would cover 34 million of the uninsured, would cost $1.6 trillion over that time period.

And, "The nonpartisan U.S. Budget Watch's fiscal voter guide estimates that McCain's tax credit would increase the deficit by somewhere between $288 billion to $364 billion by the year 2013, and that making employer health benefits taxable would bring in between $201 billion to $274 billion in revenue. That nets out to a shortfall of somewhere between $14 billion to $163 billion – for that year alone."

The Washington Post gives its analysis of Senator Biden's comments, giving it a "Two Pinocchio rating" of significant omissions or exaggerations. The studies they cite suggest that Senator McCain's plan will help more people get health insurance over the long run. "The Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution estimated that 5 million people would gain coverage under the McCain plan after four years, after which the pendulum would swing in the opposite direction. Health Affairs calculated that the number of uninsured would increase by 5 million after five years."

However, an article in the Wall Street Journal doesn't agree, saying, "Sen. John McCain's proposed health care plan is likely to result in higher overall health care spending than Sen. Barack Obama's, says Kenneth E. Thorpe, PhD, Emory University health policy researcher," and that, "Under McCain's plan, 14 million adults would face either denials of coverage or pre-existing condition waivers in today's individual health insurance market. If all employers dropped coverage, over 65 million adults would face the same fate, Thorpe's analysis notes."

The WSJ also supports Senator Biden's contention about how Senator McCain's plan would change what taxable income would look like: "The central tenet of McCain's health care plan is to withdraw the current tax exclusion of employer health insurance contributions and treat them as taxable income. In exchange, McCain would provide refundable tax credits of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of purchasing insurance in the non-group private market." However, according to the Washington Times, "For most families, that tax credit would for several years be more generous than the current tax break for employer-sponsored health insurance. An analysis of McCain's plan by the Tax Policy Center estimated that McCain's plan would increase the federal deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years, mainly because it would lead to less tax revenue coming in."

In short, Senator Biden's comments were off the mark in terms of immediate out-of-pocket expenses, and may be off the mark in terms of whether or not more people will be insured, but Senator McCain's plans may be unworkable in light of our current financial crisis and tax needs.

Barack Obama's plan

Finally, Governor Palin spoke of "Barack Obama's plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program and unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds."

An Associate Press report says that this is "Wrong on several counts. Obama's plan does not provide for universal coverage, only mandates insurance for children and doesn't turn the system over to the government. Most people would still get private insurance through their work. Obama proposes that the government subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who have trouble affording it and he'd set up an exchange to negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers — with one option being a government-run plan."

Critiquing both plans

Finally, according to an article from the Kaiser Family Foundation, neither candidates' plan is workable as it is currently proposed. "Health insurance consultant Bob Laszewski said, "The chance for major health care reform in either 2009 or 2010 is now zero." He added, "Obama's health plan will cost at least $100 billion a year. That's now a nonstarter. McCain's health plan counts on deregulation of the health insurance industry. Do I even need to explain to you why that is a political nonstarter in this environment?"

So there you go. My non-factual 2 cents is vote for either of the candidates for some reason other than their health care plan.

You can see Russian from Alaska

OK, I just neeeeeeed to pass this on.

So you know how Governor Palin has foreign policy experience because you can see Russia from Alaska? Well, turns out a) you can indeed see Russia from Little Diomede Island, but b) Governor Palin has never actually been there, according to a report from Anderson Cooper 360 correspondent Gary Tuchman.

And because I am evil, I was amused to learn that some residents of the island didn't know who Governor Palin is."It turns out they have no TV on the island, and therefore, many don’t follow the news."

Details here, and also on "Anderson Cooper 360" tonight on CNN.

Abortion

Now that I'm back and have had a chance to catch my breath, let's talk about abortion, shall we? Won't that be fun?

There are a number of un-subtle ads out there on both sides that portray each presidential candidate's position as about the most extreme you can have.

Instead of looking at each candidate's opponent's portrayal, let's look at what the candidates' supporters say about their records.

Senator McCain's record, according to the National Right to Life PAC, includes the following:

John McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade. He voted against an amendment that read, “It is the sense of the Senate that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right; and such decision should not be overturned.”

John McCain voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. When the Act was upheld by the Supreme Court on April 18, 2007, Sen. McCain said, “Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children.”

John McCain voted in favor of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (“Laci and Conner’s Law”). Thebill establishes that when an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a violent federal crime, the assailant may be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child.

John McCain voted in support of a bill to require an abortionist to notify a parent before performing an abortion on a minor who lives in another state.

John McCain opposes the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA), a bill which would prohibit states from placing limits on abortion, including the types now permitted by the Supreme Court, such as parental involvement laws and waiting periods, and which would make partial-birth abortion legal again.

John McCain voted against an amendment to nullify the “Mexico City Policy.” The Mexico City Policy cut off U.S. “family planning” funds to private organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas.

John McCain voted against repealing the law that prohibits performance of elective abortions in military medical facilities.

At a speech at Wake Forest University, John McCain described the kind of people he would nominate to the Supreme Court. “I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice [John] Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me.”

Senator Obama's record as reported by NARAL Pro-Choice America:

Sen. Barack Obama has served in the U.S. Senate since 2005. During that time, he has cast 13 votes on abortion and other reproductive‐rights issues. All 13 of those votes were pro‐choice. In addition to his pro‐choice record, Sen. Obama has cosponsored legislation that would prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion. A description of Sen. Obama’s key votes, a selection of pro‐choice bills he has authored and cosponsored, and a selection of his public statements on reproductive‐health issues follow.

Preserving Roe v. Wade and a Woman’s Right to Choose
+Voted against a measure to codify a controversial regulation that allows states to make an embryo or fetus – but not a pregnant woman – eligible for health‐care coverage.
Voted against two anti‐choice U.S. Supreme Court nominees:
+Samuel Alito, nominated to be associate justice. After joining the Court, Justice Alito cast the deciding vote upholding the Federal Abortion Ban, a ban that criminalizes some abortion services, with no exception to protect a woman’s health, and carries up to a two‐year prison sentence for doctors.
+John Roberts, nominated to be chief justice. After joining the Court, Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, a ban that criminalizes some abortion services, with no exception to protect a woman’s health, and carries up to a two‐year prison sentence for doctors.
Voted against three anti‐choice lower federal court judicial nominees:
[William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown,Priscilla Owen -- details at website]

Ensuring Access to Abortion Services
+Voted against a law that would have jeopardized young women’s health and safety by making it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent – including a grandparent, adult sibling, or religious counselor – to accompany a young woman across state lines for abortion care if the home state parental‐involvement mandate has not been met.
+Voted against a proposal that would have endangered young women’s health and safety by imposing a new, impossibly complex national patchwork of parental‐notification mandates on doctors and young women.

Protecting Women and Their Doctors
+Voted to amend bankruptcy laws so that perpetrators of violence or harassment at reproductive‐health clinics cannot evade financial responsibility for their illegal activities.

Preventing Unintended Pregnancy
+Voted in favor of funding teen‐pregnancy‐prevention programs and ensuring that “abstinence‐only” programs are medically accurate.
+Voted to repeal the global gag rule, a policy that bans overseas health clinics from receiving U.S. family‐planning aid if they use their own funds to provide legal abortion services, give referrals, or even take a public pro‐choice position.
+Voted for legislation that would have prevented unintended pregnancy by investing in insurance coverage of prescription birth control, promoting family-planning services, implementing teen‐pregnancy‐prevention programs, and developing programs to increase awareness about emergency contraception.

Sponsorship of Selected Pieces of Pro‐Choice Legislation
+Authored legislation to fix the birth‐control pricing crisis facing millions of low‐income women across the country today.
+Original cosponsor of the Prevention First Act, a package of proposals that increases funds for family‐planning services, assures contraceptive equity in health‐insurance plans, ensures young people receive honest, accurate sex education, and improves women’s access to emergency contraception, among other provisions.
+Cosponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify the tenets of Roe v. Wade in federal law and protect the right to choose for future generations.

In His Own Words
• Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign website states his position on choice this way: “Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President…. Barack Obama is an original co‐sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health information and preventive services to help reduce unintended pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to rape victims.”
• “I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually; that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that heart‐wrenching decision; that I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place.”
• “Now, the ability for a woman to make decisions about how many children to have and when – without interference from the government – is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have. We all know, becoming a parent is one of the most – if not the most – important jobs there is. No one should make that decision for a woman and her family but them. And we must keep defending their right to choose in the years to come. But even as we defend this right, it’s important for us to acknowledge the moral dimension to the choice that’s made.”
• “Obama will oppose arbitrary and harmful restrictions to abortion, advocate for measures requiring health insurance providers to cover contraceptives, and fight to preserve access to RU‐486. Obama will seek to reverse the Global Gag Rule and to increase funding for women’s health programs, both here and abroad.”

The differences really are quite stark: Senator Obama co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act and Senator McCain voted against it. The strange thing about these negative ads is that single-issue voters wouldn't need to be convinced of the extremes; the differences on the positions are clear enough as it is.

The latest on FactCheck

Sorry to be slow the past couple of days...I'm out of town and a bit out of touch. While I get my act together, I'm not going to do much more than direct you to FactCheck.org -- which I'm sure you're checking anyway.

Everybody gets a bit of a smackdown this week for stretching or massaging the truth in various ads and speeches.

Joe Biden misleads on Senator McCain's record about small borrowers and the GI Bill.

The McCain-Palin campaign distorts Senator Obama's tax plan.

And the Obama-Biden campaign misrepresents Senator McCain's plan to amend Social Security.

I do recommend that you read these analyses that show how people's words are used and misused, sometimes in very subtle ways.

Stay vigilant!

More tax plan graphs

Today's Freakonomics column in the NY Times compares different graphs on the candidates' tax plans and also directs you to another website from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center that gives you raw numbers.

Rape kits in Wasilla

A friend of mine was watching last night's "Daily Show" in which Jon Stewart (blessed be he) said something about the police department of Wasilla charging women for rape kits while she was mayor. My friend wants to know if this is true.

This much at least is undisputed: during Sarah Palin's term as mayor, women in Wasilla who were sexually assaulted or claimed to be so were charged for "rape kits," used by law enforcement to collect forensic evidence in the case of sexual assault. The kits range in cost from $300 to $1200, according to this article at Salon.com.

McClatchy Washington Bureau reported the following:

Eight years ago, complaints about charging rape victims for medical exams in Wasilla prompted the Alaska Legislature to pass a bill -- signed into law by (then-Governor Tony) Knowles -- that banned the practice statewide.

"There was one town in Alaska that was charging victims for this, and that was Wasilla," Knowles said

A May 23, 2000, article in Wasilla's newspaper, The Frontiersman, noted that Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies regularly pay for such exams, which cost between $300 and $1,200 apiece.

"(But) the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests," the newspaper reported.

What is merely speculative is whether then-Mayor Palin approved or even knew of this practice.

Various Sarah Palin statements

Andrew Sullivan is on a tear about Sarah Palin and has been writing a series of entries on various statements she's made. If you're curious about any of these topics, here's Andrews take on them all:

1) Did she pressure the Public Safety Commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law?

2) The "Thanks, but no thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere" claim.

3) Did she fire the police chief and librarian of Wasilla for political reasons?

4) Did Alaska state wildlife officials disagree with the federal decision to put polar bears on the endangered species list?

5) What's the status on the oil pipeline through Canada that Governor Palin claims as a major achievement of her term in office?

6) What is her position on the rights and morality of homosexuality?

7) Does she think climate change is affected by human behavior?

8) What is her position on the rights of foreign detainees?

9) How much of the national energy supply does Alaska produce?

10) Did she ad lib her comments in Ohio?

It's a strange assortment of odds and ends. Andrew Sullivan's basic conceit is that Governor Palin lies reflexively and about almost anything. He also says judge for yourself.