« “Right” Convention, Wrong Country?
Palin Plane Not Sold on e-bay, not for a profit, sold to GOP contributor »



How much do Obama and McCain know about each other’s policies?

September 5th, 2008
By ELYAS BAKHTIARI

Print Print

Ezra Klein raises an interesting point in response to McCain’s assertion that Obama’s health care plan “will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.” Money quote:

I should say, of course, that not only isn’t this true, but it’s nonsensical … here’s the question I’d love to see John McCain asked: “Senator McCain, can you describe how Senator Obama’s health care plan works?” And if he gets it wrong, I’d like to see the moderator correct him and ask what he thinks of the actual plan.

I’d bet good money, and a fair amount of it, that there’s no way he could describe it. And I wouldn’t mind seeing the same question put to Obama. The two of them should be forced to display some rudimentary understanding of what this debate is actually about, and if either can’t, that should say a lot about the salvos that have been unleashed thus far.

I have a feeling Klein would win that bet. In fact, I’d wager that both candidates would struggle to accurately describe the specifics of their opponent’s policies. Any takers? Unfortunately, the only way to get an answer is for the media to pose the question during a debate or press conference, and that’s something I wouldn’t bet on happening.



This entry was posted on Friday, September 5th, 2008 at 3:43 pm and is filed under Newsweek Blogitics, John McCain, Barack Obama, 2008 Elections, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 16 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I think it would be great if politicians were required to conform to some sort of "truth in advertising" standard. I'm sure it would be difficult to enforce. But still, anything would be better than nothing. Maybe.

    At any rate, it is sad to listen to some of the things that come out of politicians' mouths -- repeatedly, and with a smile.

    Perhaps in the future medical science will come up with an implantable Pinocchio gene that causes a person's nose to grow a little every time they knowingly tell a lie. Okay, there's some serious first amendment issues involved in that, but what the heck -- after the last several years, the first amendment has been pretty well eroded anyway. Besides, there's always the fifth amendment. Perhaps the most important thing is that such a law would almost certainly result in: (a) everyone bearing a striking resemblance to Jimmy Durante, or; (b) a boon in the plastic surgery industry, or; (c) a real difficulty finding anyone willing to run for public office. But if all goes well we could have nose limits rather than term limits. Lol!
    • ^
    • v
    Edwards, Clinton and Obama had some pretty detailed arguments in the debates over health care policy. I'd bet each of them could at least describe their own in detail.

    I'm not going to give McCain the benefit of the doubt here. He is still shaky on the details of the Iraq war (Sunni v. Shia) which is his supposed strong suit. There is no reason to think he gives a damn about health care policy which has never been a key component to his message.
    • ^
    • v
    Ricorun, maybe we should hook them up to lie detectors during debates and press conferences so viewers can watch the results live on screen. Although, to make sure we still have plenty of post-debate talking points, we'll let Diebold manufacture the lie detector equipment and the "liberal media" hook it up and display the results.
    • ^
    • v
    Or intelligent microphones -- on delay -- so everything coming out of their mouths is fact-checked (by multiple sources, if desired) before it gets to the speaker.

    Oh oh better yet... intelligent microphones hooked up to a "bark collar" that would deliver a zap to the candidate every time they lied!
    • ^
    • v
    I like the intelligent microphones idea, but I think the bark collar would just lead to a new breed of politicians that could withstand a lot of electricity without blinking (my money's on Mitt Romney to win that contest).

    How about we put the intelligent microphones on delay and fact check everything, and then just replace falsehoods with dead air. I'd love to see a politician on screen moving his/her lips but no sound coming out. Then make sure to run the transcripts as is:

    "My opponent's plan would (DELETED FOR INACCURACY) Americans, but mine would (DELETED FOR INACCURACY) and (DELETED FOR INACCURACY)."
    • ^
    • v
    As a practicing physician, I can assure you that the bureaucrats that run our private HMOs are FAR more restrictive and difficult to deal with than the "dreaded" Medicare bureaucrats. By placing protection of profits at the top of the priority list above patient care the private sector encourages an "arms race" mentality between the Providers and the Insurace compainies. Ask anymedical provider who has more roadblocks to prompt payment, a private HMO or MC, and the answer will uniformly be the private sector. Additionally, the amount of overhead that gets spent on processing payments for MC is minimal compared witht the overhead that goes into stalling payments from a private nsurance company.
    • ^
    • v
    Thanks, Wagner, this is an important point. My own physician, who pays someone JUST to deal with the insurance companies, would much prefer the Medicare model. He knows what's covered and for how much and the "bureaucrats" in this case are there to facilitate payment, not to avoid payment. Payment is prompt. As for public opinion on universal health care:

    Americans support universal health coverage even if it means higher taxes, according to a study by Catholic Healthcare West, California's largest not-for-profit hospital system. Researchers gathered responses from 1,771 adults nationwide. The study reported that 89 percent of respondents are concerned about the number of uninsured Americans, 72 percent agreed that the time has come for universal health care, and 63 percent agreed the time has come even if it means increasing taxes. Almost two thirds of respondents said they worry about their ability to afford necessary health care services, and more than one third said they could not afford these services.
    • ^
    • v
    I remember reading about a survey earlier this year that indicated most physicians would prefer a national health insurance plan. I agree with the idea that McCain and Obama should understand each others plans before talking about them. Of course given the amount of misinformation that is deliberately thrown around, there is no reason to expect that knowledge would necessarily be used.
    • ^
    • v
    The comment trail in particular brings up an idea I'd been batting around in my head for the last couple of weeks. Namely, it would be great to have an organization that hits back at candidates when they distort facts or directly contradict themselves with the sort of force that the campaigns themselves have. There are some organizations that do fact checking and the like, but you pretty much never see their ads or their reports unless you deliberately seek them out. However, YouTube and the like might be able to create such a channel to get "hypocrit" ads back out there with some decent exposure.

    You'd have to make it run by people of multiple parties and no party (explicitly balanced) and then create objective criteria for what needs to be challenged. There's no point in an organization that pretends both parties / candidates are equally lying unless both are actually equally lying. I bet one could at least get an amateur team together with the skills to produce such ads, market it through social networking and other tools....

    So someone should get on that, since I don't have the time.
    • ^
    • v
    Back to reality... on the subject of health care, I would like to know what model, if any, each candidate modeled their plan and their numbers on. Obviously, since we're about the only technologically advanced nation on earth without a comprehensive health care plan, there are a lot of them to choose from. Nor is it an either one or the other proposition. Right now we as a nation are spending more than any other on health care per capita, and yet we have over 40 million people (and growing) uninsured. Whatever else could be said about the situation, that's nuts.

    I still like the bark collar idea though. But that's an independent issue, lol!