In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth is Revolutionary.
Sunday, January 23, 2022

As usual, a debate short of facts

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Democratic presidential candidates, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, left, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, right, participate in the NBC, YouTube Democratic presidential debate at the Gaillard Center, Sunday, Jan. 17, 2016, in Charleston, S.C. (AP Photo/Stephen Morton)
Democratic presidential candidates, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, left, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, right, participate in the NBC, YouTube Democratic presidential debate in Charleston, S.C. (AP Photo/Stephen Morton)

Bernie Sanders airbrushed the complexities of trying to overhaul health care all over again and Hillary Clinton offered a selective reading of her rival’s record on gun control in the latest Democratic presidential debate.

A look at some of their claims and how they compare with the facts:

CLINTON on Sanders’ proposal for a taxpayer-paid health care system: “I don’t want to see us start over again with a contentious debate.”

SANDERS: “We’re not going to tear up the Affordable Care Act,” but build on it.

THE FACTS: As Clinton suggests, Sanders’ plan would indeed mean a radical change in direction — one that makes the government the payer of health care for everyone, not just for the elderly or the poorest Americans or members of the military.

Whether that means building on President Barack Obama’s health care law or ripping it up may be a semantic argument. But at the core, Sanders would switch the country away from a private health insurance system. Employees, employers and others would pay higher taxes in return for health care with no premiums or deductibles, a striking departure from the subsidies and conditions that Obama’s law has overlaid on the existing system.

Clinton did not exaggerate in describing the huge political battle that it took just to achieve “Obamacare” and the inability to sell Congress on a taxpayer-paid system even when Democrats were in control. (She ran into her own buzz saw on the issue when she proposed an overhaul of health care as first lady under her husband’s administration.)

Clinton’s team and her supporters have persisted in a dubious, if not bogus, argument that Sanders would wreck Medicare and other health-care entitlements with his proposed overhaul. It would do so only in the course of establishing a health care system in which traditional Medicare, Medicaid and more would no longer be needed — because the government would be insuring everyone.

She made that argument herself in an earlier debate but did not repeat it Sunday night.


CLINTON on effects of Obama’s health care law: “We now have driven costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years.”

THE FACTS: Not so. Health care spending is far higher than a half century ago. What she must have meant is that the rate of growth of health care spending year to year is lower than it’s been in 50 years — closer to the truth, but still not right.

The government reported in December that health care spending in 2014 grew at the fastest pace since Obama took office, driven by expanded coverage under his law and rising drug prices. Not only that, but health care spending grew faster than the economy as a whole, reaching 17.5 percent of GDP. That means health care was claiming a growing share of national resources.

This was after five years of historically low growth in health spending — the decline Clinton was trying to address. But the lull in health care inflation was attributed in large measure to the recession that Obama inherited and its aftermath, not his law. And part of the reason health spending increased after that was because of the economic recovery.


SANDERS: “I have a D-minus voting record from the NRA.” ”I have supported from Day 1 an instant background check,” as well as a ban on assault-type weapons.

CLINTON: “He voted against the Brady bill five times,” as well as for allowing guns in national parks and for shielding the gun industry from lawsuits.

THE FACTS: Both are singling out aspects of Sanders’ record that suit them, but that record is nuanced. Sanders indeed supported an instant background check, and at certain points a three-day waiting period. But he opposed longer waiting periods — of five or seven days — which gun control advocates see as a more effective way to flag people who should not be getting a gun.

Clinton is right that he opposed various versions of the Brady bill with longer waiting periods. But his poor marks from the NRA reflect a record that does lean toward stronger gun controls. Sanders now says he would support exposing gun makers to lawsuits.


CLINTON: “One out of three African-American men may well end up going to prison. That’s the statistic.”

THE FACTS: That’s a stale statistic, and Clinton isn’t the only person to use it. Sanders has said nearly the same thing. Both drew on 13-year-old data that stated this as a projection, not a fact.

A 2003 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics said, “About 1 in 3 black males, 1 in 6 Hispanic males, and 1 in 17 white males are expected to go to prison during their lifetime, if current incarceration rates remain unchanged.” But it went on to say that at the time, 16.6 percent of adult black males had actually ever gone to prison, or 1 in 6. The incarceration rate for black men has gone down since then, according to the Sentencing Project.


Associated Press writers Christopher S. Rugaber, Eric Tucker and Jesse Holland contributed to this report.


Copyright © 2016 Capitol Hill Blue

Copyright  © 2016 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

1 thought on “As usual, a debate short of facts”

  1. Taxpayer-paid health care would indeed be cheaper. And simpler, imho.

    See, I actually hoped the ACA would get voted down, because it’s a giant giveaway to insurance companies. If you can get rid of those well-dressed middlemen, how can you not wind up saving money? Those suits and ties and offices and actuaries who decide just what to charge you don’t come for free, and every single one of them is taking a rakeoff.

    I also don’t believe gun manufacturers should be held liable for crimes committed with their guns. Is Ford liable for every street racer in a Mustang? Is Boeing liable for every pilot error in a 747? Is Weetabix liable for every breakfast cereal choking incide… (lemme get back to you on this one…)

    Is Coke liable for obesity? Is Anheuser-Busch liable for alcoholism? I can have a problem with their advertising, but no. People remain responsible for their own actions.

    Civil suit lawyers hate this, of course, because the guy who took his target-shooting Glock and used to it shoot his neighbor doesn’t have any money, while the company that built it does.

    I think they can go jump in something. The “something horrible happened, I should be able to sue someone who has lots of money” lawsuit lottery is a fiction invented by civil suit lawyers, and like most – Only the lawyers really win.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: