Misleading Pennsylvania Voters

Summary
Clinton and Obama twisted facts unmercifully as they strained to make Pennsylvania voters believe the other is offering a flawed health care plan.

    * An anti-Obama ad by a pro-Clinton group says her plan would "help every American" and implies his would not. In fact, Obama proposes to offer subsidized coverage, just as Clinton does.

    * An Obama TV ad claimed his plan would save families more money than Clinton's, but one independent expert sees "zero credible evidence" that either plan would produce the kind of savings the campaigns claim.

    * A Clinton ad claims her plan would cost $1,700 less to cover each uninsured person. But that's based on a study that compares a Clinton-like plan with one that is different from Obama's.

    * Clinton unleashed attack phone calls accusing Obama of "impos[ing]" a "hidden tax" on families that isn't a tax at all but a cost that actually would be reduced. (Article continued below...)

In fact, the Clinton and Obama health care plans would both offer large government subsidies to aid the estimated 47 million Americans who don't have health insurance. Both are predicted to do far more to reduce the number of uninsured than anything offered by Republicans, and to cost far more as well. The biggest difference is that Clinton would impose a requirement on everybody to obtain coverage, a potentially unpopular mandate.

Obama's plan would make coverage available to all but require it only for children, not adults. These attacks and counterattacks, however, present a warped picture to Pennsylvanians.

Analysis
With a pivotal primary election looming on April 22 in Pennsylvania, both Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama attacked each other with ads about their health care plans.

The Attack: Phony "Difference"
The misleading exchange of attacks regarding health care began last week with an ad by a pro-Clinton group, the American Leadership Project. The ad said "the difference" between the candidates' proposals is that Clinton's plan would "help every American" while Obama's would "leave as many as 15 million Americans uncovered."

That's misleading. "The difference" between the two plans is actually that Clinton's plan would require all individuals to obtain coverage. In fact, Obama's plan would "help every American" too, making federally subsidized coverage available. But unlike Clinton's plan, adults would not be required to obtain coverage, and a number of experts say millions of them, perhaps 15 million or more, would not take advantage of the offered subsidies. Both plans would require that families obtain insurance for their children.

We've been over all of this any number of times before, but anyone unfamiliar with the Clinton and Obama plans might think from the way this ad is phrased that Obama's plan simply offers no federal subsidy for 15 million uninsured Americans, and that's false.