SPONSORED BY:
FACTCHECK.ORG

Obama’s Health Care Speech

We fact-check the president's address to Congress and the nation.

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Summary
President Obama's prime-time address to Congress and the nation on health care prompted a Republican congressman to shout "you lie!" Did he? Here's what we've found:

  • Obama was correct when he said his plan wouldn't insure illegal immigrants; the House bill expressly forbids giving subsidies to those who are in the country illegally. Conservative critics complain that the bill lacks an enforcement mechanism, but that hardly makes the president a liar.
  • The president said "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." But the House bill would permit a "public option" to cover all abortions, and would also permit federal subsidies to be used to purchase private insurance that covers all abortions, a point that raises objections from anti-abortion groups. That's true despite a technical ban on use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion coverage.
  • The president repeated his promise that his plan won't add "one dime" to the federal deficit. But legislation offered so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  • The president overstated the degree of concentration in the insurance industry. He said that in 34 states the "insurance market" is controlled by five or fewer companies, but that's true only of insurance bought by small groups, not the entire "insurance market."
  • Obama said his plan won't "require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have." It's true that there's no requirement, but experts say the legislation could induce employers to switch coverage for millions of workers.

Analysis
The president addressed a joint session of Congress Sept. 9, and the event was televised nationally.

Illegal Immigrants
Obama said that his proposal would not cover illegal immigrants, a remark that prompted Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina to shout "You lie!"

Obama: There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.

The president is correct: The House bill contains a section (Sec. 246) titled "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS," which states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."

However, conservative critics object to a lack of specific enforcement measures in the bill. They argue that the lack of a specific verification mechanism constitutes a loophole that would allow illegal immigrants to get benefits despite the legal prohibition. Republican Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada proposed an amendment to the bill that would have required the use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to check the citizenship of anyone applying for federal coverage or affordability credits. SAVE is the program used by Medicaid and similar entitlement programs. That amendment was voted down along party lines by the House Ways and Means Committee.

Republicans have a point here: More could be done to enforce the ban. But it's worth remembering that, as a spokesperson for the American Immigration Lawyers Association told us, attempting to get a health care credit would have legal repercussions. "Making a fraudulent claim to an entitlement program when you're not actually entitled to it would have serious consequences for any person," the spokesperson told us, "but especially if it's considered a false claim to citizenship, that would have serious immigration consequences that could ultimately lead to deportation." And Rep. Wilson certainly was out of bounds to call the president's statement a "lie." He later issued a statement apologizing for his "inappropriate and regrettable" comments.

Abortion
The president insisted that no federal money would pay for abortions:

Obama: [U]nder our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.

The truth of that depends on what is meant by "federal dollars." Actually, as we've written before, under Democratic legislation now before Congress, the "public option" would cover abortions in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life of the mother and could cover all abortions if the administration chooses, and as Obama once promised. Private insurance plans purchased with the help of federal subsidies to low- and moderate-income workers also could cover all abortions, as many, if not most, private plans do today.

Under an amendment adopted by a House committee, abortions would be paid for by the "public option" only with money collected from policyholders in the form of premiums, not with money collected from taxpayers. But is money collected by the government and paid out to abortion providers by the government "federal dollars"? The anti-abortion side says yes. And the same goes for federal subsidies given to low- and moderate-income persons to help them buy insurance. If they use those dollars to buy private policies that cover all abortions, does that mean "federal dollars" go to fund abortions? Again, abortion foes say yes.

The advocates of abortion rights argue otherwise. They say the House bill would be an extension of longstanding policy under the Hyde amendment, which forbids use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund Medicaid abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother's life, but also allows states to use their own Medicaid money to fund other abortions (and 17 of them do). In any case, the matter is not so simple or clear as the president would like it to seem.

Deficit-Neutral
The president repeated his promise to fully pay for the plan.

Obama: I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Visions of a Decade
Visions of a Decade

From 2000-2009, one photo per month.

The Failure of Copenhagen
The Failure of Copenhagen

Why there could be a silver lining in a failed climate treaty.

Sex Scandals of the 2000s
Sex Scandals of the 2000s

From John Edwards to Mark Sanford, the decade's memorable affairs.

118 Days in Hell
118 Days in Hell

A NEWSWEEK journalist recounts his captivity in Iran.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: barney14 @ 09/29/2009 10:33:33 PM

    I have been following the debate on health care reform and although the bill is not perfect it would be a tragedy if voted down. I agree with the President that the time is NOW for healthcare reform and I believe the public option is essential , if it is going to have a real impact on improving the lives of American citizens. All our elected officials Rebublican and Democrat work for us, they should be working to make our lives better not fighting among themselves. All the name calling and ridiculous stories put out to frighten and influence people away from the real issues has to stop. .The President has a lot on his plate and he is working to make a positive difference in our lives. He should be applauded and respected The Republicans should stop saying NO to everything when they have no real plan of their own ,except to maintain the standard of living for the top 1%

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 09/28/2009 3:53:48 PM

    I was a registered Republican for many years and hadn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate between JFK and Gore. I really didn't identify with Al Gore but actually feared George W. Bush's drastic sociopathic personality. While I believe the Republican philosophies that 'the least amount of government is the best government' and that 'government should only do for the people that which they can't do for themselves', I have even stronger convictions supporting the necessity for honesty and that government has a real responsibility to do for the people that which they can't do for themselves. The Republican Party has been steadily moving away from those last two values, possibly starting with Nixon and definitely increased with Reagan's success and then culminated in Bush-Cheney being the worst presidency ever. Even now there can be no doubt that there is a large segment of the Republican Party that, as was the case with Bush-Cheney, are arrogantly and stubbornly focused on benefiting Special Interests and a select few, who use their power, influence and wealth to provide overt and covert support, substantial contributions and promises for after office compensation, all while the majority (95+%) are given only apathy, the costs and an abundance of subterfuge. All of the dire circumstances we are currently enduring can easily be seen as naturally progressing from this irresponsible stance. I for one would really like to see the return of the 'grand ole party' with their moderately conservative focus on benefiting the people, honestly all of the people, but it seems obvious that the only way that will ever happen is for the people to reject what they have become. If the people can literally resist the aggressive and deceptive appeals to their biases, prejudices and emotions, used to manipulate them, and instead be objective and rational in refusing to support what amounts to 'just cutting off our nose to spite your face', then likely the Republicans will have to abandon their loyalty to the few and once again conscientiously support the interests of the many. One can only hope!

  • Posted By: NewsWkDickG @ 09/26/2009 5:03:42 PM

    I am against run-away big government as much as anyone but when having to choose between big government and accepting government being focused on benefiting only Special Interests and a select few, history has clearly shown that the majority (95+%) loose far more when the focus is on benefiting the few. When the voters become deceptively led by appeals to their biases, the scare tactics aimed at their prejudices and / or the subterfuge designed to excite their emotions, with the result being that they then choose to support placating and patronizing the interests of the influential, powerful and wealthy few, then the majority looses big time (reference 2000 - 2008). Currently we actually need some liberal efforts to regain balance after the drastic abuses that have allowed financial disaster with excessive deregulation, crumbling infrastructure with irresponsible neglect, unchecked Global Warming with the dishonest favoring of business interests, lost jobs and taxes with the concentration on what big businesses want, degraded quality of education and on and on always with the total focus having been on placating and patronizing the few. Even taxes are relative as those struggling to get ahead, are out of work or are worried about loosing their jobs will attest; again only the few who control the big money would object to a modest tax increase in a resulting strong economy. It isn't pure and simple nor is it without imperfections (needing fine tuning*) but it is really an easy decision when one can be truly objective and rational, refusing to be manipulated like sheep, and just determine where the quality and gain is and also recognizing when apathy, the costs and the abundance of subterfuge is all that is intended to be given to the majority. It really is a 'no brainier' after putting aside the biases, prejudices and emotions used to manipulate and then avoiding self-inflected negatives incurred when falling prey to the manipulation.
    * When programs are fined tuned with responsible bipartisanship they benefit everyone; when they are killed with self-serving obstructionism they benefit only the few.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now
 

A new ad goes too far when it says Medicare will be "bankrupt" in eight years.