Commonwealth Votes Early ― for Obama
After noting that its own plan (cost = $163 billion in 2008) "is similar to Obama's proposal," the Commonwealth Fund has done a side-by-side of the McCain and Obama health plans….and…..(are you ready?)….it likes Obama's better. The report:
- Presents no new research, but instead cuts and pastes from other studies.
- Cherry picks the evidence – choosing to report only on what's good for Obama and bad for McCain, including ignoring a University of Minnesota economists' finding that the McCain plan would cut the number of uninsured in half.
- Neglects to say that the Obama plan is completely pie-in-the-sky, with virtually no funding source now that Obama has pledged a maximum tax rate of 20% on capital gains and dividends and no payroll tax on the rich for the next decade.
- Neglects to say that the McCain plan is designed to be revenue neutral over 10 years (no need to raise taxes) but will probably fall short if it cuts the number of uninsured in half.
Makes you wonder if this is how they approach the evidence on all their “studies”? Maybe they routinely only pay attention to the evidence that “fits.”
What Commonwealth put out is a campaign document. Doesn’t this violate campaign finance laws? Or how about the tax laws governing charitable institutions?
I am really surprised at how biased and partisan the Commonwealth Fund is.
Someone should send your blog post to the national news media.
They always treat Commonwealth as though they are an objective research organization.
This is the quote of the day from American Health Line:
Obama’s health reform plan, which relied on new taxes, is dead as a doornail unless he is willing to push the budget deficit into Argentinean territory.
— Jeff Goldsmith, president of Health Futures, on the likelihood of broad health care reforms next year