* I wondered about this quote as well…
If you heard Barack Obama’s Iowa victory speech, you might conclude Illinois has universal health care.
“I’ll be a president who finally makes health care affordable and available to every single American, the same way I expanded health care in Illinois, by bringing Democrats and Republicans together to get the job done,” the Chicago Democrat said Thursday.
But Illinois doesn’t have universal health care.
He didn’t say he made health care “universal,” only that he “expanded” it in Illinois. Still, if you didn’t pay close attention you may have missed that distinction.
More from the piece…
“He has united Democrats and Republicans to expand health care to over 150,000 Illinois residents,” said campaign spokesman Ben LeBolt.
LeBolt said Obama helped expand Family Care that covers parents and their children by raising income levels so more would qualify. And he pointed to Obama being the chief sponsor of the Health Care Justice Act, which created a commission charged with making suggestions for how to improve and expand coverage.
* Here’s some more background on the bill from Politifact, which took a look at Obama’s claim that he had added more than 150,000 people to the health insurance rolls last September….
The statement is based on a 2003 law Obama sponsored when he was an Illinois state senator. His bill expanded income eligibility for KidCare and FamilyCare, the state health insurance programs for low-income families. Gov. Ron Blagojevich, a Democrat, signed the bill on July 1, 2003.
Obama’s bill worked by increasing the amount of money a family could earn and still qualify for health insurance. Before Obama’s bill, families had to make less than 185 percent of the federal poverty line; after Obama’s bill, they had to make less than 200 percent. In practice, this meant that before Obama’s bill, a family of three couldn’t make more than $28,236 to qualify. After Obama’s bill they could make up to $30,516 and still qualify.
After the new law passed, both programs saw sizable increases in enrollment. Children’s enrollment increased by 55,421 between 2003 and 2005, according to a study from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Adult enrollment increased by 100,458 between 2003 and 2006. That comes to a total of 155,879. So after Obama’s legislation passed, more than 150,000 people did get health insurance.
However…
The numbers for new enrollees don’t distinguish between those who would have qualified without Obama’s legislation, and those who needed his legislation to be able to join.
* Ironically, the state commission set up by an Obama bill to look at how to provide universal health care included this provision…
The proposal’s key feature is an individual mandate, under which the state would require all residents to obtain health coverage. It also would force employers to provide health coverage to their workers or pay into a state fund–an idea known as “pay or play.”
Candidate Obama has rejected Sen. Hillary Clinton’s proposal for individual mandates. Clinton has repeatedly slammed Obama for this omission.
* Meanwhile, the latest aggregate polling data from Pollster.com shows Obama with a large lead over Clinton in New Hampshire. Note the spike…
- Wacker Drive - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 10:07 am:
That’s the media for ya!
- Anon from BB - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 10:10 am:
Gov. Ron. Heh.
- Ghost - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 10:15 am:
Obama has demonstarted the ability to get bi partisan support to get bills passed. The best way to pass legisaltion is to invoke compromise. We may not get the ideal laws proposed by partisanship, but those ideals tend to never survive to make it into law. So the ability to compromise and get some refomr passed tends to benefit us much more then idealogoies that are not tenable.
Clinton had a health care plan she wanted when the em;s controlled the House, Senate and presidenncy and could not get it passed. her idea that you ramrod reform into being inspite of the republicans, and at times her own party, is why she is ineffective. Clinton is a lot like Blago, she would rather talk about ideals and call her opponents name then get the job done.
Obama gets the job done. Any politician who works with all side to reach compromise’s is the very definition of a leader, the leadership we are lacking under blagon, and we will be lacking under Clinton.
Look at their speeches from iowa, there were a lot of independent voters and a few repubs who chose to caucus with the dems. Hillary spoke about what a great day it was for Dems…pretty much ignoring that a lot of the caucus goers were independents and a few repubs, and in some ways slighting them. Obama talked about how the tunrout was a great day for Americans, and includinded his thanks to cover dems, independents and repubs. This is the difference between them. Hillary sees only dems and works only to hurl names at the repubs. Obama works with everyone.
- Bill Baar - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 10:21 am:
If we judge a successful presidency as one where the incumbundent get’s re elected for a second term, then the only successful Democrat during my lifetime has been Bill Clinton.
If HRC’s lack of popularity reflects a repudiation of those years (and I’m surprized what some I read have said), then I think Democrats are going to have to pay hard attention to what change really means.
They’re turing their backs on one of their few successes.
- Doug Dobmeyer - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 10:23 am:
It’s now Barack’s to lose!! He may be the first Prz from Illinois in a long time - so go for it!
Doug Dobmeyer
- Northside Bunker - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 10:46 am:
Abraham Lincoln would be proud, but Barack needs to distance himself totally from Governor Blagojevich and anything Illinois.
Barack shouldn’t let Governor Blagojevich or anyone from his administration near him.
Governor Blagojevich is radioactive!
- all kids - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 10:54 am:
My family is on All Kids. We can’t find doctors who will accept it because the State doesn’t pay the bills. All Kids is a joke. As soon as I can get off it we will.
- anon - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 10:56 am:
“Obama works with everyone.” Including Tony Rezko?
- Captain America - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 11:06 am:
Hillary Clinotn is no Bill Clinton, despite her many sterling qualities.
She has extemely high negatives - her defeat in Iowa, her impending defeat in New Hampshire, and her eventual defeat in South Carolina will decisively establish that she does not have what it takes to build a winning coaliton in November. Although HC appeals to many Democrats, she is not an attractive candidate to independents and disaffected Republicans.
Presumably the Democrat establishement will realize that nominating qualified, but “unlikeable” candidates like Gore,Kerry and Hillary Clinton, is not a sound strategy for national electoral success.
- GEB123 - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 11:51 am:
I believe Hillary Clinton is the best qualifed to be president. I think experience and record do matter. I agree that compromise is required to get things done, but embellishing the record is probably not neither is voting present no matter what the strategy or who proposes it. There is an obligation to the voters that I think our representatives should keep.
In addition I think that setting up some artificial conflict between young and old will not serve us well nor is it an example of good organizing or coalition building.
As for change and likeability, I remember when we thought that electing President Carter would be a great change. He was a great guy and still is. We also elected the guy everyone wanted to have a beer with and look how that turned out. Neither worked so I’m not sure we should go down the change path again either. How about we try “qualified?” I’ll stick with the qualified one: Hillary Clinton.
- plutocrat03 - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 11:58 am:
How long can Sen. Obama talk about being an agent of change when he was a first class passenger on the Daley/Gov. Elvis gravy train. Much of is wealth and current financial comfort started with his appointment to the Illinois legislature. (insert special treatment here)
His advisors come from the Chicago Democratic machine, heck Bill Daley is one of his senior advisors.
His is without question a consummate politician. He is also a fresh front man for one of the oldest urban political machines in the country.
It was an embarrassment to the electronic press when Mary Ann Ahern and her fellow ‘newsperson’ were gushing about the Iowa victory. It is wonderful thing to celebrate a victory, but I thought that newspeople were supposed to at least look like they are not on anyone’s side.
How long will the media let the charade of being an outsider continue. Is it a deliberate technique to build him up to knock him down?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 11:58 am:
===his appointment to the Illinois legislature===
Huh?
- Bill Baar - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 12:02 pm:
Presumably the Democrat establishement will realize that nominating qualified, but “unlikeable” candidates like Gore,Kerry and Hillary Clinton, is not a sound strategy for national electoral success.
Gore LIEBERMN won the popular vote. I’d argue while not winnerw they were no mistake for a ticket.
Kerry was chose because of his War record without a full recollection of those memories. He was a mistake.
HRC’s slide is going to be an interesting thing to reflect on it is seems as complete as dramatic as drudge would have us beleive: TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGNS…
Nick Cohen wrote a few years ago in the New Statesman,
…the liberal left has been corrupted by defeat and doesn’t know much about anything these days. Marxist-Leninism is so deep in the dustbin of history, it is composting, while social democracy is everywhere on the defensive. Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Christian fundamentalism are beating it in the struggle for working-class and peasant minds. An invigorated capitalism is threatening its European strongholds. There’s an awful realisation that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton may be as good as it gets. The temptation in times of defeat is to believe in everything rather than nothing…
Obama’s challange is going to be to show the Liberal-Left it can be better than Bill Clinton while still getting enough Americans to vote for him.
I think that’ll be real challange once Obama starts fleshing out what he means to Change
- Macbeth - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 12:11 pm:
So long as Obama doesn’t pull a Blagojevich when elected, I’m happy to give him my vote.
I’ll also be happy to see Blagojevich exit stage left — either by choice or by “the hook” — and allow the state to rebuild its political image. Obama might go a long way to giving Illinois this much-needed image lift.
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 12:12 pm:
Re. his association with Daley & Blago, what else was he supposed to do? Besides, his campaign is about working with everyone, not picking and choosing.
Part of the current problem in Illinois is recalcitrance. “Politician A” won’t work with “Politician M” because he doesn’t like like. It’s the “my way or the highway” mentality that Obama is proposing to put aside.
A better line of criticism would be to trot out the people Sen. Obama refuses to work with.
- Anonymous45 - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 12:13 pm:
Bill Baar’s comments echo my own…Barack hasn’t done anything in the US Senate, has no Washington clout, gives a great speech, gets a pass from the media…wake up folks, the republicans will savor and ultimately trounce him and win again in ‘08…
- plutocrat03 - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 12:17 pm:
To GEB 123
I agree that qualifications do matter. However HRC has finished a but a single senatorial term in national office. Her experience is only marginally greater than BO’s (3 years) or JE’s (6 years).
Of the remaining Democratic candidates Richardson has by far the most impressive and effective record. He has done a credible job as a Governor, served in Congress, was a Cabinet member and has been involved in a number of diplomatic missions.
So if experience matters, the Dems have one choice. Otherwise there are 3 rookies to choose from.
The media however won’t give Bill Richardson the time of day and the national polls show that.
- plutocrat03 - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 12:27 pm:
Oops my bad. I thought he was appointed to the Illinois Senate after his loss to Bobby Rush (U.S. Representative) in ‘99
He actually ran and won for his office in the Senate in ‘97
Sorry, my bad
- YouNeverSawMe - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 12:52 pm:
GHOST:
- Ghost - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 1:07 pm:
YES:?
I still find it to be great Iorny that Bush attacked Bill Clinton based upon his complete lack of experience….and Clinton one. So Clinton thought the strategy that didn’t work against Bill would be successful elsewhere?
After all look at Hillaries experience….she vacationed in lots of foreign countries. Tax payers covered expense for her to do so. How can Obama compete with her vacation expereince? and look at her leadership examples…when she hadd access to dem controlled everything, she succeeded in passing nothing. But then again here is a list of her foriegn policy to date: She would consider nuking a sovereign country (Pakistan) to get Sadam Hussein. Musharaff leads a country with nukes and provides us our best support in the area. When Bhutto was assignated Hillary attacked and undermined Musharaff at a time when his country was in turmoil. Yep great foreign policy move. Lets help put strict followers of Islama over the nukes in Pakistan…you go girl.
Then there is the list of foriegn crisis she has successfully handled (0). So other then getting tax payer funded vactions, she has no real experience. But she is part of the entrenched establishment. She offers change, that is a change in her title, but nothing else. She became a health care reformer years and years later during her canidacy, but apparently couldn’t be botherd to do much during her term as senator. Yep she has the verbage and lack of action she complains about. Then again, she loves to call repubs names, and what better way to reach compormise on important issues then finger pointing and name calling, worked for Blago so should work for the Hill.
- Squideshi - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 1:30 pm:
Tell Obama that what we want is SINGLE-PAYOR universal healthcare–not some expansion of the already failing private, for-profit, system of corporate insurance that we have today.
- Snidely Whiplash - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 1:43 pm:
That was such a minor bill that it’s laughable for him to be claiming that he “expanded health care in Illinois.” Give me a break.
Funnier, Rich, let’s look into the full sentence a little more closely. He said he’d “make health care affordable and available to every single American, the same way I expanded health care in Illinois”. The clear intent was for the listener to believe that he had made health care affordable and available to every single Illinoisian. By using confusing language, he technically only claims to have expanded it, but intends to mislead the listener into believing the former.
So, he managed to jack up the minimum from 185% to 200% of poverty. Can we expect similar small potatoes of him if he’s elected president?
The issue isn’t really health care for the poor. The poor have always had access to it, in form or another, even if it meant some pretty inconvenient travel and waiting time. I’d like to know what he proposes to do about MIDDLE CLASS health care availability. Those whose employers don’t offer it, or own small businesses, simply cannot afford health insurance unless they make at least $100k per year with a spouse and children. Who makes that these days?
I think Obama’s aiming at another one of those schemes that benefit insurance companies more than people. Then again, it’s really hard to say, since he never gives any REAL detail on any of his so-called “plans.”
The special interests will own Obama. I had a real laugh when another candidate retorted to Obama’s claims that he would take power away from special interests with the fact that the chair of Obama’s N.H. campaign is a LOBBYIST. He’ll say anything people want to hear in order to win.
- Anonymous45 - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 2:20 pm:
Ghost: you are drinking the koolaid!
Didn’t Obama say he was looking forward to appointing folks like Hillary (and other Dems with experience in DC) to Cabinet positions should he win? Please tell me how this will bring about C-H-A-N-G-E….
- Sick Of It! - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 5:21 pm:
I find it a bit scary the Obama is reminding me a lot of Blago: He is a young charismatic guy who can really work a crowd. He pretty much came out of nowhere and keeps stressing he isnt an insider and if elected he will bring change. Sound familiar anyone?
- A Citizen - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 7:27 pm:
Obama’s claim on helping provide healthcare in Illinois is so very weak in its reality that using it as a barometer of his other “accomplishments” is very damning indeed! He has lessened his credibility drastically with me and I am sure with other thinking citizens. I expect more and better from him . . . politically cute doesn’t provide the “change” he pretends to be promising. Very disappointing - and such a minor comment that yet reveals so much. Just pathetic and disillusioning.
- Anonymous - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 8:07 pm:
Obama got elected with the support of the anti-war groups, then turned his back on them when he got to D.C.. He is for No Child Left Behind (if you know any teachers, ask them about NCLB), for the death penalty and against the Endangered Species Act. Yes, he is a breath of fresh air and if comes down to Obama vs Huckabee (and doesn’t that show you how polarized the U.S. is), I’m voting for Obama. However, I don’t see the south or Dick Cheney country, the Rocky Mt. states, voting for Obama. I could be wrong, but Obama may be another McGovern.
- Emily Booth - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 8:08 pm:
Sorry — the above post is me.
- Bill Baar - Monday, Jan 7, 08 @ 9:27 pm:
I could be wrong, but Obama may be another McGovern.
Yeah, I think the problem with early primaries is there is plenty of time for the chrisma to wear thin, he looks like McGovern and the feeling is draft Gore… that will be a very tough time for Democrats.