Noted in passing, a note from NRO’s Nina Owcharenko, in which we find:

This weekend President Obama dedicated his weekly address to defending Congress’s plans for an overhaul of the nation’s health-care system.

He argued, “Once you’ve seen enough ads and heard enough people yelling on TV you might begin to wonder whether there’s a grain of truth to what they are saying.”

Here’s the truth, brand-new analysis (pdf) from The Heritage Foundation — conducted by The Lewin Group — shows that the public-plan component within the House Democrats’ health reform bill is in conflict with how the Congress and the President are selling their reform plan.

“If you like your health plan, you can keep it, the only thing that will change is that you’ll pay less.” Remember that? Well, according to the new Lewin study:

* Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and as a consequence about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.

* About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

* Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

So, is there truth in the way the President and Congress are advertising their plans?

Obviously, the answer is a resounding “no”. It seems to me a mark of just how weak Obama considers his plan to be that he can’t use the truth in arguing for it.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

One Response to “The Dishonesty Dripping From the White House”

  1. Washington is lying about the constituency called uninsured. I did a column yesterday about the makeup of that group, using figures based on an EPI study that assessed data from information in 2006 from the US Census dept. Among those findings:

    the uninsured are more likely to be male, under the age of 35, much more likely to be unmarried and have no children. The uninsured are almost 4 times as likely to be high school dropouts, more than 3 times as likely to be Hispanic, and close to 4 times as likely to be foreign-born non-citizens. Their incomes are substantially lower and a larger percentage never worked during the year or worked only part of the year.

    I believe it is unconstitutional to use taxpayer funds to provide insurance in the US to “foreign-born non-citizens.” I hope a lawsuit will be filed.

    best, Kay B. Day