Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Politics

He says universal, but it's no guarantee

By ANGIE DROBNIC HOLAN, Times Staff Writer
Published December 8, 2007

The statement

"I do provide universal health care."

Barack Obama, Nov. 15, responding to an attack by Hillary Clinton during a debate in Las Vegas

The ruling

When it comes to health care, the two candidates have a lot in common. One of the few differences is Clinton includes a universal mandate. That means that after everything goes according to plan, individuals will be required by law to purchase insurance. Think of how people are required to buy auto insurance and you get an idea. Obama's plan includes a mandate to insure children, but it does not include a mandate for adults. That likely means not as many people will be insured, said Kenneth Thorpe, professor of health policy and management at Emory University. Obama's decision not to include a mandate is a cautious approach. If premiums don't drop enough after reforms are implemented, people will still be unable to afford insurance. Obama's argument is that if you then fine them for not buying it, you're essentially punishing the poor - and they will still be uninsured. Is it fair for Obama to call his plan "universal"? Not really. Even if you buy his argument that the plan creates the conditions to make health care universally available, nothing in it requires people to have coverage.

Romney glosses over in-state details

The statement

Mike Huckabee supported "a tuition break to the children of illegals that are here illegally when citizens are having to pay a higher rate."

Mitt Romney, in interview Dec 5

The ruling

There's no disputing Huckabee's position on the measure, but is this an accurate way to characterize it? Because they aren't citizens, the children of illegal immigrants are not eligible for in-state tuition rates for Arkansas schools, which tend to be significantly lower than the rates charged to out-of-state students. The proposed Arkansas law, similar to laws on the books in other states, would have allowed some illegal immigrants who came to this country as children to receive the same tuition as their classmates. At the Republican debate in St. Petersburg, Huckabee articulated a defense to Romney's attacks, saying the bill was intended to give resident students who were not citizens the chance to attend college. "They didn't get something better; they had to earn it," Huckabee said. Romney is right that Huckabee supported the measure. But Huckabee is right when he says illegal immigrants in his state wouldn't have gotten a better deal than citizens. Romney's description of the measure as "a tuition break" would have been true only in comparison to out-of-state students.

For more rulings on the candidates' statements, go to Politifact.com

Angie Drobnic Holan, Times staff writer

[Last modified December 8, 2007, 01:18:56]