Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Rick Scott and rising insurance premiums under ObamaCare

PolitiFact regularly engages in prodigious spin on behalf of the health care reform bill.  The following case featuring Gov. Rick Scott of Florida and PolitFact's state operation in Florida serves as just one example among many.

The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Katie Sanders:  writer, researcher
Angie Drobnic Holan:  editor


Analysis:

PolitiFact quotes Rick Scott:

"(W)e know the Congressional Budget Office said if you’re going to buy your own policy with these exchanges you’ll be paying 10 percent more, or a family will. So about $2,100 more for a family. So you’re going to pay more with these exchanges."

PolitiFact finds that Scott spoke accurately:

As Scott said, CBO expected the average premium per person in new individual policies would rise 10 percent to 13 percent in 2016 compared with where it was before the law took effect.

In this market, average premiums per policy in this market would be about $5,800 for single policies (a $300 increase) and $15,200 for families (a $2,100 increase -- just like Scott said), according to CBO (pages 5 and 6).

If only the report ended there.

The third paragraph hints at significant caveats, especially since we note from the graphic at the top of the story that Scott receives a "Mostly False" rating.  Before we move on, however, note that Scott used the conservative end of the CBO estimate to back his statement.  He used 10 percent instead of 13 percent.  Sometimes PolitiFact uses such factors to award extra credit.  Apparently not this time.

Now for some mighty PolitiFact spin.

PolitiFact explains that using an "apples to apples" comparison in the same CBO report leads to the CBO's conclusion that the provisions of the PPACA lead to a net savings of 7 to 10 percent on the average premium.  The "apples to apples" comparison shows that the exchange system does provide some features that reduce insurance premiums.  The CBO report estimates that for equivalent plans the exchange would save 7-10 percent compared to current law.  Of course the exchanges require much higher levels of insurance, than the current average, and this spikes the cost of premiums.

The CBO's estimate of  the ACA's effect on nongroup insurance premiums

The CBO's chart makes clear that the increase in premiums stems from increases in insurance coverage.  Curiously, PolitiFact calls this a benefit:

People will pay more, but it will be for a bigger swath of benefits. The law requires insurance companies to offer an "essential health benefits" package that would mirror benefits people get through employer plans.

People receive benefits from insurance when their insurance pays for something.  A healthy person who goes to the doctor once per year for 10 years regardless of insurance coverage is not receiving any additional benefit from insurance coverage.  The person is paying much more for the same benefits.

PolitiFact actually refers to coverage when it refers to benefits.  The expanded scope of health coverage primarily enables the government to expand the pool of people paying for insurance so that healthy people who do not have an immediate need of insurance will help pay the benefits of others--a much wider swath of benefits.  In short, overall medical costs go way up while the premium costs per individual go down.  This from a bill that was sold as a means of controlling rising medical costs.  It doesn't do much at all to control costs.  Instead, it coerces the people into paying for higher overall costs.  And the bill contains measures that shift  costs from those who present the biggest risk to those with thicker wallets.

Where does that leave us on this fact check?  PolitiFact charges Scott with leaving things out, and we'll address those charges individually.

Many (CBO estimates 57 percent) seeking nongroup insurance through state exchanges would receive subsidies.

Scott specifically referred to persons paying for their own insurance through the exchanges, which implicitly acknowledges subsidies.  The availability of subsidies through the exchanges should be common knowledge.  It's hard to see why PolitiFact should fault Scott for this omission, especially when the subsidies drive overall costs up instead of bringing them down.  Insurance subsidies represent progressive partial free riding.

Though the insured pay more, they receive a "bigger swath of benefits"

PolitiFact tries to make this seem like a huge benefit, but it's kind of like getting an expensive Buick when all you really need is a Kia.  There's no more Kia.  The Buick is the new entry-level automobile.  And maybe the Buick has leather upholstery, but then again maybe you're a vegan (celibates paying for contraception and pregnancy insurance).  Again,. there's no reason why Scott should need to provide this detail.  He's giving reasons why he's not setting up an exchange.  His objections have to do with overall cost and the priorities of Floridians.  When everyone's driving a Buick, people are paying more for transportation even if Buick drops its prices down to wholesale.

Exchanges do help lower costs in an "apples to apples" comparison

To the extent that Gov. Scott's statement suggests that exchanges do nothing to encourage cost reductions, PolitiFact has a point.  Buick dealers can compete against each other to provide the lowest-cost Buick and that competition does have an effect, not to mention economies of scale.  But Scott emphasizes overall health care costs, so he is justified in keeping the emphasis on the overall increase in premiums.

"People purchasing their own health insurance comprise less than one-fifth of the market"

People who are not purchasing their own health insurance are not purchasing it through an exchange, so this point is irrelevant.  There's no reason for Scott to mention it, since he's giving reasons for not setting up a state exchange.  In fact, the smaller the share of the market, arguably the greater justification Scott has for not setting up an exchange.

PolitiFact routinely asserts that Scott leaves out important information.  PolitiFact routinely leaves out the justification for calling the information important.  Scott's omissions were of borderline relevance at most.

PolitiFact:

Scott said that the Congressional Budget Office said people would pay 10 percent more for policies on the exchange, "so about $2,100 more for a family." What he doesn’t say is that these policies will have to offer comprehensive coverage. So people will pay more, but they’re also get more benefits. Additionally, the federal government will offer subsidies to many of these people to cut the cost.

It’s also important to remember the CBO’s "apples-to-apples" comparison. According to the agency, people in the individual market will actually pay less for the required amount of benefits under the Affordable Care Act than they would for those same benefits under old policies.

We rate Scott’s statement Mostly False.

Note that while Scott emphasized overall medical costs to the state of Florida and its people, PolitiFact's objections all center around costs to the individual.  PolitiFact ignored Scott's central point and graded him according to a standard that failed to respect the context of his remarks.

The "Truth-O-Meter" ruling, as is so often the case, represents an absurdity.  PolitiFact defines "Mostly False" as a statement that "contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression."  But Scott's statement does not simply contain an element of truth.  His statement is perfectly accurate and even takes the lower premium increase estimate from the CBO report.  None of PolitiFact's caveats alter the impression that a family paying for its own insurance faces a 10 percent hike, unless it shows that the CBO said the hike might end up at 13 percent instead.

This case points up again that despite PolitiFact's continued assertions that "words matter" it makes a great big exception for itself when it comes to defining the "Truth-O-Meter" grades.

Scott's statements were more truthful than PolitiFact's, using the same measure.


The grades:

Katie Sanders:  F
Angie Drobnic Holan:  F

This story reads like a PPACA apologetic, not like a fact check.  The PolitiFact team substituted its own point for Gov. Scott's point and graded Scott according to the result.  That's a wrong approach for fact checking, as PolitiFact admits in its statement of principles:

Context matters -- We examine the claim in the full context, the comments made before and after it, the question that prompted it, and the point the person was trying to make.

PolitiFact may think it grand that everyone in the exchange gets a good deal on a Buick, but that doesn't undermine Scott's point that getting everyone a Buick imposes a heavy burden in terms of cost.

Buick.com

Sink concedes, offers advice

I don't think I'd call the speech or her subsequent interaction with the press gracious:



Sink's advice to Scott, to focus on achieving unity with those who did not support him, provides a bit of a contrast with President Obama's philosophy of rule expressed not long after he took office:

"I won."


Aside from the video, the St. Petersburg Times published a story about Scott's victory speech and Sink's concession.  The Times' story included one of those bits I love--a bit of liberal opinion presented as factual common knowledge:

Scott, spending $73 million on his campaign and promising to bring new jobs to the state, capitalized on the economic anxiety and anti-incumbent sentiment embodied by the tea party, a movement he once helped finance with a campaign-style group that fought President Barack Obama's health care changes.

The tea party embodies the sentiments of economic anxiety (fear) and anti-incumbent sentiment (anger).  Objective fact!  The tea party folks are angry and scared.  The Times has measured it and dutifully reported its objective findings to its "in the know" readers, who can add it to their store of knowledge if they didn't get the message already.

Maybe the tea party just doesn't agree with using government (deficit) spending and government employment to address economic woes?

Nah, that couldn't be it.  They're just skeered and angry.  We see that all the time with uneducated yokels.  Or something.

More on the Alex Sink cheating debacle (Updated)

Alex Sink cheated during last week's gubernatorial debate with Republican candidate Rick Scott.  And, as is so often the case, the coverup ends up as the larger story.

Sink blamed the cheating on campaign staffer Brian May, who sent Sink a text message by phone.  But video shows Sink looking at the message for some 10 seconds or so and excusing the event to the CNN staffer who confiscated the phone shortly after by saying "Oh that's okay. It didn't have anything on it that was-."  Yes, she clammed up abruptly at that point.

Regardless of May's actions, Sink was guilty of cheating when she received debate advice from the makeup artist "They want you to stand up."  And evidence keeps popping up that pokes holes in Sink's story about the incident:

John King, a co-host of the debate, said on CNN Tuesday that CNN reviewed an audio clip that clearly reveals that the makeup artist alerted Sink about the message.

"We listened very closely to the audio,'' King said, "And the makeup artist, when she approached Alex Sink, said, 'I have a message from the staff.' And at that point they looked, it was on a cell phone... It was essentially advice after the last segment of the debate telling her if that question comes up again,
remember this, and be more aggressive when Rick Scott questions you.''

(Miami Herald "Naked Politics" blog)

The Herald blogger, Marc Caputo, notes that we're taking John King's word for the audio content.  The aired portion of the video that includes the conversation between Sink and her makeup artist picks up with the attempt to read the message on the phone.  Caputo has a point that hearing the audio firsthand would be nice, but if we're not trusting the reports of journalists without seeing the evidence where does that end?  Do we need a Marc Caputo for anything other than posting audio and video clips?

I find it interesting that the Herald--a liberal newspaper if there ever was one--is still on this story while the St. Petersburg Times has gone silent since Oct. 28 (a story about a Rick Scott ad that mentions Sink's cheating).


The Times sponsored the debate, but has demonstrated no real interest in the story.


Oct. 27
Oct. 27

Update (Nov. 1, 2010)

Looks like I missed a Times story from Oct. 28 that mentions the cheating episode.  But the story is not objective reporting, instead making editorial excuses for Sink based on an earlier Caputo story that did the same thing:

Sink has spent the last two days responding to the flap after debate moderater John King of CNN concluded that Sink knew she was receiving coaching from an aide during the debate. It took Sink's campaign two days to persuade the media that she did not cheat and unwound the video to show that she did not realize why she was being handed the phone.

Simply reporting the facts ought to lead any reasonable reader to the conclusion that Sink ought to have known she was cheating.  King stated that CNN had audio of the stylist telling Sink she had advice from her campaign staff ("[T]he makeup artist, when she approached Alex Sink, said, 'I have a message from the staff.'").  The stylist also wondered aloud--loud enough for CNN's microphones, anyway, whether it was campaign staffer Brian (May) who sent the message.  On top of that, Sink received advice separately from stylist, who told her twice--the second time in response to Sink's request--to "stand up" to Scott. 

There's simply nothing in the video that permits any so-called "objective" determination that Sink did not know what she was doing.

This is probably a good example of how, when the chips are down and the pressure is on, the desire to see the Democrat win affects a news staff's ability to report the news.

I naively felt that Rick Scott was unwise to put so much emphasis on Sink's debate cheating.  I did not think the media would be able to ignore it.  It lasted about two days in the news cycle before the Times eventually accepted Alex Sink's fig leaf as though it was a suit of armor.

Though King's statement appeared on Caputo's Miami Herald blog, regardless the Herald published a story with largely the same content as the one from the Times:

Again, there's no objective indication from the video that Sink didn't know why she was show the phone screen.  And such determination relies on granting Sink the benefit of the doubt.  Consider, for example, that Sink might be smart enough to pretend that she doesn't know what's going on long enough to look at the message while preserving plausible deniability.  An objective reporter doesn't dimiss that possibility out of hand.

Alex Sink, sank, sunk

Unbelievable (via Hot Air and CNN).

During a debate with candidate Rick Scott, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink was caught cheating.

What a way to level the playing field after continually attacking Rick Scott on ethics.




As the video reveals, Sink is shown debate advice on a cell phone during a break.  Scott notices and brings the violation to a staffer's attention and mentions the cheating during the debate (also seen on the video).

Ridiculously, Sink fired the staffer who sent the message and offered no apology for her actions.

Does Sink owe an apology?  Of course.  She had a choice, assuming she knew the rules (Scott knew the rules).

She could have looked at the makeup artist instead of at the phone screen and asked the girl if she's crazy.  It's against the rules to show her something like that.  Or she can read the information and hope nobody notices.

Sink chose the latter, then used her staffer as a scapegoat.  Clearly the type of leader we need in Florida.

"After the debate tonight, one of my campaign advisers admitted he tried to communicate with me during one of the breaks," Sink said in the statement. "While he told me it was out of anger with Rick Scott's repeated distortion of facts, it was a foolish thing to do. It violated a debate agreement and I immediately removed him from the campaign."

(Politico)

No admission that she read the message? 

No class.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Rick Scott and private sector Stimulus jobs

Rick Scott is the Republican candidate for Florida governor headed into the 2010 election.

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Becky Bowers:  writer, researcher
Shirl Kennedy:  researcher
John Bartosek:  editor


Analysis:

What did Rick Scott say, exactly?


Find the full transcript in the Afters section.

Higher taxes kill jobs.  Regulations kill jobs.  ObamaCare is an unbelievable job killer.  It's going to be devastating for our state.  Um, I mean, that, by itself, uh, is going to make it very difficult, uh, for people in the business (?) in our state.  One--and the taxes--increase in taxes for that, uh, is going to be devastating for our state.  On top of that, what my background is I put my money up, I took the risk, I stood up for what I believed in, starting businesses.  And that's a whole different background than other people.  But, and, she clearly believes in higher taxes, she clearly believes in ObamaCare, she care--clearly believes in stimulus, and we know that the Stimulus has not created one private sector job.

Though this looks like a straightforward claim that the Stimulus bill produced no private sector jobs, campaign spokesman Joe Kildea approached it as though Scott's remark referred to something like net job creation in the private sector, in Florida particularly:

"It's a ridiculous assertion that the stimulus has created jobs," Kildea said. "That's exactly the reason Floridians are so upset with the direction of the economy. No matter what sort of intellectual gymnastics used by Obama liberals, the fact is that when the stimulus was first signed, Florida's unemployment rate was 9.2% and today it is 11.6% and the state lost a net of almost 200,000 jobs."

Of course, if Florida lost 250,000 public sector jobs during that time frame (admittedly doubtful), then it would still follow that private sector jobs had been created to the tune of about 50,000.  So Kildea's approach ends up looking like spin.  PolitiFact's immediate response to Kildea was appropriately skeptical:

So, because more jobs were lost overall than gained, that's the same as saying not one job has been created?

If Scott is charitably taken to say that Florida has not gained any new net private sector jobs as a result of the Stimulus, then his mode of expression was needlessly misleading.

Much of the PolitiFact story by Becky Bowers investigates whether private sector jobs exist and/or are paid through Stimulus funds.  The story treats Scott's claim as literal and responds to attempts by Scott's campaign to explain the statement.  But something goes almost entirely missing from Bowers' story, only arising thanks to Bowers' inclusion of a quotation of Sean Snaith:

Sean Snaith, a University Of Central Florida economist who has been critical of the effect of the stimulus, agrees that saying "the stimulus has not created one private sector job" is inaccurate.

"I think that's an exaggeration of the reality, which is that it didn't do very much for private sector hiring," he said. "But surprise, surprise, in politics there's hyperbole sometimes."

It's more than hyperbole to Billy Weston. Here’s his reaction to Scott’s statement:

"I disagree. I have to. Even though, you know, I'm a devout Republican, that's absolutely wrong," he said. "I'm living proof that this helped out, tremendously. I couldn't agree with that statement whatsoever. I know, due to this program, I have a job at Sancilio & Co. That's the reality of it."

Snaith identified an argument underlying Scott's literal statement, and that suggested argument fits very well the context of Scott's remarks.  Though Bower retains partial credit for including the quotation of Snaith, the rest of the story pays no attention to the underlying argument.

Snaith also called Scott's controversial claim "hyperbole."  PolitiFact countered that with the somewhat out-of-context quotation of Billy Weston.  Bower's frames Weston's statement with "It's more than hyperbole to Billy Weston."  The most charitable way to understand "more than hyperbole" is "not hyperbole."  Weston did not take Scott's statement as hyperbole at all.  And Weston's view is fair because while Scott's statement may incidentally function as exaggeration for emphasis it is doubtful that many listeners would take it that way.

Scott most likely used a spurious fact to drive his underlying argument.  If he meant it literally then he was wrong.  If he meant it as hyperbole then the attempt was too awkward and misleading to qualify for most listeners.  Either way, the underlying argument is the same.  To express it using Snaith's words, the Stimulus bill "didn't do very much for private sector hiring."

Though Bowers mentions the underlying argument through the quotation of Snaith, the underlying argument is simply dropped when reading the "Truth-O-Meter":

"His position on stimulus hasn't changed," Colby said. "If the argument is that the stimulus is the only way to create jobs, it's false."

But that isn’t Scott’s statement. In the face of Billy Weston and now 1,300 jobs at a company Scott partly owns, his campaign still hasn’t moved from its stance that "the stimulus has not created one private sector job."  He may disagree that the stimulus is the most effective use of funds, or argue as Snaith does that "it didn't do very much." But those aren’t the words he chose.

With thousands of Floridians employed because of stimulus-funded programs — not to mention jobs for a company in which Scott owns stock — we rate his statement Pants on Fire.

With the underlying argument gone AWOL, PolitiFact ends up grading only the literal truth of Scott's claim.  Scott earns considerable criticism for what is at best described as a poor attempt at hyperbole, but it is not fair to exclude all consideration of the underlying argument while grading the truth of his statement.

The grades:

Becky Bowers:  F
Shirl Kennedy:  B
John Bartosek:  F

Clearly Scott had an argument underlying his use of the "not created one private sector job" claim.  Bowers and Bartosek's grades reflect their aiming of the focus of the story to the near total exclusion of Scott's underlying argument.  Kennedy apparently provided research appropriate for that focus and presumably was not involved in framing the story.

Afters:

My full transcript of the video.

SPT/MH:
I wanted to ask you about, um, your proposed--you and Alex Sink pretty much agree that you got to create jobs.  Um, or that one of the priorities is to, is to have Florida get more jobs.  What do you see the differences between how you approach that and she approaches that?

RS:
Oh, I think it's clear.  I mean, um, she supports President Obama's agenda, uh, she, she supports the Stimulus, she supports ObamaCare, she supports eliminating--or not extending the Bush tax cuts, so it's clear.  I mean, there's a big difference.

SPT/MH:
OK, that's an economic philosophy I guess.  How about when it comes to--can you, I guess, expand on that--

RS:
Hold on for a second (inaudible).

SPT/MH:
As it relates to creating jobs.  I mean, give me more specifics so I can explain that to people.

RS:
Oh, I think it's very simple.

SPT/MH
OK.

RS:
Higher taxes kill jobs.  Regulations kill jobs.  ObamaCare is an unbelievable job killer.  It's going to be devastating for our state.  Um, I mean, that, by itself, uh, is going to make it very difficult, uh, for people in the business (?) in our state.  One--and the taxes--increase in taxes for that, uh, is going to be devastating for our state.  On top of that, what my background is I put my money up, I took the risk, I stood up for what I believed in, starting businesses.  And that's a whole different background than other people.  But, and, she clearly believes in higher taxes, she clearly believes in ObamaCare, she care--clearly believes in stimulus, and we know that the Stimulus has not created one private sector job.

I've observed the convention of capitalizing "Stimulus" where it seems to refer to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Scott picks a winner

I don't follow Florida politics with nearly the attention I give to national politics, but Jennifer Carroll seems like an inspired choice if her resume is as advertised.

Congratulations to Carroll and to Rick Scott's campaign.

Scott bests McCollum for GOP governor bid

Outsider Rick Scott defeated former congressman Bill McCollum in the Republican primary yesterday, securing a chance to run against Democratic winner Alex Sink for governor of Florida.

I voted for McCollum, thinking he had the better shot at beating Sink in the general election.  Scott's conservative message, combined with a personal charisma somewhat greater than McCollum's, gave him the victory.  It didn't hurt that Scott spent a great deal of his own money in the primary, but if spending money was the secret to winning then Jeff Greene would have beaten rival Kendrick Meek for the chance to challenge Marco Rubio for one of Florida's two seats in the Senate.

***

I'm amused by an ad Google placed on my blog:

There must be some specialized definition of "proven business experience."  One that allows mid-level banking executives (I'm counting CEO of Bank of American in Florida as the top of mid level) to claim "proven business experience" while also preserving plausible denial for all the things banks do that their customers and employees resent, such as layoffs in the wake of mergers, high transaction fees and cascading overdraft charges.

Meanwhile, Rick Scott's creation of Columbia Healthcare and his administrative role in Columbia/HCA are somehow discounted.

Florida 2010: A triumph of private election financing?

Remember a few weeks ago when Robyn Blumner was wringing her hands over the pernicious influence of private fortunes in Florida politics?

Today, the day before Florida's primary election, the relatively cash poor campaigns of Kendrick Meek and Bill McCollum stand poised to knock off privately-funded powerhouses Jeff Greene and Rick Scott, respectively.

How did that happen, considering that Meek and McCollum are essentially unexciting candidates for office during a year ripe for outsider challenges?

In a word (using a Bidenesque count), issues matter.

OK, so the critical issue in both cases was the fact that both Greene and Scott carry huge negatives.  Voters figured that out and gravitated toward the candidate with the best chance to win, at least in sufficient numbers to give Meek and McCollum an advantage in the polls headed into Tuesday.

Perhaps the St. Petersburg Times gives itself some credit for editorializing against the big-spending candidates.  But the impact of those editorials was modest at best and almost certainly not the deciding factor.  The people figured it out.  And that's important.

Why is it important?  Because our electoral system depends on the voters making rational decisions.  And that ought to include voting for a rich candidate who comes out of nowhere if the voters believe that candidate best represents their interests.  The day public financing is necessary to keep voters from voting non-
rationally is the day we might as well let a single party pick the one candidate voters are allowed to select.

Greene and Scott haven't lost yet.  But their names are very close to being added to the long list of failed self-financed candidates.  Elections can't be bought with money alone.  If a candidate has an attractive message then there's an opportunity to fund the campaign without initial public support, however.  That's it.

Blumner Explains: How to finance elections!

Another week, another Robyn "Blumñata" Blumner column to dissect.

Last week on "Blumner Explains," she told you what was wrong with the GOP view of the financial crisis. And this week she'll tell you the solution to the huge problem of rich people spending their own money to finance their political campaigns:

(W)e have a hamstrung candidate who has to continuously raise money in small amounts challenged by one who simply digs in his own pocket. Not fair, right? What to do? The answer is public financing.

Dang.  That was easy.  Pretty much like figuring out your name, your favorite color or identifying the fact that your quest is for the Holy Grail.

But why isn't it fair for Rick Scott to dig into his own pocket for campaign finances?  Because he has more money than McCollum?  Barack Obama had a ton more money than John McCain during the last presidential election and I don't recall Blumner whining about it.  Maybe it's fair to have more campaign money than the other guy for reasons other than personal wealth.  But Blumner never really explains that, so I guess we'll have to leave it hanging.

If the issue is fairness, then how many other things should we change about elections?  Rigid controls on campaign promises?  I mean, is it fair to promise things like tax cuts or other popular goodies?  Is it fair to strongly imply (if not promise) that one will not raise taxes on certain folks and then turn around and raise taxes on those folks?

Is it fair to have better name recognition than an opponent?  Or more experience in public office, such as having been elected dogcatcher?  Is it fair being smarter than one's opponent?  Or having better administrative skills?  Or having a better speaking style?

Perhaps what we really need is the Harrison Bergeron Campaign Reform Act of 2010, not some paltry public financing scheme.

Half of Blumner's gripe is aimed at the recent Supreme Court decision that jeopardized some campaign finance laws.  The majority in the 5-4 decision reasoned, in a nutshell, that the government needed a compelling case to limit spending since spending constitutes a type of political speech.

Blumner disagrees:

I don't think the First Amendment is injured under the public financing model. The dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens in Davis explains why. He wrote the millionaire's amendment "quiets no speech at all" and simply assists an opponent "in his attempts to make his voice heard" — an "amplification," Stevens said, that "in no way mutes the voice of the millionaire, who remains able to speak as loud and as long as he likes."

The Davis decision, for what it's worth, was not a public financing model.  The summary of the case makes that clear:

The self-financing candidate remains subject to the normal limitations, but his opponent, the “non-self financing” candidate, may receive individual contributions at treble the normal limit from individuals who have reached the normal limit on aggregate contributions, and may accept coordinated party expenditures without limit.

As for the First Amendment argument, Blumner initially argued that it was not "fair" for Scott to spend more than McCollum.  Fair like this, apparently:

(Davis contended the "Millionaires amendment") unconstitutionally burdens his exercise of his First Amendment right to make unlimited expenditures of his personal funds because making expenditures that create the imbalance has the effect of enabling his opponent to raise more money and to use that money to finance speech that counteracts and thus diminishes the effectiveness of Davis’ own speech.

If Davis wasn't correct, then in what respect would public financing improve the fairness of election in Blumner's eyes?

Blumner's argument rests on an attitude dismissive of the voters' ability to correctly choose their preferred candidate without the help of the omnibenevolent government.


Afters:

I'm glad Rick Scott had a chance to push his candidacy for Florida governor.  I found quite a bit to like about his policy positions.  Plus he physically resembled Max Headroom compared to Bill McCollum's passing resemblance to Howdy Doody.  Advantage Scott on that one.  However, Scott carries a large burden of negatives into the governor's race.  Though I think Scott is more conservative, I'll be voting for Bill McCollum in the belief that he will fare better against his Democratic opponent.

The reason, by the way, for the influx of moneyed candidates is obvious:  Open seats, weak competition and a contentious political atmosphere will collectively make up a strong draw for candidates more blessed with money than either party support or name recognition.

Grading PolitiFact: Stimulus bill bureaucracy patterned after British NHS board?

If there is justice in the world, the volume of manure produced at PolitiFact will result in the required purchase by The St. Petersburg Times of large quantities of carbon offsets under any proposed cap and trade system.

Fact-checking the fact checkers

The issue:

An ad produced by Conservatives for Patients' Rights suggests that a government entity created by the stimulus bill passed early in the Obama presidency has its parallel in the controlling board for the National Health Service in Great Britain. CPR's chairman, Rick Scott, serves as the spokesperson in the ad.

The PolitiFact presentation:

"Deep inside the stimulus bill Congress buried an innocent-sounding board, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research," Scott says in the ad. "It's not so innocent. It's the first step in government control over your health care choices. This federal council is modeled after the national board that controls Britain's health system."

And the ad itself:



The fact checkers:

Angie Drobnic Holan: writer, researcher
Bill Adair: editor


Analysis:

Drobnic puts her focus on Scott's claim that the entity created under the American Recovery and Investment Act has some sort of parallel in the NHS board in Great Britain.

The ad is correct that the stimulus bill includes language creating the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. But to say it's modeled after the British health system is wrong. The board is simply an effort to pull together disparate federal agencies to find the best health treatments.

Neither Scott nor Drobnic mentions it by name, but the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence appears to qualify as a close parallel to the "Coordinating Council."

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is the independent organisation responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health.
(nice.org.uk)

Or, more specifically:

NICE produces guidance in three areas of health:

• public health - guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention of ill health for those working in the NHS, local authorities and the wider public and voluntary sector
• health technologies - guidance on the use of new and existing medicines, treatments and procedures within the NHS
• clinical practice - guidance on the appropriate treatment and care of people with specific diseases and conditions within the NHS.

They make it sound almost like a centralized government effort to find the best health treatments. And though Scott did not it by name, Amy Menefee of the Galen Institute did.

An example of NICEness from Reuters:

The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) said Roche's (ROG.VX) Avastin, Bayer's (BAYG.DE) Nexavar, Pfizer's (PFE.N) Sutent and Wyeth's (WYE.N) Torisel could extend patients' lives by some months but were not cost-effective.

The drugs -- known generically as bevacizumab, sorafenib, sunitinib and temsirolimus -- should therefore not be a treatment option for advanced and/or metastatic kidney cancer, NICE said in its preliminary recommendation.

NICE policies have resulted in a good number of similar news stories, so the organization qualifies as controversial. Perhaps controversial enough that Democrat advocates of health care reform would not like the comparison. But as a "first step" toward government control of patient care, the characterization seems fair on its face. Aside from ignoring the existence of NICE, what is Drobnic's objection to the comparison?

Comparative effectiveness research is an effort in health care to determine which treatments work best. The new board's goal, according to the bill's conference report, is to "reduce duplication of comparative effectiveness research activities within the Federal government." The legislation requires that half of the board's 15 members be physicians or "other experts with clinical expertise."

Up through the last sentence, NICE looks like a dead ringer for the new board. And another visit to nice.org.uk once again tightens the comparison:

NICE guidance is developed using the expertise of the NHS and the wider healthcare community including NHS staff, healthcare professionals, patients and carers, industry and the academic world.

The functions are essentially the same, and both have healthcare professionals intimately involved in the development of standards. So obviously they could not be more different. Or something.

But Drobnic keeps trying:

The legislation also specifically states it does not permit the board to "mandate coverage, reimbursement, or other policies for any public or private payer" and that the none of the board's reports or recommendations "shall be construed as mandates or clinical guidelines for payment, coverage, or treatment."

This stands in sharp contrast to the British system, where government entities run the health care system and a national board, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Evidence, determines whether particular treatments are covered or not.

So Drobnic knows about NICE, but ignores the similarities in favor of noting the one principal difference--the difference most dispassionate readers might take to constitute the distinction between a "first step" toward a UK-style system of central oversight and the last such step.

Ain't fact-checking grand?

In defending its ad, the group has said that its ad makes clear that the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research is simply a "first step" toward the British system.

CPR pointed out the obvious to Drobnic.

But that seems to be the group's opinion more than a fact.

When you see a reporter use the word "seems," it is a pretty sure sign that subjectivity has reared its head. In other words, Drobnic's statement seems to be more her opinion than a fact. And the fact is that NICE shares quite a bit with the "Coordinating Council" established in the stimulus package, and the latter would seem poised to segue NICEly to an expanded role in overseeing national standards for treatment. Though if one keeps one's eyes tightly shut, no doubt it is easy enough not to see it.

This is not to say that implementing comparative effectiveness research will be painless for the general public ...

So she peeked, albeit a few paragraphs later. Not that it ultimately affects Drobnic's conclusion:

It is right that the economic stimulus bill created the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. But the ad is wrong that it is "modeled after the national board that controls Britain’s health system." We see no evidence for that.

NICE and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness research have parallel purpose and membership (partly health professionals), but Drobnic sees no evidence of the one modeled in the other. Perhaps Drobnic insists on a parallel to the great overarching structure of the entire British system? As a "first step"? That would be odd.

Because the ad significantly distorts the reason for the board's existence, we rate its claim Barely True.

?

How did the ad distort "the reason for the board's existence"? The ad did not refer at all to the reason for the board's existence except to state that its creation was "not so innocent." And the parallel to NICE withstands scrutiny, as Drobnic obliquely acknowledged when she admitted to the pain of implementing comparative effectiveness standards in health care.

Fact-checking performed while blind to legitimate parallels should not count.

If the ad is inaccurate at all, it would owe to the lack of inspiration from across the pond. Direct borrowing is neither established in the ad nor addressed by Drobnic. In any case, the ad tries to make the point that the new board has a parallel in the British system, and though Scott fails to mention it by name, NICE seems to fit the bill with its relationship to the NHS serving England and Wales.

It seems as though Drobnic was not interested in the facts, though perhaps she was interested in minimizing the comparison between the health care reform measure in the 2009 stimulus bill and the British health care system. And any other PolitiFact staffers who reviewed the piece were happy to let it stand.

The grades:

Angie Drobnic Holan: F
Bill Adair: F


Afterword:

It's worth comparing the Media Matters version of the same story. Media Matters is known for making attempts to influence news coverage by traditional sources. I assess there is a good chance that a fair bit of mail received at PolitiFact comes from folks attached in one way or another to Media Matters.


May 14, 2009: Fixed goofy spelling of "bureaucracy" in the title