ObamaCare infomercial: What were they thinking?

posted at 1:26 pm on June 25, 2009 by Karl

Seriously. What were they thinking?

The health care “town hall” event at the White House staged by ABCNews was clearly intended as part of Pres. Obama’s week-long PR blitz to bolster the case for health care reform, to be followed today with rallies funded and organized by the Usual Suspects.

ABCNews denied that it was actively assisting this effort, despite running graphics in a font remarkably similar to the Gotham font Obama used throughout the 2008 campaign. But despite the presence of a couple of challenging questioners, the pre-selected questions and general lack of follow-up made for an experience similar to the lame press conference format lefty bloggers like Ezra Klein were decrying yesterday morning, but probably enjoying in primetime. (Even ABC’s online fact-checking was lame, verging on the left-leaning. In contrast, Cato managed to savage Obama’s talking points in real time.)

The upside for Obama in this format is that he was generally able to bob and weave away from the real issues. For example, he talked about increasing the number of primary care doctors without acknowledging this could inflate the health care costs he claims he is trying to contain.

He could deliver his standard talking points about preventative care, even the vast majority of preventative measures reviewed in the health economics literature do not save money.

He could simply assert that “often times we know what makes sense and what doesn’t,” in pushing comparative effectiveness research, despite the fact that it is already killing cancer patients in Britain, to name but one example. (Indeed, no one followed up on his semi-oblique suggestion that America generally needs to move to a culture that disfavors heroic end-of-life care.)

Obama could talk about a proposed government-run plan without addressing the arguments that such a plan would almost inevitably engage in unfair competition. Obama was not asked whether a public plan would be allowed to fail. He was not asked about the Senate bill that would allow a public plan to avoid state regulation. He was not asked about the Lewin Group estimate that as many as 119 million people could be dumped from their current coverage into to the public plan until the Nightline segment, which was likely watched by far fewer people. Obama should doubly thank ABCNews for burying that exchange because — despite the fact that he had to know it was probably coming — it was Aetna CEO Ron Williams, not the Orator-in-Chief, who had the soundbite: “It’s difficult to compete against a player who’s also the person refereeing the game.” (At that link, Jake Tapper also notes that the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that support for a public plan plummets to 37 percent if it would crowd out private insurers. But I digress.)

He got to complain about the Congressional Budget Office’s stubborn refusal to score his imaginary game-changers as actual savings, while refusing to commit to any method of paying for a plan that Obama admitted might cost as much as $2 trillion. As CBS News correspondent Mark Knoller noted again and again and again, throughout the primetime special — and the Nightline addendum — Obama would pretend he was going to address a “challenging question,” or would say that an issue required a “difficult decision,” while avoiding an answer.

But what did Obama really get for all of his dodging? He didn’t take many punches, but he didn’t land any, either. Drew Weston might say that it is smart to avoid wonkery and focus on his three basic principles (however dishonest they may be) — lower costs, freedom to choose and coverage for all Americans. But even if the audience will not remember the details, they will remember (even if subconsciously) whether there were details. Platitudes alone will not address the public skepticism of about the types of fixes being proposed by Obama and the Democrats.

Weston also believes in the power of stories over policy (and there is some merit to that argument). On that front, Obama got to talks about his late grandmother again. But he was also exposed as a rank hypocrite on the issue of seeking extraordinary care for his own family before making it clear that he thinks other people’s families should hurry up and die already:

Jane Sturm told the story of her nearly 100-year-old mother, who was originally denied a pacemaker because of her age. She eventually got one, but only after seeking out another doctor.

“Outside the medical criteria,” Sturm asked, “is there a consideration that can be given for a certain spirit … and quality of life?”

“I don’t think that we can make judgments based on peoples’ spirit,” Obama said.

Obama came off sounding more like one of the evil insurance company execs he wants to drive out of business than the sort of empathetic person he wants to appoint to the federal judiciary.

Pres. Obama’s approach of leaving all of those “difficult decisions” to Congress and refusing to commit to any specifics that might turn out to be unpopular places him in the role of professor, not president. It’s hard to be a leader with no direction. It’s hard to sell a plan when you don’t have a plan. It’s hard to be given hours of ABCNews time and not make any news, but Obama seems to have managed it. ABCNews gave Obama a gift, and he squandered it. The town hall was billed as a “Prescription for America,” but viewers were left with little idea as to what might end up in the bottle.

As Obamacare started running into trouble in Congress, some on the Left — like Stanley Greenberg and Nate Silver — started begging Pres. Obama to get out and sell, sell, sell a government takeover. Ezra Klein argued that Obama should have sat back and waited until Congress pushed as far as it could. Yesterday’s installment of O!TV seems to have accomplished the worst of both worlds, burning some political capital to no concrete purpose.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Incompetency is just a liable as Malevolence…

Doctors are held accountable for incompetence…so should those in Government.

workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM

“…and it’s important to note that they universally claim that any errors or missteps did not cost lives…”

Here is the crux of the matter. The Obysmal administration was so intent on portraying Libya as a great success in the flourishing of democracy and that Al Qaeda was “on the run” that they hadn’t prepared for the jihadists’ attack. Sending in help or a rescue might have cost even more lives, and they didn’t want the body count to even go higher. The O-team was content to keep the “collateral damage” relatively small for their own cynically political purposes.

onlineanalyst on May 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM

I consider them both but if they are publicly saying this as their excuse, then you can bet they are worried that the actual info is about to come out. For all those not paying attention, that would be Fast and Furious 2; The benghazi edition.

Boehner should step up and say, “ok, we are all in agreement that you are idiots, now we are going to find out just what the hell you were doing over there!”

can_con on May 17, 2013 at 2:32 PM

Regarding the Rush caller near the end of his program just now wondering why all the focus on the coverup of the Benghazi matter and not the cause of it: it’s because if you look at the factors that led to the attack you’ll find McCain, Rubio and Graham were promoters and the GOP establishment would prefer people only focus on the aftermath and Democrat coverup rather than the bi-partisan cause.

FloatingRock on May 17, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Their best defense: We’re horribly incompetent and shouldn’t be allowed to run a hamburger stand. But we still don’t think our incompetence caused anyone to die.”

And even there, we can point to 4 people who died, and many more that would have died if 2 of those 4 hadn’t responded without waiting for orders and staged a rescue action.

So it’s not really, “incompetence that didn’t cost any lives.” It’s “incompetence that cost 4 lives.

And this is their best defense. Which almost certainly means they’re lying, and there really was deliberate malice and/or neglect behind it.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Here’s a crazy thought. Earlier in the day, the Cairo embassy had been besieged. Why not put fast-response forces on standby THEN?

Basically the U.S. response on 9/11/12 was the same as a rabbit when it notices a nearby wolf. Hold very still and hope the threat passes by.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.

blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM

That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.

Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?

Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”

AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Is that going to be Hillary’s campaign slogan?

Hillary 2016: “I’m Not Corrupt, Just Incompetent!”

AZCoyote on May 17, 2013 at 4:05 PM

“I can’t answer the god*!mn 3am phone call…cause I’m too drunk to find the f*#kin’ phone…@#$%&*$#@!!…” – Hillary Clinton

workingclass artist on May 17, 2013 at 4:18 PM

“We’re portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots,” said one Obama administration official who was part of the Benghazi response. “It’s actually closer to us being idiots.”

The GOP should use that quote in every political ad against Dems from here on out.

Of course they won’t…they don’t want to “alienate moderates” or something limp-wristed akin to that.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 17, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Weapons To Syria.

Libyan weapons to Syria, Mali and Gaza Strip – US Security Council Report.

We were in Benghazi for the weapons.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM

“US” – Should be UN Security Council

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:39 PM

So it seems that the real clusterfark of idiocy is that no accounting was made for how to deal with Libyan weaponry and we have essentially armed a whole region of terrorists militias and rebels.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:51 PM

Stevens was probably in Benghazi to review weapons “applications” from different bidders. As long as you didn’t have anything like “Tea Party” in your militias name, you could buy sell or trade weapons.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 4:55 PM

OK let’s see

An idiot would say here, “I was an idiot”

A liar would say here … “I was an idiot”

In other words, these remarks are devoid of any information content

rightmind on May 17, 2013 at 1:11 PM

If I remember the logic puzzle correctly, the right question to ask would be something like “If I asked you yesterday whether you were an idiot or a liar, which would you have answered?”. Idiot still says “idiot”, liar would have said “idiot” yesterday, but must now lie about that so must say “liar”.

WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.

bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

WTF, correct answer is “progressive”.

bofh on May 17, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Correct answer is “Regime Changer without a plan to deal with 40 years of Quackadaffy weapons left behind.”

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Oops.

oldroy on May 17, 2013 at 5:02 PM

When incompetence merges with complete corruption you have a perfect storm.

MaiDee on May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM

Do a google map search of Sigonella and tell me what type of aircraft (and the number) that you see there.

blink on May 17, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Those maps are old, but ok, One sec…

Ok I did that. There are a number of jets on the tarmac. I knew there would be.

That’s definitely a non-zero number of aircraft. For that matter, I hear there are aircraft all over the world. I’m thinking if the US REALLY wants to get somewhere, we can probably pay enough to charter a flight/commandeer a helicopter, etc.

Too bad we don’t have any naval capabilities available in the Middle East. Or an air base in the Middle East. Or a friendly well-prepared regional ally who could send in some forces on our behalf.

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

That was my point. Any adult would know this. There is no excuse for letting those men die.

dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:27 PM

hawksruleva on May 17, 2013 at 3:07 PM

We can either charter one or if necessary we have people that can borrow one.

dogsoldier on May 17, 2013 at 6:29 PM

I think “lying idiots” pretty well covers it!

Another Drew on May 17, 2013 at 6:35 PM

I keep going back to Hillary’s 3:00 A.M. Phone Call ad. It seems that everybody in the administration failed that test. They’ve sunken below even my lowest expectations, and I don’t see anyone in the GOP bullpen likely to rise above ideological squabbles and lead us out of this.

flataffect on May 17, 2013 at 7:06 PM

The challenge was issued above by an obvious Obama apologist, to look at a Google map of Sigonella and report whether any aircraft were seen there.

The question would be, “why not”. Actually, if there are no aircraft there now, there soon will be because the Italian government has just reported that 200 U.S. Marines plus two aircraft are being based at the joint U.S. Italian base at Sigonella, Sicily. (Just across a short stretch of water from Benghazi.) “Quick, the horse is galloping down the lane, close the barn door.”

Oldflyer on May 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM

Let’s just ponder that a moment. We took our quick-response team offline on the anniversary of 9/11? Who made that call?

This is why I do not believe it was stupidity. I believe whoever left the ambassador isolated, wanted to make sure he was not covered

I am a minority, but I believe there was to be an event to lead to a glorious hostage exchange – but it was foiled by the brave men who refused to stand down. Whoever started the evil chess game was left hanging and they had to run with the video fast, precisely because no one, no one, would be able to explain withholding cover from the victims. If I am right, I will never be vindicated, because the scandal will be too great so they have to fall back on stupidity

IMHO stupidity in such a case implies a total contempt for the lives of the victims. This is why we need an IRS scandal.

In any case, there is no way Obama can justify flying off the next day to a fund raiser. That in itself demands an IRS scandal. Since the Whistleblowers were coming, the guilty ones had to start a chicken dance, fast.

AP scandal was the one and only way to get the MSM willing to beat up on Obama’s IRS

entagor on May 17, 2013 at 10:11 PM

My vote goes to: you are lying idiots.

ghostwalker1 on May 17, 2013 at 11:18 PM

One theory has it that the whole thing was a charade to set up a prisoner exchange – Stevens for the Blind Sheik. It would explain:

1. Why there was reduced security.

2. Why the platoon on the way within Libya was told to stand down.

3. Why it was called a hostage situation.

The men who fought back apparently weren’t in on the plan. This enraged the attackers, who thought they’d been lured into a trap or betrayed. So they went and got more friends and made a second attack.

Akzed on May 17, 2013 at 12:58 PM


This is a theory that makes all the pieces fit. It’s true they’re incompetent, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t also up to no good.

Cara C on May 18, 2013 at 1:05 AM

Wonderful article by Sharyl A. The administration appears to be conceding they have lost the debate and are plea bargaining for the lesser charge of idiocy over malice. This won’t do. In the entire piece, no explanation was given for the arrival of the video onto the scene.

Don’t fall for that hangdog expression, Repubs. Those watery eyes are shifting about.

MaxMBJ on May 18, 2013 at 3:30 AM

Comment pages: 1 2