Today's Munch Prize Goes to ...
Last week, Frank Rich asked this:
How could a president whose signature achievements include the health-care law and two brilliantly tech-centric presidential campaigns screw this up so badly? How could he say even as late as September 26 that the site would work 'the same way you shop for a TV on Amazon'? How could he repeatedly make the false promise that all Americans could keep their insurance plans, and then take so long to recognize that he was wrong and mobilize to correct it? This is hardly Kathleen Sebelius’s fault. It is Barack Obama’s fault — a failure of management for sure, and possibly one of character. There is something rotten in the inner-management cocoon of the White House, and if the president doesn’t move to correct it, his situation will truly be hopeless for the rest of this term.
"A failure of character"?? That seemed rather over-the-top. I considered Rich a candidate for the Munch Prize, but I so value his opinion that I couldn't just dismiss his charge as the usual hyperbole.
Rich points out that the President was claiming days before the big Healthcare.gov fail that using the Website would be as easy as ordering small appliances online. It seems plausible, if dismaying, that White House & HHS staff kept the president in the dark -- that he had no idea, days before the launch of the Website -- that it was a giant clusterfuck. Kathleen Sebelius claimed as much when Sanjay Gupta interviewed her in late October:
CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta asked when the President first learned about the considerable issues with the Obamacare website. Sebelius responded that it was in "the first couple of days" after the site went live October 1. 'But not before that?' Gupta followed up. To which Sebelius replied, 'No, sir.'
But what about that claim, "If you like your health plan you can keep it"? Surely the President knew that wasn't true. Indeed, the record makes pretty clear that the President did understand this. The last time he made the flat-out claim that people could keep the policies they liked was way back in April 2010, barely a week after passage of the ACA:
And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future. -- Barack Obama, speech in Portland, Maine, April 1, 2010
Let's call that an April Fools joke. And let's accept that it is possible and understandable that on that date, the President -- and his speechwriter -- weren't aware this was a false statement. The ACA is some 2,000 pages long. Maybe the President hadn't read all the fine print.
After that date, President Obama began subtly changing his message to align it with the facts. The next time the President made any comment about the supposed inviolability of current health insurance policies, according to PolitiFact, was after the Supreme Court ruled the ACA constitutional:
If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. -- Barack Obama, June 28, 2012
Notice how the President shifted his message. He was no longer claiming you will keep the same policy; in fact, he's implying -- to those who are good at reading between the lines -- that you're going to get a new & better policy.
The President continued this theme throughout the 2012 campaign, never specifically promising "you can keep it." Here's the language the President used in a typical campaign speech:
If you have health insurance, the only thing that changes for you is you’re more secure because insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick. -- Barack Obama, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 6, 2012
Post-campaign, that language too evolved. Here is a remark from the September 26, 2013, speech Rich cites:
... If you already have health care, you don’t have to do anything. -- Barack Obama, Largo, Maryland
"You don't have to do anything." Uh, well, until your insurer sends you that cancellation notice. Or your employer tells you this year's plans aren't like the old plans.
Is there some duplicity here? Duplicity that rises to the level of a character issue? It depends upon how much control you imagine President Obama has over the White House Website. Here is surely the most confounded graf that has ever appeared on the Website. This is not some relic from 2010. It is on the White House Website today:
For those Americans who already have health insurance, the only changes you will see under the law are new benefits, better protections from insurance company abuses, and more value for every dollar you spend on health care. If you like your plan you can keep it and you don’t have to change a thing due to the health care law. The President addressed concerns from Americans who have received letters of policy cancellations or changes from their insurance companies in an interview with NBC News, watch the video or read a transcript. (Emphasis added.)
A character issue? I seriously doubt President Obama has read the text of the White House Website. He has other things to do.
Rich claims, "There is something rotten in the inner-management cocoon of the White House, and if the president doesn’t move to correct it, his situation will truly be hopeless for the rest of this term." I have to give Rich that. The graf above is an exemplar of double-speak and rank incompetence. Obviously, it was updated on or after November 7, 2013, when the President spoke to Chuck Todd during the height of the uproar over the President's "broken promise." Whoever updated the Website should start updating his resume' instead. Firing that lamebrain would be one "move to correct" the "rotten" thing in "the inner-management cocoon."
But I do not think a misstatement -- one the President hasn't uttered since days after this very complex law passed -- speaks ill of the President's character. It is true that Obama's shift to a more accurate claim has been, well, shifty. "You don't have to do anything" isn't precisely true, either. Most insureds have to "do something" to get continued coverage. But I think it's fair to interpret Obama's new line to mean, "You don't have to do anything different from what you've done in the past." It would be really splitting hairs to insist that the President deliver a speech in the form of a contract. I find his latest shorthand acceptable. It is not, in my opinion, evidence of a "possible character flaw."
Munch Prize recipient responds to award announcement.Indeed, Rich himself makes a false claim when he accuses Obama of "repeatedly [making] the false promise that all Americans could keep their insurance plans." Rich should have said, "Obama used to make the false promise...." But in the form of his remark, Rich implies that Obama has made the false promise recently. He has not.
So, Frank Rich, Congratulations. Reluctantly, I must award you today's Munch Prize.
Share Article
Reader Comments (4)
It's always difficult when someone we admire and respect utters or writes something totally off the charts and because we admire and respect this person we mull their words over, wondering if they could possibly be right––something we wouldn't do for many others. In this case Rich is saying that lack of character is what Obama has displayed re: the awful mess of the healthcare launch. I find this ridiculous as well as strange.To criticize someone's character is a pretty big deal––it essentially puts a black mark on one's person. It looks to me as though Obama was served poorly by the people who were supposed to be in charge of this–– was there no one to tell him his words re: keeping insurance policies were incorrect?–was there no one who could tell him this was going to be a major fuck up? I know from reading many presidential biographies that some people who are supposed to serve the president do not do so, ending up serving themselves or deliberately quashing something or are just plain incapable. Although Sebelius wasn't/isn't a tech person wasn't she in charge of this rollout? Didn't someone tell HER that there were problems? And why wasn't Obama told? and let's not forget the Insurance companies who I don't trust for a minute––could it be that they were not forthright in the beginning about their plan to cancel hundreds of policies?
Frank––calm down.
Re; Keep on keeping on, The essay above is the reason why I keep on coming back to RealityChex. A cup of scalding hot Burns with just a little float of Irish on top. Ah, Sunday morning.
As much as I like the parsing of Frank Rich's statement I disagree with some of the conclusions.
"It is Barack Obama’s fault — a failure of management for sure, and possibly one of character." Frank Rich.
"A failure of character"?? " Marie Burns.
Maybe not apples and oranges but still different. Failure of management, yes. Could not a reader infer that the failure of management is one thing, but possibly the character trait that Rich refers to is Obama's belief in his team? Rich is saying that management let down the president because his character is such that he has faith in his subordinates, which is a necessary trait for a successful president. Unfortunately his faith was misplaced.
I don't think Rich was slamming Obama's character, I think he was slamming his team. Yes, every captain of ship is responsible for his ship. Big ships require a lot of captains and if the admiral can't count on his captains, he can't do his job.
I think the message was lost when the President dumbed down the impact of the AHC. "You can keep your insurance." You have to comfort the masses. Sounds elitist but can you imagine Obama speaking to the nation and saying, "OK, everybody turn to page three, paragraph four, table "C", column five."
Hell, I'd last five minutes in and I have the attention span of an elephant compared to some gnat-like minds of guys I work with.
I get to keep my insurance and every year it keeps getting more expensive. It's keep-keep; I keep my insurance; they keep my money.
I think Rich was pointing out that the message was not a lie, but a simplification to get the idea across. The message was lost when the roll out failed. If the site was up and running true before the public logged on the president would not have his character under fire.
I'm now going on line to buy a small appliance. Color, price, type, quality and shipping options to be decided later.
Thanks for your analysis Marie. When I read Rich's comments last week I felt a little betrayed. He is a wonderful writer, a sharp observer and dead on point more times than not. (see his response to the anniversary of the JFK assassination) Unlike you, I didn't go back and try to make some sense of them.
I clearly see that Obama has culpability in the ACA roll out mess. However, I also believe that Sebelius was most responsible for the failures under her direction.
Glad to see Marie taking Frank to task on this one. Like Diane I read his 'interview' comments last week and it left me feeling betrayed— though I've been a huge fan and follower of his direct no-nonsense approach for years. Yet, he did something similar some weeks back, re his analysis and reasons why Rand Paul's popularity and gaining strength among potential voters increasingly makes him the TP/R frontrunner for 2016. (Hey! Let's not give the enemies more ammunition, Frank.)
...Maybe, maybe it's me. I can't handle the truth! Tried hard to objectively analyze and consider his point of view—then and now, but wasn't working. I think the Munch Prize award is well-bestowed this week.
(P.S. Marie it's really chilly here. You'll need to pack a down parka!)