CNN Educates Viewers on Benefits of ObamaCare
According to CNN host Carol Costello, the White House failed to sell a health care bill that could have been embraced by the American people, many of whom "simply don't understand" the bill.
So during Monday morning's coverage of the Supreme Court hearings on ObamaCare's constitutionality, CNN explained some benefits the bill provides and gave the reason for the individual insurance mandate. Costello did her best impersonation of a White House advisor, explaining the bill's mandate to a public who doesn't understand it yet. [Video below the break. Audio here.]
"And then another factor I think people don't quite understand about the individual mandate, and this is from the Obama administration's viewpoint, right? So if you force everyone to buy insurance that means the insurance companies have more money, right? So that they can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions," Costello pointed out.
And CNN even provided fictional cartoon characters to explain the benefits of the individual mandate.
"So the individual mandate is going to help pay for people like Maria, the musician," noted correspondent Elizabeth Cohen. "Maria only earns $25,000. She will only have to pay $1,726 for insurance and then the government is going to give a big subsidy. That's why that cost is so low. The reason why the government can give the subsidy is because of that individual mandate that you mentioned."
Costello faulted the Democratic leadership for the public's ignorance of the health care bill. Apparently, the bill could have been embraced by the public, but the White House just didn't sell it well enough.
White House correspondent Dan Lothian responded with another White House perspective. "You know, messaging has been critical to a lot of the misunderstanding, at least from the White House perspective, to health care reform," he mused.
A transcript of the coverage, which began airing on March 26 on Newsroom at 9:02 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
[9:02]
CAROL COSTELLO (voice-over): The political fight over health care was exhausting. Historic. On the day it passed, Democrats cheered. When President Obama signed the law, Vice President Joe Biden inadvertently told America just how amazing it was.
Vice President JOE BIDEN: This is a big f***ing deal.
COSTELLO: (voice-over) Was it ever. And still is in so many ways.
(...)
COSTELLO: (voice-over) All of this over a law many Americans simply don't understand.
(...)
COSTELLO: (voice-over) That's despite the fact that some aspects of the law are now in effect. Children up to age 26 can stay on their parents' plan. The prescription coverage gap for seniors is reduced. Insurance companies cannot drop coverage for people with preexisting conditions. States are allowed to cover more people on Medicaid. And new plans can't charge for a certain preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies.
Actually the one aspect most Americans do understand is the requirement that everyone have insurance, the widely-reviled individual mandate.
(...)
[10:09]
COSTELLO: You know what Dan, though? We talked to a lot of people. Most Americans do not understand this law. They don't understand what's in it. They don't understand what it means for them, and that largely is this fault of the Democratic leadership, isn't it?
DAN LOTHIAN, CNN White House correspondent: You know, messaging has been critical to a lot of the misunderstanding, at least from the White House perspective, to health care reform. And, in fact, you heard the President himself and other senior aides here in the White House say that they have not been able to fully explain health care reform to the American people. And that's why a lot of people – you look at the polling, Americans are still divided about what they think about whether or not there are benefits in this law for them.
And so certainly, there is a lot of reason for this White House to take the blame for not messaging properly, explaining to American people how they can benefit from this. But Republicans are saying, look, it doesn't matter if they explain this, you know, from now until kingdom come that they will never be able to convince them that this thing is nothing other than a failure.
(...)
[10:39]
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN senior medical correspondent: So let's take a look at a couple of people who we invented to see how they're going to do under health care reform and what will happen if the Supreme Court changes all that. So I want to introduce you to my friend, Eddy the Entrepreneur. So there he is. Eddy earns $80,000. He is an entrepreneur, so he doesn't have an employer. So unlike you and me, he doesn't get insurance through his employer. So under health care reform, eventually what will happen is he will spend $4,500 on insurance. That's what he would be required to pay.
And Carol, if he doesn't pay, look at that penalty there. He gets a $2,000 penalty. So what this all rests on is what will people like Eddie decide to do? Will they buy insurance, or will they pay the penalty? The penalty costs less, right? But you don't get anything for it. If you fork over more money, you actually get insurance. And if you want to know how you can put in your income and you can figure out what this means to you, go to cnn.com/empoweredpatient. We have a link to a calculator. You can figure out what your insurance would cost and what your penalty would be.
COSTELLO: And the reason the Obama administration wants this individual mandate requirement is because it pays for the other things in the law.
COHEN: Exactly. Exactly. Because I want to introduce you to two other people who need that payment. So the individual mandate is going to help pay for people like Maria, the musician. Maria only earns $25,000. She will only have to pay $1,726 for insurance and then the government is going to give a big subsidy. That's why that cost is so low. The reason why the government can give the subsidy is because of that individual mandate that you mentioned.
Now, in her case, she will have a penalty of $695 if she doesn't – if she doesn't, you know, pay – if she doesn't buy it. So, again, that's going to be her choice and it will be fascinating to see what people do. Will they pay $1,700 for insurance or will they pay $700 as a penalty? Again, you don't get anything for that penalty. You just pay it and it goes away.
COSTELLO: Okay. And then another factor I think people don't quite understand about the individual mandate, and this is from the Obama administration's viewpoint, right? So if you force everyone to buy insurance that means the insurance companies have more money, right? So that they can afford to cover people with pre-existing conditions. So they can afford to do that.
COHEN: Right. The whole thing about the individual mandate is that if you bring in everyone – okay, everyone – including healthy people, you get more money in that pot. And that means, theoretically, that insurance companies can afford to insure people with pre-existing conditions.
Because before – or right now, if you have a – if it you're an adult and you have a pre-existing condition and you try to get insurance on your own, good luck to you. Because insurance companies are going to say why should I insure you? You had a heart attack last year. Or even a heart attack ten years ago. I don't want to pay to insure you. That's going to be expensive.
Health care reform says, uh-uh, you've got to say yes to these people. And where that money comes from to say yes to these people is the individual mandate.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
understand?
Submitted by kinijane on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 5:51pm.
I think shes the one who doesn't understand the bill. As a matter of fact, most of the
media folks are very uneducated about it or just plain lying and misleading the American
public.
See this is how LIBERALS THINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by OldJarhead77 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 5:56pm.
They are smarter than everyone and we are TOO STUPID to even comrehend what we read!! Thus we should allow them to tell us what it means and how good it is for us!!!
They only wish we didn't understand
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 5:58pm.
We know d@mn well what this law means. It means we are losing the freedom to chose what we want to buy and what we don't want to buy. It means the government will be deciding who gets what procedure.
And when she says the government will be subsidizing Maria the musician, she's wrong. WE the TAXPAYERS will paying for Maria the musician's insurance. I'm so sick of the lies of the media!
Oh yes, more "just needs to communicate" garbage.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:06pm.
We have had All-Obama All The Time television, radio, print and internet for three and a half of the most propaganda-filled years of the last six decades. The face, voice and words of that elephant-eared telepromptee have been blaring away worse than all of the combined propaganda of the former Soviet Union, communist China and North Korea. Good Lord, when has the bat-eared Messiah not shut his mouth? (rhetorical).
Actually
Submitted by bobsmom on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:09pm.
what's got them piddling in their panties, is the knowledge that we DO understand it, and no amount of re-messaging or re-packaging is going to change that. And where does the "government" get the dough to subsidize anything? I'll be ding dong dammied, from us!! Sorry "Maria", I think I can live without your music, and would like to see you live without my dollars. I'll choose my own music, thank you very kindly.
Well done! The CBO should hire Costello as spinmeister,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:20pm.
because the uninformed morons over at CBO are preposterously predicting the loss of one million jobs due to Obamacare.
Note that is jobs, not people who will lose their company-sponsored plans - that figure is astronomically higher.
Playbook
Submitted by mcherr on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:24pm.
Didn't we hear this "We didn't explain ourselves well enough, that's why we lost." from the Democrat Party before? Some election somewhere....
This reminds me of the
Submitted by Mr. Mike on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:32pm.
This reminds me of the pro-Obamacare doctor Hannity had on today. Hannity quoted CBO numbers, the same CBO that democrats brought up against Bush for eight years, that Obamacare was going to cost twice what Dear Leader said it was but this idiot doctor said that was spin and not accurate. He kept telling Hannity this was the best thing to happen to this country because now no one would go without healthcare. Even after Hannity explained no one was turned away from an ER and several programs existed to provide the less fortunate with healthcare this doctor kept spouting the same tired Leftist drivel.
Let me tell you. The doctors I work for are scared sh--less that the clinic might go belly up when 2014 comes or at the very least half the staff will be let go to cover additional costs.
Maybe Carol could point out...
Submitted by almostacowboy on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 6:57pm.
exactly where "health care is to be supervised by the federal government" is detailed in the Constitution. You know, I've read that thing a couple of times and I'll admit, I've missed that part.
Democrats are always right.
Submitted by CM on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 7:31pm.
Democrats are always right. Thus they can't comprehend someone actually disagreeing with them. Anybody that does must be stupid/racist/in somebody's pocket/etc. Otherwise, they would clearly agree with the Democrats.
Obama educates us on
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 7:29pm.
the individual mandate.
GBTV Real News.......
Submitted by GregE on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 8:22pm.
.......had a doctor on explaining how the insurance Exchanges will work.
Bend over America.
Sweet.
Submitted by GregE on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 8:56pm.
So I can pay $2000 penalty and get nothing, or $4500 and have insurance. Or I can opt out of all of it and keep the property I earned by my labor..................oh, no wait, no I can't. Government will get my assets to pay it, or garnish a portion of my life and my property via my labor.
What planet am I on again?????????
I recommend everyone read Mark Levin's "Ameritopia."
....Pelosi I was for it,
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 9:22pm.
....Pelosi
I was for it, before I read it, I still haven't read but I really love it...
"So if you force everyone to
Submitted by cristo on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 9:37pm.
"So if you force everyone to buy insurance . . ." Bottle the essence, Mr. Garrison.
Not so sure about all this,
Submitted by IrateNate on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 9:59pm.
Not so sure about all this, let me see if I understand: If I decide not to buy insurance, I have to pay $700, but I don't get anything if I just pay the penalty. But, if I shell out another $1000, I actually get an insurance policy. Oh, happy days.
But what if I'm not sick, and don't ever use my insurance? Seems to me that my bank account is $1700 lighter, and I still didn't get anything for my money.
That's what is so great about the whole "preexisting condition" idea - I can save $1000 a year until I need to go to the hospital, then write a $1700 check, payable to Mutual of Obama, and go see a doctor.
Obamacare - written by idiots, for idiots.
Unintended Consequences
Submitted by Fenwick on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 7:25am.
You make a great point. In a similar vein, there will also be the unintended consequence of people who are coerced into buying health insurance to make damn sure that they get what they pay for by making more doctor appointments and running to the emergency room whenever they get the sniffles or a boo-boo. Count on it! Of course, none of this will adversely affect the cost of health care.
So if it's so great, why are
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 10:14pm.
So if it's so great, why are there so many people (politicians, government workers, unions, certain religious groups, favored businesses, etc.) who have to be exempted?
Yes metaphors*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 10:23pm.
Over 700 exemptions have been granted so far to Obamacare. Certain religious groups have already been determined to be exempt, other religious groups are in the process of filing exemptions or complaints.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp
Well, here we go again, kids.
Submitted by ReaganRuled on Mon, 03/26/2012 - 11:32pm.
Well, here we go again, kids. Once again, the media elite snobs insist that they just haven't found the proper messaging to get the average American boob on board. Becuz we is two stoopit to unnerspanb the complix .. er .. compl .. er .. how itt wil hep us bee better peepul.
Well, if we're that stupid, then why did "we" vote these "geniuses" into office? I know that the average 0BowMao voter is an idiot, but then they aren't the ones that need better messaging to get "with the program," are they? How about we all just go ahead, be adults, and admit that it's a complete turd of legislation and needs to be flushed.
Health Care Cure
Submitted by billb on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:47am.
Require everyone to pay income tax on employer provided health insurance benefits. There will be plenty of funding available to insure or treat the uninsured. Before everyone goes bananas over my solution, consider this....if you receive vacation pay or paid holidays, you pay income tax on those benefits. Why not health insurance benefits?
BTW, if you are self employed, you cannot deduct the premium cost.
And how exactly
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 9:31am.
would you compute the amount of tax you'd have to pay? Would it be based on the "value" of the plan? Or maybe on an individual's income at that particular job? If it's the first, it's frivolous, since benefit "values" are usually drastically inflated. If it's based on income, forget it since half the country already doesn't pay taxes.
One of the main points of this boondoggle is the supposed fact that people with no insurance, even those who can afford it, get sick and leave the rest of us with the bill. That's pure BS. Those who can afford it can afford to pay the bill. If they don't, they go to collections, which anyone who's experienced dealing with a collection agency knows is not enjoyable. "Poor" people who can't afford insurance should only be granted emergency lifesaving services. For minor problems (which covers a high percentage of emergency room visits) people can go to free clinics or other similar providers. There are way too many facts that have gone unreported over this entire health care issue. Like the frivolous claim about how many people die every year because they had no health insurance. It was, and still is, pure BS. NO ONE IS DENIED EMERGENCY HEALTH CARE in the United states.
Mandating the purchase of health insurance is just the first step, based on "the good of the nation". How about the federal government deciding GM is again "too big to fail" and mandating that every licensed driver MUST purchase a Chevy? Or a given bank will trash the economy, so we all have to establish accounts or take loans from it? Where does it end?
how about this?
Submitted by billb on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 12:42pm.
I cannot connect your comments to my post. If a person earns $30k per year and his employer provides health insurance that costs the employer $5k, then the employee should pay tax on gross income of $35k. Now the employee is getting $5k TAX FREE Likewise, if a person earns $100k and gets insurance benefits of $10k, then he should pay tax on an income of $110k. This "extra" tax revenue should take of the uninsured, provided it's used for that purpose, instead of putting it into the general fund.
I wasn't clear on what you were proposing
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Wed, 03/28/2012 - 11:27am.
You never said anything about increased gross income based on insurance cost. This does, however, drive additional problems, both with the employer and the employee. Namely, it could effectively force an employer to ditch private insurance for government programs, something which is already occuring (flatly contradicting Obama's claim that "you can keep you current insurance). If it is more cost effective for the employer, many, if not most, will opt for the cheaper program. Secondly, increasing gross income could force many employees into higher tax brackets, thus increasing their overall tax burden. If someone is near the top of their current bracket, this unseen income increase could very cause them to pay more taxes in addition to the tax levied on them for their insurance. Finally, assuming the feds will use any additional revenue for its intended purpose is wishful thinking.
$1000 Hammer
Submitted by billb on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 8:50am.
The same government that provided us with the $1000 hammer a few short years ago will provide CHEAPER health care.
Pre-existing conditions...
Submitted by loxmyth on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 10:27am.
are a bit misleading. Why has no one mentioned that a pre-existing condition isn't an issue when changing insurance policies, only if you didn't have it before. Thus, if you had a heart attack 10 years ago, why are you only now thinking of getting insurance? I had employer provided insurance for 30 years. I have medical conditions. I recently retired, and had to change my insurance. Guess what...no problems with my pre-existing conditions because i was continually covered, even though it was different policies, and even had they been different insurance companies.
Supreme Court's mission
Submitted by gkstephens on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 1:17pm.
This case is NOT about healthcare. Healthcare issues should play no part in the Court's decision-making process. This case is about the Constitution of the United States and to what extent the Congress of the United States can expand its power under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8). There should be no arguments over the cost of healthcare. There should be not arguments about the welfare of the uninsured. Constitutional arguments only! The Court should not be in the business of making economic decisions. This should be a legislative issue subject to judicial review on the matter of constitutionality only.
The Great Unknown
Submitted by gkstephens on Tue, 03/27/2012 - 1:45pm.
There are so many parts of this bill that are still unknown to the vast majority of the people and TO LEGISLATORS. For example, more people will be seeking medical attention for more ailments. More doctors will be needed. There is a provision that creates academic waivers for minority individuals seeking to enter medical schools. Also, government payment for minority medical school costs. I can live with the payment, but who wants to go to the doctor who struggled to get out of a watered down high school? Who wants to go to a doctor who had to have government sponsored tutors to struggle with the normal academic rigors of medical school? There is so much objectionable material in this bill of which the public (and many congressmen) are still unaware. Pelosi was right, "We won't know what's in it until we pass it." Now, that's a Congress I can believe in. NOT!!!!!!!!