17 Years and Counting: ABC's Dr. Tim Johnson Continues Spinning for Dems on Health Care
For the last 17 years, ABC's medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson, has hyped various forms of government-run health care. He continued that pattern on Tuesday's Good Morning America, promoting Barack Obama's 2010 law and ignoring the its unpopular aspects.
Talking to guest co-host Chris Cuomo, he enthused, "Many issues have already gone into effect and people like them." Johnson did allow that the bill was "controversial," However, he added, "But, there's many features in this bill, that if they go into effect, could help control costs and improve quality."
However, he didn't explain that the legislation as a whole remains unpopular. According to a new CNN poll, 54 percent oppose it. Also unmentioned was a Washington Post report that few Americans are signing up for a provision of the legislation allowing sick individuals to have their medical costs covered.
The Post's Amy Goldstein described in a December 28 article:
Twenty-seven states have created their own high-risk pools. The rest used an option in the law to let their residents buy coverage through a new federal health plan.
In the spring, the Medicare program's chief actuary predicted that 375,000 people would sign up for the pool plans by the end of the year. Early last month, the Health and Human Services Department reported that just 8,000 people had enrolled. HHS officials declined to provide an update, although they collect such figures monthly, because they have decided to report them on a quarterly basis.
[Emphasis added.] Dr. Johnson has a long history of cheerleading for government run health care, going all the way back to Bill Clinton's plan in 1994.
This spin continued through to the 2008 presidential campaign. On October 19, 2007, he interviewed then-candidate Hillary Clinton and rhapsodized, "She certainly knows health care better, I think, than any other candidate....I'm very impressed with her knowledge base." Speaking of GOP members, he offered this loaded question: "Do you think the Republicans who are against it are immoral?"
(For more examples, see an October 08, 2008 NewsBusters blog.)
Viewers looking for an objective take on the President's plan probably shouldn't expect to get it from ABC's medical editor.
A partial transcript of the December 28 segment, which aired at 8:35am EST, follows:
CHRIS CUOMO: Now, as part of our countdown of to the new year, we're looking at the biggest health stories of 2010, the top medical trends and breakthroughs and what's ahead for your health in 2011. We have Dr. Marie Savard joining us here in our studio and our chief medical editor, Dr. Tim Johnson joins us from West Palm Beach, Florida. Thank you to both of you. Happy New Year to both of you. Dr. Tim, let me begin with you. Talk about one of the biggest news stories of the year.
TIM JOHNSON: Well, in terms of both controversy and potential impact, the biggest story has to be the passage of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act by President Obama on March 23rd. Many issues have already gone into effect and people like them. Mostly the insurance reforms, such as insurance companies not being able to deny people with pre-existing conditions. But the real controversy is yet to come, especially when the mandates for both individuals and businesses for their employees go into effect. As you know, this is being challenged in the courts. It's clearly going to end up at the Supreme Court, fairly soon we think. So, there's a long way to go. But there's many features in this bill, that if they go into effect, could help control costs and improve quality. So, we have to keep our eye on that bill and what happens.
CUOMO: That's right. An you're right, Dr. Tim. So much of it will be affected by what happens in the proceeding litigation. So, it's really an unfinished story there.
— Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
JournOlists
Submitted by iveseenitall on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 12:26pm.
They've not gone away. The elves have already begun working for next Christmas and the JournOlists are always busy too.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"(progressive)
I keep hearing about high
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 12:26pm.
I keep hearing about high risk individuals can now buy into high risk pools, etc.
Have not heard one peep concerning the cost to the individual for this privledge.
Is it affordable to the average American? I would think not.....
Barack_Must_Go.....
if you make it more expensive to employ people in this country,
Submitted by puredmashie on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 1:03pm.
then less people will be employed in this country. our only hope is that this law is deemed unconstitutional.
Less is often more?
Submitted by okiehawk44 on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 1:03pm.
Next year my wife and I will be eligible for Medicare for which we have paid into since the beginning (1965 or 1966) and just as it seems likely that deep cuts in that coverage will occur to pay for the "uninsured." I guess you have to constrict in order to expand and we just get caught in the middle. We paid for insurance when we were younger both for ourselves and for others recieving Medicare/Medicaid but now we will pay in other ways it seems. Sarah Palin was castigated for calling bureaucrats who analyze who gets what and when "Death Panels" but now they are called "End of Life Panels" sounds better I guess and makes those who have to sell this feel better too. It's kind of like calling someone a Progressive as if they are making life better and more modern. Well off to bed so I can get the prescribed 8-hrs of sleep and get up to eat a hearty breakfast of roughage prescribed by Michelle Obama et al. Do you think Michelle eats like that or just makes it sound like she does? Doesn't look like she does but (that's with one "t" BTW) you never know when Democrats are lying to you.
Sure you do
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 3:05pm.
"... you never know when Democrats are lying to you."
Sure you do: They're talking!
The part they like
Submitted by KC Mulville on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 2:13pm.
It's a good news / bad news joke. The part they like (no denial of pre-existing condition) can only be offered in tandem with the part everyone doesn't like ... i.e., the mandate to buy coverage. They report them as if they were two completely different provisions, and we can pick and choose the stuff we like. But it doesn't work that way. It's a package deal, and the cheerleading media is deliberately reporting only the things they like.
So what's so wrong about forcing people to but coverage, when most of us do it anyway? Answer: because to do it, the government asserted that it has the power to compel people to buy something, using the Commerce Clause in a way never before asserted.
You know, we can create a lot of "popular" programs if we throw away the constitution and force people to do whatever the party in power wants. But it comes at the price of freedom. And not just a little tiny bit of freedom ... it's huge. Once the government establishes that power as a precedent, there is no going back.
The part they like is the part they hate.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 8:31pm.
You know it's funny that so may people want the government to force insurance to cover preexisting conditions, or give loans to people who will not pay them back, but balk at just the suggestion that the government should make laws expecting THEM to do the same. Imagine their disgust at, say, having a law that states that you MUST buy a used car as is, without a mechanical appraisal or other sensible precautions and take the word of, say, the local city council as to the mechanical worthiness of that car.
Well, that's the exact scenario that a lot of people are supporting. They LOVE the idea of government forcing insurance companies to provide pre-approved policies, as certified by government, to everyone, but at the same time, they HATE the idea of government forcing them to buy those pre-approved, government certified insurance policies that they supposedly love. Talk about hypocrisy!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Spin from the AMA.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 8:08pm.
Tim Johnson trumpets socialized medicine in line with the other socialists at the AMA. He has for years, and that will not change.
AMA's main source of income is the near-monopoly it has on the coding system used in medical billing. If CMS were to use another system, it would crush the financial viability of the AMA in the long run and thus deprive it of any funds for lobbying purposes. Put pressure on their income source, and the loons in the leadership caved.
I don't know if I will be renewing my AMA membership.
"Could" they, or "will" they.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 8:19pm.
"But, there's many features in this bill, that if they go into effect, could help control costs and improve quality."
It "could" increase longevity rates worldwide, fund the ultimate cure for cancer, or any number of possibilities, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for what "could" happen.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
ABC has an open advocate
Submitted by Chris Norman on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:55am.
ABC has an open advocate reporting on the issue. So, what would the media say if Fox News hired Sarah Palin - not as commentator as they did - but as a straight news reporter, reporting on, say, the tea party movement?