Update: Related items listed at bottom of post.
On Thursday’s "Good Morning America," Dr. Tim Johnson proved, yet again, that even ABC’s medical expert can spout liberal talking points. Johnson appeared on GMA to tout a universal health care plan by the "two old war horses," Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and Democratic Congressman John Dingell. (ABC didn’t mention their party affiliation.)
Johnson described the plan as "bold" and "politically brilliant." Additionally, he rhapsodized about its liberal sponsors, saying that Dingell and Kennedy are "trying to do what I think is the right thing." GMA co-host Robin Roberts introduced Johnson by noting just how excited the medical expert was over the legislation:
Robin Roberts: "And, of course, health care a big issue out there on the campaign trail. So, imagine universal health care for everyone? That's what a bold new plan on Capitol Hill is proposing. It's the brain child of Senator Edward Kennedy and Representative John Dingell. And they say it would make universal health care for every American a reality within five years. So, can it work? For answers we're joined by ABC medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson. You’re very happy about this. You say it's bold and politically brilliant."
Dr. Tim Johnson: "It's bold, because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured within five years. And I say it’s politically brilliant because one of the options they're offering is for people to choose from the federal employee plan, the menu of options that Congress gets every year. It's going to be very hard for Congress, I think, to say, ‘Well, we can have it but you can’t.’ So, I think that it’s a good strategy on their part."
Shortly thereafter, Roberts asked Johnson just how this universal health care plan would be financed. The ABC analyst began his explanation by noting that "the government finances both plans." Roberts didn’t press him as to where, exactly, the government gets it money from:
Roberts: "Many people, of course when they hear about this, they’re like, okay, Tim, cost. How do you pay for this?"
Johnson: "Well, as you know, the government finances both plans, but in this particular case, what they're talking about doing is shifting the way employers now pay for health care, directly to the insurers on behalf of their employees to a payroll tax for all businesses. And they've estimated that the current cost for the employers who do pay is about 13 percent of payroll. They say that if they spread it around all businesses, entire country, they can reduce that to about seven percent of the payroll tax. So for big companies, like the car companies who are now paying big amounts, it could mean a major reduction, according to the way they calculate it."
Rather than question Mr. Johnson, Roberts simply noted that the plan "sounds good." There were no queries as to what effect the payroll tax would have on businesses. Would it spur them to hire less? Will smaller companies be adversely effected?
Roberts didn’t ask. She simply wondered if the bill would pass. It was at this point that Dr. Johnson’s liberalism became most transparent. According to him, the legislation’s success is contingent on a Democrat’s election to the White House next year:
Johnson: "Well, there are going to be many proposals. This one certainly raises the bar. I love seeing these two old war horses out there trying to do what I think is the right thing. Maybe you disagree with the details of how they do it, but it will certainly raise the debate. And I think, if a Democrat president is elected, there is a good chance this or something like it, will pass, because the public is getting very nervous about health care. Businesses are getting very worried about health care. The present system is a mess."
Though ABC’s medical expert is often portrayed on GMA as a wise purveyor of medical wisdom, his liberalism has long been apparent.
In January of 1994 he advocated universal health care by citing people dying in the street:
"Everyone is applauding, I think, in the health care community, the emphasis on universal access, because they know that unless they're going to let some people just die in the streets, it makes sense to get medical care early, when it's going to be more effective and less costly....the insurance companies are the focal point for the dynamics of denial that are part of our present for-profit system."
-- ABC medical editor Dr. Tim Johnson, January 26 World News Tonight
And in July of that same year, he told then-First Lady Hillary Clinton that her plan for universal health care had his support:
So at least from the physicians represented here, you get a 100 percent vote, including mine, for universal coverage."
-- ABC reporter Dr. Tim Johnson to Hillary Clinton on Good Morning America, July 19.
Considering that "Good Morning America" has a left-wing weatherman and a liberal medical expert, perhaps viewers should soon expect film critic Joel Siegel to explain how movies are just somehow better with a Democrat in the White House.
Update/Related Items (Ken Shepherd | 16:25 EDT ):
ABC Double-Doses Attack on Private on Health Care (Business & Media Institute, Oct. 17, 2006)
ABC Medical Journalist Has a Fever (BMI, May 2, 2006)
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.





















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Well if you ask me I think
January 3, 2008 - 11:08 ET by GordmanWell if you ask me I think that heath care system deals with too much politics and less facts. I think we need a competent commission to handle this and I wouldn't mind seeing some medics saying their speech instead politicians. Until then I think I am gonna keep my relative independence and stick to th e online pharmacies in times of need.
Tort reform
January 4, 2008 - 00:30 ET by UnsaneGetting trial lawyers away from the system, and getting them through various means to stop treating the medical system (and lawsuits) like winning the lottery, would be ONE good start...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
Let the government totally ma
April 26, 2007 - 15:59 ET by paperheadLet the government totally manage health care in this country with universal health care? To get an idea of how well this will work, remember back to the last time you had to get your driver's license renewed at the DMV and multiple the wait time by at least a hundred. Any time the government steps in to manage something, they (not the free market) will decide how many med students will be allowed to enter each medical field. Just as the former Soviet Union was never able to accurately forecast its needs globally, our government will undoubtingly under and overforecast our medical needs. Also, the free market today allows for competition in doctor's salaries. That goes away if we move to a universal healthcare system. This entire proposal should scare the living daylights out of everyone. I wish the media would ask the question why Canada makes it against the law to seek healthcare outside of the country? You can bet these hollywood liberals will fly around the world to get their healthcare needs, leaving the rest of us holding the bag.
It ain't going to happen no m
April 26, 2007 - 16:08 ET by Gat New YorkIt ain't going to happen no matter who is elected. If the pharmaceutical lobby does not stop it then health insurance lobby will. Just look at what PACs and company execs fund the elections. There's been plenty of money spent on both Dems and GOP. That is simply the reality of the situation. All the talk by any candidate about what they will do is a stunt to lure in unsuspecting voters. It is a sham.
I think public schools are a
April 26, 2007 - 17:03 ET by ThisnThatI think public schools are a better model. Federal unions will take over. Salaries will be capped. And there will be hell to pay if anyone, and I mean anyone, tries to to do anything special.
Instead of having great new techniques and advances in medical technology, we will have the equivalent of "new math"
We won't require doctors to learn good techniques because that will be insensitive, racist, sexist, and non-inclusive.
All of our hospitals will be required to have staff that reflects the general population.
We will worry about the use of certain words and phrases amongst the medical community and begin to ban them because someone might be offended.
And worst of all, Dodgeball won't be allowed anymore (or some such equivalent activity).
Can't wait.
There is no health care crisi
April 26, 2007 - 16:42 ET by mattmThere is no health care crisis, there's a health middle-man crisis. We need to dump HMO's and Government Programs that aren't working... MSA's would help...
Also note: Why is it that health care, welfare, education etc. are always considered by Libs to be in "crisis" but if conservatives call terrorism what it is they're fear-mongering?
I've said it before, and I'll
April 26, 2007 - 16:55 ET by dabalI've said it before, and I'll say it again...
...this has never been about anything put liberals gaining power and keeping it. Already, they control the most of the Unions. Once they nationalize 1/6th of the economy (also known as the medical industry), completely unionize it, they'll never be short of people trying vote themselves rich. Public schools have been like this since the 70's. Combined with the medical establishment, they'll control over half the population's paychecks...
"The children's schools need more of your money. You don't hate children, do you?"
"The National Medical Program needs more of your money. You don't hate sick people, do you?"
Were screwed if they nationalize medicine in this country.
On free lunches or the lack thereof
April 26, 2007 - 19:30 ET by UnsaneAmazingly, it has been the Leftists whining about the recent budget deficits lately. Yet, they cannot wait to bury us much further into debt by paying for everyone's medical visits!
Last I checked, just to coddle everyone in Britain with "free" health care from the NHS, it cost nearly $900 billion. That, in a population of 56 million people!
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Bold? Bull
April 26, 2007 - 22:03 ET by nkviking75What's bold about dredging up the same old universal health care plan the Dems have been trying to stick us with for two or three decades? It's not bold, it's stupid. There is plenty of empirical evidence to show that universal health care is vastly inferior health care. People who deal with it in their own countries are used to waiting months for elective surgeries, shortages, bureaucracy, and so on. I wish I could remember where I read it today, but a columnist pointed out that Walter Reed hospital is a stellar example of what happens when government runs a medical facility.
Government is already far too deep into healthcare. We dare not let them take it over completely.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.