A botched website vs. bodies floating in the streets: Not the same thing

[ProSense]

A botched website vs. bodies floating in the streets: Not the same thing

by Laura Clawson

The New York Times' Michael Shear, demonstrating how if Republicans repeat a talking point enough times, they can get reporters to write it up as if it's a fact, not a Republican talking point:

The disastrous rollout of (President Obama's) health care law not only threatens the rest of his agenda but also raises questions about his competence in the same way that the Bush administration’s botched response to Hurricane Katrina undermined any semblance of Republican efficiency.

Whereas if the rollout had gone smoothly, House Republicans would be passing comprehensive immigration reform right this minute. But about that Katrina comparison. Let's review two key differences:

1. Obamacare's rollout does not involve an American city underwater. There are no bodies in the streets. Rather, a website is not working well and a set of mostly crappy insurance plans are being canceled, with insurance companies taking the Affordable Care Act as their excuse for canceling some decent policies, after years of canceling decent policies without that excuse.
   
   
2. The Affordable Care Act is an attempt to fix a big problem—tens of millions of Americans without health insurance and many more paying more than they can afford or finding out that what they've been paying for won't cover them if they really need it. Parts of its rollout have been botched, but, with six weeks left before the insurance plans go into effect and with months before the end of the open enrollment period, 106,000 people have signed up for insurance and 396,000 people have become eligible for Medicaid. So what we're looking at is a law designed to help people not helping them as much as hoped, not a failure to respond with urgency, competence, or compassion to a massive natural disaster.

Of course Republicans want to compare Obamacare to Katrina. After first denying that Katrina was a political disaster for them, they switched gears to trying to use it for political advantage against Democrats, and have been looking for something they can stick with the name "Obama's Katrina" for years. Previous "Obama's Katrina" attempts have included the Haiti earthquake, Benghazi and the IRS, Hurricane Sandy, the BP oil spill, and at least half a dozen other things. It's a knee-jerk reaction by now—for Republicans. New York Times reporters shouldn't participate in it. It's not like there aren't ways to say "the Obama administration screwed up" without invoking a generation-shaping disaster, after all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/15/1255787/-A-botched-website-vs-bodies-floating-in-the-streets-Not-the-same-thing

Bushies reflect on Obamacare, Katrina
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/bushies-reflect-obamacare-katrina

[warrior1]

1. it's really all the repukes have to hold on too

once the ACA really gets rolling we can say good bye to the republican party.

[ProSense]

4. They're desperate and depraved. n/t

[Sheri]

5. i hope you're right.

they make me nervous. they act like they're going to succeed in destroying the ACA. i wonder what they think they have up their sleeves.

[ProSense]

12. Here's some information on

Medicaid: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024038246

[Sheri]

15. thanks. nt

[el_bryanto]

2. The Website is a big problem

Because of how it interacts with their other big claim - some people (a small amount) are losing their current insurance plans. With the exchange they could see what they could compare it to. Without the exchange, the narrative is that their insurance companies are raising rates massively.

Now - that's a false narrative, but it seems to be gaining traction.

Bryant

[ProSense]

3. The site is working now, and

that's likely why insurance companies are pissed at the timing of the President's speech.

I think people are waking up.

[Whisp]

6. No, it isn't.

The problem is instant gratification and the pug ball-licking media.

and people going along with that crap.

[el_bryanto]

7. Yes it is

And if you say you are going to do something at a specific time you should do it at that time. In my opinion. The website should have been up and working -a few glitches are ok, but we've seen more than a few glitches.

Bryant

[Whisp]

8. things don't work that way.

I'm sure you have heard many times that big launches of websites like this Always have problems. It's expected and anticipated and can't be fixed instantly.

Then there is the fact that denial of service attacks are probably a part of the problem.

I refuse to side with the twisted media and the rightwing fuckwads on this. Absolutely no.

[el_bryanto]

14. I'm not siding with them - i'm just saying that it's a problem

Because it leave the Insurance companies to say "Look you can have this new super expensive plan- and not that cheapo plan (that was crummy)."

Bryant

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. Website works. You're operating on old news

[Jesus Malverde]

9. I was surprised to see the headline "Obamas Katrina" in the SFGate

They really are apples and oranges. Connecting the two seems like wishful projection and an attempt to rehabilitate the Bush brand.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

11. Ever since the giant black eyes of 9/11, Iraquagmire TM, and Katrina

GOP talking heads are constantly looking for equivalent disasters by Dems to wash the stink off of themselves.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

13. The Republicans own the Katrina response or lack thereof

I'm surprised they'd bring it up. Never mind the fact that theirs is a poor comparison.