History Will Forget the Obamacare Website’s Bungled Launch

The media has written a cruel first draft, but it won’t last.

National Journal
Lucia Graves
Dec. 10, 2013, midnight

Na­tion­al Re­view‘s Ramesh Pon­nuru says Obama­care — like George W. Bush’s Ir­aq War — should per­suade Amer­ic­ans that “the grand designs of gov­ern­ments, left or right, can go wrong in many more ways than they can go right, than any­one can fore­see, and than even the ‘best and the bright­est’ … can fix.”

It’s not an ori­gin­al thought, it’s not ex­clus­ive to con­ser­vat­ive com­ment­at­ors, and it’s not ex­actly news to the White House. From The New Re­pub­lic to the West Wing, pro­gress­ives are wor­ried that — as TNR‘s John Ju­dis put it — a failed Obama­care will “re­in­force for a gen­er­a­tion the ar­gu­ment against any gov­ern­ment ini­ti­at­ives.”

So call it a con­sensus, and one that res­on­ates in the Oval Of­fice. But don’t call it right.

Be­cause his­tory sug­gests it’s wrong.

Pon­nuru and oth­er Obama crit­ics are spot-on when they say the Bush years of­fer a ready ana­logue to Obama­care, but it’s not Ir­aq. It’s the rol­lout of Medi­care Part D in 2006.

Like Obama­care, as Ezra Klein re­cently poin­ted out, it was a massive med­ic­al ex­pan­sion with ad­min­is­trat­ive com­plex­ity. Like Obama­care, the Medi­care Part D web­site didn’t work upon launch. And like Obama­care, people saw their plans can­celed and sup­posedly bet­ter al­tern­at­ives rendered in­ac­cess­ible.

Then as now, the me­dia jumped to doc­u­ment the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s every mis­step fol­low­ing the rol­lout of the web­site. NPR and The Wash­ing­ton Post de­tailed the mount­ing en­roll­ment dis­aster, while The New York Times re­por­ted that Medi­care Part D might cost the GOP sup­port among the eld­erly. “Older voters, a crit­ic­al com­pon­ent of Re­pub­lic­an Con­gres­sion­al vic­tor­ies for more than a dec­ade, could end up be­ing a ma­jor vul­ner­ab­il­ity for the party in this year’s midterm elec­tions, ac­cord­ing to strategists in both parties,” Ceci Con­nolly wrote in The Times.

Pun­dits were even more un­spar­ing. Mi­chael Kins­ley wrote in The Wash­ing­ton Post, “The hideous com­plex­ity of Pres­id­ent Bush’s pre­scrip­tion drug pro­gram has re­duced eld­erly Amer­ic­ans — and their chil­dren — to tears of be­wildered frus­tra­tion.” And Paul Krug­man wrote in The Times, “We are ruled by bun­glers. Every ma­jor ven­ture by the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion, from the oc­cu­pa­tion of Ir­aq to the Medi­care drug pro­gram, has turned in­to an epic saga of in­com­pet­ence.”

And now, how many voters re­mem­ber the Medi­care Part D rol­lout?

It’s the nature of the news in­dustry to fo­cus on what’s gone wrong as op­posed to, say, what’s work­ing or what’s mov­ing in the dir­ec­tion of pro­gress. It was true in 2006. It’s true today. It will likely be true in the fu­ture.

That’s not, however, how his­tory gets writ­ten — or how people think over the long haul.

Demo­crats know this and are count­ing on the me­dia’s nar­rat­ive be­ing tossed.

“The Dec. 1 dead­line was im­port­ant, but there won’t be chapters in the his­tory books writ­ten about Dec. 1,” said Demo­crat­ic Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee spokes­man Mi­chael Czin. “I think it’s im­port­ant to look at this hol­ist­ic­ally.”

That’s what you al­ways say when you’re los­ing on the par­tic­u­lars. Look at the big pic­ture, the long arc of his­tory! But this isn’t just wish­ful think­ing. Yes, Health­Care.gov may well have con­sequences for Demo­crats in 2014. But any­thing much bey­ond that is hy­per­bole. Amer­ic­ans and the me­dia have already for­got­ten the sup­posedly “hor­rendous” rol­lout of Medi­care Part D, and it happened just sev­en years ago, when most seasoned mem­bers of the Wash­ing­ton press corps were already in Wash­ing­ton.

If the White House is alarmed by the out­land­ish­ness of the vari­ous “Obama­care is as bad as”¦.” com­par­is­ons — Ir­aq, Kat­rina, the sink­ing of the Ti­tan­ic, the Battle of Wa­ter­loo, the ex­plo­sion of the space shuttle Chal­lenger — it should be heartened by the fact that the me­dia can’t even re­mem­ber the more re­cent and ger­mane ex­ample.

If the me­dia can’t re­mem­ber 2006, will voters a dec­ade from now, con­fron­ted with the pos­sib­il­ity of some new gov­ern­ment pro­gram, really stop and say, “Re­mem­ber how that web­site didn’t work right in 2013?”

What We're Following See More »
11 HOUSE MEMBERS NOW BEHIND HIM
Two Committee Chairs Endorse Trump
14 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Two powerful House members—Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) and Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller (R-FL)—are throwing their support behind Donald Trump.

Source:
BUT WOULD HE THROW THE CHAIR?
Bobby Knight: Trump Would Drop the Bomb Just Like Truman
14 hours ago
THE LATEST
LAST PLACE
Trump Still Struggling for Endorsements
17 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
MORE INDEPENDENTS, FEWER SUPERDELEGATES
Sanders Could Force Changes to Nominating Process
20 hours ago
THE LATEST

There are not "ongoing, direct conversations between" the Bernie Sanders camp and the Hillary Clinton camp regarding "the platform or rules changes," but Sanders "is already making his opening arguments" about those issues on the stump. Sanders is putting "complaints about closed primaries" atop his stump speeches lately, and figures to start a "conversation about the role of superdelegates in the nominating process." He said, “Our goal, whether we win or we do not win, is to transform the Democratic Party."

Source:
‘LUCIFER IN THE FLESH’
Boehner Says He Wouldn’t Vote for Cruz
21 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Well, this is unsubtle. Former Speaker John Boehner called Ted Cruz "lucifer in the flesh," adding that he "never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life." Boehner has endorsed John Kasich, but he said he'd vote for Donald Trump over Cruz. He also praised Bernie Sanders, calling him the most honest politician in the race, and predicted that Joe Biden may yet have a role to play in the Democratic contest, especially if Hillary Clinton runs into legal trouble over her emails.

Source:
×