It was good to see the media challenge the Americans for Prosperity commercial, which is running on cable and network channels shows watched by women and on such popular programs as Good Morning America, Chopped, and Law & Order. Christopher Flavelle, a member of the Bloomberg View editorial board, pushed back hard, noting that Julie makes “cunningly deceptive assertions about the law, disguised as questions,” and noted how insurers restrict consumers’ ability to pick out-of-network doctors. He attacked Julie’s question about whether she can trust Washington with her family’s healthcare:
Obamacare doesn’t empower anyone in government to dictate the health-care services people receive. It’s a catchy fiction and conservatives have done a good job of repeating it in the face of all evidence.
Steve Koff, Washington bureau chief for the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the ad was running in Ohio and tackled the questions Julie posed. He got the point about insurance companies, and noted that employers who provide coverage for their workers, which is the case for most Americans, actually pick the insurance—a point often overlooked in the spin to demonize insurance companies. Employers are the ones that want to lower their costs.
In the commercial, Julie asks, “What am I getting in exchange for higher premiums and a smaller paycheck?” Koff gave this one a reality check by providing context. Premiums have gone up three times as much as wages since 2002, and in Ohio, Julie may well see higher premiums under Obamacare. But we don’t know yet. She’ll have to wait until later, when the state announces rates for next year in the new healthcare insurance shopping exchanges that open in October, or, if she is insured via her employer, like 160 million other Americans, when that employer announces new premiums for 2014.
A viewer would have to be highly knowledgeable about healthcare to cut through the fog this ad lays down, as its makers surely know. In his piece, Flavelle noted the work of philosopher Harry Frankfurt, who said the goal of political advertising isn’t deceiving your audience about what is true or false so much as making the distinction so confusing as to be irrelevant. “By that definition,” Flavelle wrote, “this latest AFP campaign is a work of art.” Indeed it is, with more “artwork” to come.
Follow @USProjectCJR for more posts from Trudy Lieberman and the rest of the United States Project team, including our work on healthcare issues and public health at The Second Opinion. And for Trudy’s resource guide to covering the ins and outs of buying insurance on the state exchanges, see Open Wide, from CJR’s new July/August issue.
Related stories:
Untangling Obamacare: What’s behind the rate increases?

Just curious, but what does CJR actually claim to know about "honesty?"
#1 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Thu 11 Jul 2013 at 05:38 PM
Please be specific. You can start with what is not honest in this article.
#2 Posted by rrose, CJR on Thu 11 Jul 2013 at 10:27 PM
"a group that espouses small government and is funded by the Koch Brothers"
And CJR is a a group that espouses big government and is funded by Soros.
Admitting that would be a good first step towards honesty.
#3 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 12 Jul 2013 at 09:42 AM
Comments 1, 2 & 3 all fail the Justice Stewart test.- you know it when you see it. He was talking about pornography, but he might as well be referring to the dishonesty witnessed in the anti-Affordable Care act ads. To create the impression that the President's signature bill itself limits choice of M.D. is about as honest as the death panels and birth certificate. And you don't have to vote Democrat to see that. And without that kind of honesty on our part we cannot have a discussion on the merits.
#4 Posted by J/Brooklyn, CJR on Sun 14 Jul 2013 at 12:15 AM
As with Medicaid, physicians may opt out of taking patients covered by Obamacare. More patients will be concentrated in the offices of physicians who do accept payment, resulting in the kind of delays for care seen in Canada.
#5 Posted by JAR, CJR on Mon 15 Jul 2013 at 10:18 AM
You should mention that under the Canadian healthcare model, all doctors are included in network. And there are no "gag clauses" like US doctors must agree to to be included in provider networks.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=16485367 for why that's important.
#6 Posted by Marlon, CJR on Mon 15 Jul 2013 at 07:08 PM
My comment re dishonesty comes from an actual experience with an interview from a CJR "journalist."
#7 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Sun 21 Jul 2013 at 11:53 AM