The woman, Abby Schanfield, was born with congenital toxoplasmosis, a parasitic disease.

Will the Huffington Post and other media outlets make as much hay out of this presidential typo as they did over Mitt Romney’s goofs?

We won’t hold our breath.

Hat tip: @FoolishReporter.

Update: Conservatives are having fun with the #congenialdisease hashtag:

Update: The White House has deleted the tweet.

  • Beckett

    I knew they were not serious about civil discourse, but now being congenial is a disease? Will they tax the Miss America Pageant?

    • NYDirk

      Why not? Miss America would tax me.

  • pairadimes

    How ironic that the White House would assign the status of ‘disease’ to the state of being ‘congenial’.

  • Eric SanAgustin


  • phoenixgirl

    and when she turns 27…she will go bankrupt trying to pay for her insurance policy….and she will be dead at 30 after a panel of doctor’s deem her condition too nice & expensive to treat

  • tomtom1983

    Lord Obama, your hubris, service to self, AARP branded commercial is indicative of your massive liberal ego.

    Soon we will be praising your name, as a God, like they do North Korea. Though I should warn you that my God, is a vengeful God.

  • @ronmarrock

    Now God Obama will make all diseases “nice” and “friendly”…..if only it were true.

  • Zanshi

    Folks, this is what happens when you forget to teach liberals how to spell…

  • LibertarianLuke

    congeniality IS a disease to liberals

  • Fred Zanfardino

    So, what’s your point WH? Eventually she has to get her own insurance anyway, so why not the sooner the better? Keeping her on till she’s 26 only makes the transition harder and jacks up the price of her parents (and everyone elses) insurance. Also, what about the kids who are perfectly healthy and staying on their folks plans out of pure laziness? Why should Abby and her folks pay for *their* health insurance via higher premiums? Is this your so-called and highly vaunted ‘fairness’?

    • TomJB

      Fred, does ACA compel parents to keep their kids on their insurance? I would think if they didn’t want to, they could just tell the insurance company to take them off. As far as I understood, “kids” have the option of staying on their parents’ plans, meaning they could opt for their own.

      (actual question, no snark intended)

      • weRbroke

        How many adult children will suffer from a FAILURE to LAUNCH and refuse to leave the ‘comforts” of parental support?

        • BoltUp

          Don’t worry about it, Failure to Launch will be covered under the next round of expansions…

        • RosiesSeeingRed

          But with all due respect, is that for you or I to decide? If an insurance company decides that it’s a money-maker to offer insurance to the children of their insured up to whatever age they like, and the parents are willing to pay for it (as opposed to leaving it up to their unemployed 25 year old who might not spring for the insurance on his own), then what’s it to you? The insurance company makes money on these very low-risk additions to their pool, and the parents have peace of mind that if something catastrophic happens, they won’t lose their house and retirement trying to save the life of their own child. I wish the government would stay out of it all together and let the free markets decide, but why are conservatives so bent on deciding that 26 year old’s shouldn’t be on their parents’ insurance plans if the parents are willing to pay for it? It’s no business of the government’s, and it’s none of our business either. It’s a business transaction between the parents and the insurance company, period.

          Again, I mean no disrespect. I’m just trying to understand why conservatives feel this way. I’m more of a libertarian-minded conservative myself, and I think whatever the free-market wants to do is fine by me. People will either buy it or they won’t.

          • Mike Rogers

            It is not that republicans want to forbid coverage of older dependents on the parents’ policy, but rather they want to prevent the government coercing that coverage. When govt coerces additional features, or commands that more people be covered under the same number of policies, prices will rise, and they are.

          • RosiesSeeingRed

            Thanks Mike. So I’m on the same page with everyone on this and I agree with you — government out of healthcare, period! Except it always sounds so different to me when I hear conservatives emphatically saying that 23-26 year olds shouldn’t be on their parents policies under any circumstances (or ridiculing them, which is even worse). I do know that United Healthcare had plans to continue the coverage for dependents up until the age of 26 even if Obamacare was struck down by SCOTUS. It was good business for them. For us, you choose single, married or family coverage, and it doesn’t seem to matter how many kids you have — the rate is the same. When 2 of our 3 children graduated from college, and we were left with one on the “family” plan, our rate stayed exactly the same. Why not charge based on number of kids? Why should the Duggars, with 20 kids, pay the same as someone with one child? It seems to me there are solutions that make sense, but telling parents the day after their kids graduate college that they are no longer covered is not very popular, and I know a lot of conservatives/republicans with the same sentiment. I actually know a person voting for Obama for this ONE ISSUE, which is crazy and ridiculous, but it’s true. They want to keep their unemployed college grads on their plan, and voting for Obama seems to be the only way to do it in their eyes, and that’s because conservatives run around ridiculing the idea of keeping them on their parents’ policies.

            I’ve heard Romney say his plan will keep this feature. I believe he has figured out on the campaign trail that this is popular. In a market-based solution, it would work, as long as it’s up to the insurance company decide — not government. If United HealthCare offers it, and people flock to them for that feature, the other insurance companies will offer it too.

          • weRbroke

            A human is considered a legal ADULT at what age and in what context? If a person can be held accountable in a court of law for their personal responsibility, it’s time to CUT the DAMN CORD and see if they launch or not.
            As a parent, I will continue to be supportive of my adult children, but since I CANNOT control their choices or behavior, nor should I be reponsible for their financial or contractual choices, OR, under any legal mandate to suffer their living expenses because the GOVERNMENT says I must, it truly is time to cut the CORD…

          • RosiesSeeingRed

            No argument here — government should stay out of deciding at what age a dependent should be covered. BUT PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR OBAMA to keep their kids on their insurance policies. Just remember that. We can continue to ridicule, or we can talk about the free-market based alternatives instead, and keep our personal opinion about what age is the right age to cut our kids loose out of the discussion.

          • weRbroke

            People voting for Obama to keep their adult children on their policies, DESERVE to eventually find out they may have to SUE their own children to get them OFF their policy and out of the house.

      • jen c

        A child is covered until the age of 26 even if they are married or have a job with insurance benefits.

        • NCRelite

          I love how people are considered children now at the age of 26 –the space between adolescence and retirement (another modern invention) keeps shrinking!

      • RosiesSeeingRed

        Tom, I don’t think you’re compelled. Our 23-year-old would have qualified to stay on until 26, but he got himself a full-time job with benefits upon graduating college, so we did not include him on our family roster when our policy came up for renewal, and that was that. He definitely is not on our health insurance policy.

  • DirtyDave

    The White House says this as if it’s a bad thing.

  • Kim Priestap

    That is hilarious!

  • Michael Kennedy

    As Casey Stengel once said, “Can’t anybody here play this game ?”

  • Mat Larson

    Congenial disease? Isn’t that what you catch from being too….congenial with someone?

  • HansonBro

    They speak and tweet so well on behalf of their education policies and their outcomes.

  • Daggett Beaver

    An Inner Ear Affection – that’s a Congenial Disease, right? #CongenialDisease

  • gracepmc

    Oh no, not another parade of the sick saved by Obama.

  • Diggs

    Based upon what I’ve seen of the #occupy folks, all Democrats, congeniality is a disease to them.

  • palintologist

    It is evident the libs are victims of their own school systems.

  • HWGood

    Like the congenial idiots voting the straight left-wing ticket, smiling as they trust that the Left Stream Media would never lie to them.

  • G.

    Oh, those wacky WH folks!!! Idiots!!! (Oh, wait…they’re the highly educated liberal types) Those MENSA folks are just toying with us illiterates!!

  • Steve Schaper

    At which point, I suppose the IPAB denies her care?

  • ZZMike

    They thought the real disease name was a naughty word. These are the brightest people on Earth.

  • Gaphound

    the liberal congenital illiteracy’s chickens are coming home to roost.

  • Samuel Gee
  • NCRelite

    I’ve always said that government subsidizes stupidity, but this is getting ridiculous. Idiocracy here we come!

  • William

    I thought that the pun was “a parasitic disease” coupled with staying on her parents plan until age 26

  • weRbroke

    Congenial Disease is merely a permanent case of BROWN NOSE…

  • OldTexasVet

    Is a congenial disease like a social disease, but on a “let’s just be friends” level?