Health Care Reform Advertising Wars Heat Up in August

[Neil D]

It appears that the republican rabid mindset that is attempting to torpedo Health care, is failing. AARP now has joined into the fray and is producing it's own ad campaigns which go against Republican's "It's a social agenda to turn the US into a commie state". Republicans, realize....the healthcare system is sick and has been for many years. Time to fix it and time to reduce our public expenditure from 17% of the GNP to as little as 8% like Britain does [and does it better!].

The battle for American hearts and minds on the issue of health care reform now moves from Washington—where Congress is in recess—into the states, where it will be discussed at kitchen tables, church picnics, senior centers and almost nightly in television and radio ads.

“Washington now runs your banks, insurance and car companies,” proclaims one ad from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. “Do you trust Washington—with your life?” it asks. “If we don’t act … he won’t get the chemo he needs,” counters an ad from Healthy Economy Now as it flashes an image of a dejected little boy walking away from a swing.

In an effort to sway lawmakers and public opinion, millions of dollars will be pumped into an advertising blitz during recess. And sifting through the conflicting information in the deluge is no small feat.

“It isn’t always obvious when a person views a commercial who is behind the message,” explains Dave Levinthal, spokesperson for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan lobbying and influence tracking group. “It is incumbent on Americans to research the organizations producing the advertisements to find where the money lies behind these organizations’ platforms.”

$1 million a day on ads

Spending to lobby the federal government on health care has surpassed spending on all other issues this year, totaling about $263 million, according to analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics. And those numbers don’t include ad dollars.

As of the beginning of August, roughly $52 million had been funneled into television ads on health care reform this year, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG). Half of that was spent last month.

The largest portion of the money spent on TV ads—$23 million—has been spent on advertising in favor of general health care reforms but not specifically linked to any plan on the table. Of the remaining ad dollars, spending from groups supporting President Obama’s health care plan is roughly double that of the opposition groups, notes Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of CMAG.

In late July, more than $1 million a day on average was spent on television ads discussing health care reform, he says. And both supporting and opposing groups are raising the stakes with carefully targeted campaigns in states with moderate Republican and conservative Democrat legislators.

Opposing groups face off

The health care issue has opened the wallets of a wide range of groups.

Leading the opposition to proposed reforms are groups including Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, a nonprofit group founded and funded by former hospital executive Rick Scott; Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a conservative group that supports small government and low taxes; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; the Republican National Committee; and the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Supporters of the major health care reforms include Healthy Economy Now (funded partly by AARP and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA); Health Care for America Now, a coalition of unions, community groups and nonprofit groups; the Democratic National Committee; and Organizing for America (the successor to Obama’s campaign arm).

Some groups fiercely opposed to reforms in the past have changed sides. The American Medical Association endorsed the House bill for health care reform and launched ads last week in the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. “Difficult issues must still be resolved. But it’s time for results, not rhetoric” the ads read.

The nonprofit Families USA and the drug industry group PhRMA have partnered to resurrect the iconic Harry and Louise characters as their spokespeople, who this time favor general health care reform. “A little more cooperation, a little less politics, and we can get the job done this time,” Louise tells Harry from across their kitchen table. They’ve clearly changed their stance. In 1993 the same couple—with a little more hair and a little less paunch—helped torpedo the Clinton administration’s health reform legislation in ads funded by the Health Insurance Association of America, now America’s Health Insurance Plans.

Often the ads target Congress as well as the public, supplementing formal lobbying.

Commuting congressional staffers couldn’t help but notice the ad campaign sponsored by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network last month, which highlighted its message with pictures of cancer patients plastered across the Metro stop closest to congressional offices. One sign, part of its seven-figure ad and lobbying campaign, featured a married couple with the slogan, “Now, doctors can catch his cancer in time to save his life. Later, she could be paying off the medical debt for the rest of hers.”

Truth in advertising?

Advertising spending is just a small portion of the total dollars spent on the reform issue, but ads can be a powerful tool for mobilizing voters and influencing wavering legislators.

While 95 percent of Americans find the issue of health care reform important, according to a recent PEW survey, 63 percent find the issue hard to understand. Part of the problem may be how it is presented in the avalanche of ads.

The most prominent television ad campaigns opposing the health care overhaul have been funded by Scott, of Conservatives for Patients’ Rights. Scott’s former hospital company, HCA Inc., holds the record for paying the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history—a $1.7 billion settlement in 2003 for submitting false Medicare claims and for paying kickbacks to physicians who sent patients to its facilities.

Over the July Fourth recess, Scott’s group targeted 14 senators in 11 states with ads partly paid for by $5 million of his own money. His Internet, television and radio ads opposing the current health care reforms were organized by CRC Public Relations, previously known for its involvement in the “Swift boat” campaign against 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, which questioned the decorated war veteran’s patriotism and even his medals.

“Imagine waking up one day and all your medical decisions are made by a central national board,” Scott says in one radio ad. “Bureaucrats decide the treatments you receive, the drugs you take, even the doctors you see,” he adds.

Alluding to single-payer health care systems misrepresents the proposed reforms, administration officials say. On Hardball, White House senior adviser David Axelrod dismissed this as a straw-man argument, since the current overhaul proposal does not have a single-payer option on the table.

Jenny Gold, of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Kaiser Health News service, reported the misuse of facts and sources in Conservatives for Patients’ Rights ads that charge the reforms would result in higher taxes for poorer coverage. Gold writes, “The facts are largely taken out of context, come from biased industry groups or have been discredited.”

This week, AARP will launch a national series of television, print and online ads to counter what it sees as the myths and distortions of some opposing groups’ campaigns.

“Our point is to tell the truth about health care reform plans,” says Cheryl Matheis, AARP’s senior vice president of health strategy. “We will point out the myths and then give the real facts.”

Conservative ad charges government takeover

Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, says that the pro-reform ads set up a false choice. The ads “presume the reforms out there solve all our problems and won’t cause others. They oversell the reforms,” he says. “I don’t think anyone says we shouldn’t do any reform. Some of the ads try to paint opposition to the president’s reform as anti-reform, which I would have to say is a lie.”

The institute launched its own $200,000 print and radio ad campaign through August, calling the proposed reforms “a government takeover.” Adopting Uncle Sam as its spokesman, it has run ads depicting Uncle Sam wearing his trademark tall hat, with a medical cross across the brim, a stethoscope around his neck, and the tag line “Your new doctor?” The Cato Institute plans to buy more ads in September, says its spokesperson.

‘Make people afraid of change’

In the onslaught of ads, even the name of an organization can confuse what issue is at stake. The coalition of beverage and restaurant associations called Americans Against Food Taxes has topped the charts for spending on a particular measure of the bill, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group. Though the group embraces the need for health care reform, it opposes paying for reforms with taxes on its products.

The ads warn against a proposal to levy a tax “on simple pleasures we enjoy like juice drinks and soda” to help pay for health care reform. The proposed tax, which has gained little political traction, would add several cents to the price of sugary drinks (though not fruit juices or most diet sodas). Proponents of the tax argue that sugary drinks have been linked to obesity and adult-onset diabetes, which drive up medical costs.

Dual ad campaigns from the right-leaning Americans for Prosperity Foundation and its project Patients United Now warn that proposed reforms may mean “$400 billion cut from Medicare and Medicaid.”

“The commercial is disingenuous because it equates budget cuts with quality and benefit reductions,” explains Darrell West, vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “Most experts believe that there are administrative savings to be obtained from these programs that won’t compromise benefits. ... The ad uses scare tactics to make people afraid of change,” he says.

Organizations like the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee are also running carefully targeted campaigns in states such as Arkansas, Montana and North Dakota that have key moderate senators.

“There is a lot of money available on both sides,” CMAG's Tracey says. And as both sides prepare for a showdown after the August recess, this may just be the beginning of the ad battle.

[there buster]

,,,,

[Neil D]

yes it seems like the lobbies are really wanting this health care package to go though at any cost

"any cost"?....Consider Britain, with a NHS, having the same number of procedure as the US per capita....cost in the US 17% of the GNP...Britain, with 8%.....

[there buster]

. . . .

[bonnie]

Isn't it funny when republicans oppose something they are rabid,when democrats do they are exercising their rights

[Neil D]

Not according to this forum.....

[Guest]

Isn't it funny when republicans oppose something they are rabid,when democrats do they are exercising their rights

Yes, I've noticed that.

[bonnie]

Not according to this forum.....

Isn't it nice you have a choice. You are not obligated to read anything here.

[Neil D]

In other words, "Neil, get out of here...this is OUR forum and you don't need to be here."

Honey, you have two strikes against you...First, you told me to get out of here...Not nice...and totally not in the keeping with the forums rules. If Shane or Timewarp ever come back here and see this, your goose may be cooked.

Second, you need me and others like me....As much as you hate to admit it, you need those of us who oppose your point of view to enable you to continue your tirade against those who have different point of view. If it weren't for us, you would be turning upon yourselves or the forum would go silent.

I haven't posted for 4 months, and the number of posts in this forum has slowed considerably. The volume hasn't abated at all....

Before you go on the rant, Bonnie, you might want to check out and look around here again. Because if Tom, Lazarus, or myself leave this forum, and none of the others like CoAspen, Liz, Planey, Bravus, et al come back, you WILL either be silent or you will drive yourselves out of here....

Think about it, Bonnie....

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

First, you told me to get out of here...

I did not see Bonnie post that. Please tell me what page on what thread it is on. Members shouldn't be telling other members to leave the forum. I would like to see exactly how she worded that and deal with it.

Quote:

you need me and others like me....As much as you hate to admit it, you need those of us who oppose your point of view

I am not sure anyone is "needed" here. That is not to say they are not wanted. I don't think any of us here are irreplaceable. We can get opposing view points easy enough just by providing links to them. What we really need are people that can discuss issues and current events without lashing out at each other. We need an arena for the healthy exchange of ideas - with an emphasis on the word healthy.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Isn't it nice you have a choice. You are not obligated to read anything here.

This is what neil is referring to.

Quote:

In other words, "Neil, get out of here...this is OUR forum and you don't need to be here."

The above statement comes from a fevered imagination. It simply was not said.By myself or anyone else except you

Quote:

Honey, you have two strikes against you...First, you told me to get out of here...Not nice...and totally not in the keeping with the forums rules. If Shane or Timewarp ever come back here and see this, your goose may be cooked.

The above shows you have a moderator addressing someone in a demeaning way. Maybe you should be checking out Neil

Quote:

Second, you need me and others like me....As much as you hate to admit it, you need those of us who oppose your point of view to enable you to continue your tirade against those who have different point of view. If it weren't for us, you would be turning upon yourselves or the forum would go silent.

Personally it matters little to me whether you are on this forum or not.

I was perfectly satisfied as were others as to this forum.You are the one that seems to be making things up as you go.

You must be slowing down on the other private forum and felt a need to create dissension

Quote:

Before you go on the rant, Bonnie, you might want to check out and look around here again. Because if Tom, Lazarus, or myself leave this forum, and none of the others like CoAspen, Liz, Planey, Bravus, et al come back, you WILL either be silent or you will drive yourselves out of here....

Think about it, Bonnie....

I don't have to think about it.The names you mentioned are rarely here.And it seemed fine

[Neil D]

Personally it matters little to me whether you are on this forum or not.

I was perfectly satisfied as were others as to this forum.You are the one that seems to be making things up as you go.

You must be slowing down on the other private forum and felt a need to create dissension

No problem...The Catsup is over there and the tobasco sauce is over there...Enjoy the crow....I'm gone....

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Personally it matters little to me whether you are on this forum or not.

I was perfectly satisfied as were others as to this forum.You are the one that seems to be making things up as you go.

You must be slowing down on the other private forum and felt a need to create dissension

No problem...The Catsup is over there and the tobasco sauce is over there...Enjoy the crow....I'm gone....

This sounds a little like hit and run.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Honey, you have two strikes against you...

The above shows you have a moderator addressing someone in a demeaning way.

[bonnie]

I guess addressing someone as "Honey" when disagreeing with them can be demeaning. I am not convinced it was meant to be demeaning in this circumstance but I am a man and may not read things the same way as a woman would. Let's try not to address Bonnie as "honey" when disagreeing with her.

You are well aware this is not Neil's typical way of addressing women. Nor do others.

Most men,whether on a forum or not do not typically address women in this fashion.

Thank you for clarifying your position, Bonnie. Everyone is welcome to come here and participate. At this time, I don't know of any of the members with access to this forum that are not welcome. Some of us do need to polish our manners.

There should not have been anything to clarify,except for Neils statement,changing what was actually said to what he wanted it to say.

Neil said...In other words, "Neil, get out of here...this is OUR forum and you don't need to be here."

Find for me if you can where I said that. There was nothing to clarify except where Neil found this. neither one of you have done so

Honey, you have two strikes against you...First, you told me to get out of here...Not nice...and totally not in the keeping with the forums rules. If Shane or Timewarp ever come back here and see this, your goose may be cooked.

Could you be so kind as to clarify the above for me. Neil says I have two strikes against me and if you see that "I told him to get out of here" Show me please. It never happened except in someone's in,agination

Second, you need me and others like me....As much as you hate to admit it, you need those of us who oppose your point of view to enable you to continue your tirade against those who have different point of view. If it weren't for us, you would be turning upon yourselves or the forum would go silent.

I haven't posted for 4 months, and the number of posts in this forum has slowed considerably. The volume hasn't abated at all....

Before you go on the rant, Bonnie, you might want to check out and look around here again. Because if Tom, Lazarus, or myself leave this forum, and none of the others like CoAspen, Liz, Planey, Bravus, et al come back, you WILL either be silent or you will drive yourselves out of here....

Think about it, Bonnie....

I can't think of a single thing that I need Neil for,but he seems to think so. As for a tirade against those that oppose me... It might be well to look at Neil's posts before anyone defines tirade.

Maybe volume is important to Neil,I am not so sure anyone was noticing the absence of Neil and those he mentioned.

[CyberGuy]

AARP is paying a heavy price. 60,000 members have canceled their membership to AARP because of its support of Obamas health care program. I would not call the republican ad blitz a failure just yet. The true test will come if the bill fails or passes or is modified to the republicans liking.

[Tom Wetmore]

You've got to pay better attention, old pal. Go read the thread "A Message From A. Barry Rand, AARP CEO" and then see if you think 60,000 is a "heavy price." Here is a hint for you, if you had to pay 0.15% more for your groceries for one month, would you consider that a heavy price to pay for your groceries? Would you even notice? Would you even care?

[CyberGuy]

You've got to pay better attention, old pal. Go read the thread "A Message From A. Barry Rand, AARP CEO" and then see if you think 60,000 is a "heavy price." Here is a hint for you, if you had to pay 0.15% more for your groceries for one month, would you consider that a heavy price to pay for your groceries? Would you even notice? Would you even care?

This has just started Tom. 60,000 was just the beginning. More are leaving. That was just the first wave leaving. Wait until they start those ads. You will see a whole lot more leaving.

[Tom Wetmore]

And based on the stats we see so far, for every member leaving because of AARP's strong advocacy on healthcare, 32 affirmatively renew or choose to join...

[Dr. Shane]

AARP hadn't taken a position when all these folks were leaving. They have since taken a moderate position. Their stated position is not consistent with the House Bill that everyone is talking about. Obviously these 60,000 members leaving made a difference.

[Tom Wetmore]

None of that is true...

[bonnie]

None of that is true...

The fact that it was noteworthy to AARP and reported tells a little something.

When 60,000 resign a org in one day over one issue it is seen by most as significant.

I don't recall AARP coming forward with that type of stats before.

Hopefully by the time Obama is done explaining this bill more will be leaving.

The bundling of payments,the mandatory end of life counseling,

the scare tactics Obama uses about pediatricians and family care providers has backfired so far.

[Tom Wetmore]

It was over a period of one month, not one day...

Pay attention. Facts do matter to some people.

[bonnie]

It was over a period of one month, not one day...

Pay attention. Facts do matter to some people.

I had meant to type one month. In checking back it is more accurately two months.

That does not change anything that was said.

When you have a large group of people resigning a org for the same reason it is noteworthy.

Obama seemed to think it was noteworthy to claim backing from AARP .

He needs to watch what he says a little more closely.

Like his slamming the pediatricians and family care physicans.

His 20,000 to 30,000 for unnecessary amputations are just a tad far fetched.

Maybe he should try something novel and be forth coming and transparent.

Like what is in the bill he hasn't read and what some of it means.

That might work better than always trying to find another group or business to demonize.

Straight forward and to the point usually works. That is what he is afraid of. He can only demonize others,he is afraid to put this out there and discuss

[bonnie]

All Obama would really needs to do is read the mess he is proposing and then take it to the american people as he promised he would do.

The line by line approach would be great. Especially when we get to the cutbacks in medicare,that insurance program.. The one most of us don't have much of a choice to accept. Why is access to a citizens bank account thought to be necessary? He could explain that and many other issues.

His way to do that is the continual demonizing of anyone that has the audacity to oppose him