Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Coalition of Outside Groups Drops $2 Million on Health Care Ads

Healthy Economy Now, a coalition of groups including -- oddly -- PhRMA and the Service Employees International Union among others is launching a new ad tomorrow in five states as well as Washington, D.C calling for consensus-building on health care reform.

While each of these groups carries its own agenda, the goal of this ad is not to push specific policy proposals but to encourage all sides to come to the bargaining table.

The ads will run on cable in Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, Ohio, Maine -- all of which have senators who are theoretically persuadable on health care. The ads also will run in the D.C. cable market.

The ad begins by noting that many already have formed into opposing camps on the issue; "With our health care system in crisis, some want a government takeover," says the ad's narrator. "Some want to do nothing, letting health care costs jump 70 percent."

The solution? The ad offers few specifics choosing only to paint in broad brush strokes; "Protect your choice of doctors, focus on prevention," etc.

The group has already dropped several million dollars on its first round of television ads and is expected to put more than $2 million behind this buy.

The fight over health care -- and, trust us, it will be a fight -- is already showing signs of ramping up. President Obama has taken to the hustings today in Wisconsin to, yet again, leverage his personal popularity to sell a major piece of his legislative program. And, Senate Republicans are lining up against the so-called "public option" even as the issue continues to divide Democrats.

By Chris Cillizza  |  June 11, 2009; 1:06 PM ET
Categories:  Democratic Party , Health Care , Republican Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: What To Watch For: A Trio of Pols in PA, Obama Town Hall in Wisky and Yanks-Sawx
Next: Wag the Blog: Palin vs Letterman


"Socialized" medicine in Japan won't permit 11-year old Hiroki Ando a life-saving heart transplant.

Posted by: JakeD | June 14, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Private insurance (if allowed) would be TWICE the current cost.

Posted by: JakeD | June 13, 2009 10:01 AM | Report abuse


Because if the government runs all healthcare, then everyone's broken arm (and worse) could become "non-emergency". Don't you see that's at least a possibility if there are no options besides government-owned doctors?

Posted by: JakeD | June 13, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

The republicans will never consider any bill that takes money out of the insurance companies pocket because a portion of it has always went to the R party. Faux News which is controlled by the elite will go against anything that is not republican.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | June 12, 2009 9:56 PM | Report abuse


Then I have to ask why are you so against it? True it's not a miracle cure (nothing is) but it is a way for us to create a better healthcare system. I'm not talking replacement, as even most countries with national health coverage still have private coverage available as well. But it'll add a new dynamic that will hopefully put new emphasis on expanding coverage to others (because they don't want them to use the other plans) and allow us to have a focus on treating illness instead of the payment options. Which is the biggest thing I think we need.

I think opening up the market with competition not from just another private company would be a good thing. For one the government plan is not going to be the best fit for everyone. People with major health issues would probably still want private insurance as well to help cover the costs of medical supplies, rest homes, etc. because even in nations with nationalized healthcare not everything is paid for by the government. There are still out of pocket expenses. But they'll have competition in that for most basic things where they'll have to start to change their ways. Hopefully from the profiling of dropping the most ill and what I've had done to me 'refusal of payment due to non-emergency nature'. Which I don't know about you, when you break your arm I think that's an emergency situation.

Posted by: mtcooley | June 12, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

seemstone, I apologize. I completely failed reading your message.

Posted by: nodebris | June 12, 2009 1:33 AM | Report abuse

A common sense blunt fix for health care.

1. Set up a civilian, VA style, public health care system for delivering all government funded health care and medications free to everyone choosing to use it, no restrictions, rich, and poor, Medicare, Medicaid, etc everybody who wants public care has it free, all services, all medications, free period.
2. Pay for it with a national sales tax.
3. Let private insurers and care providers compete for everyone who wants private care, unfettered by government mandates, dictating who must be served, at what level, for what price, and totally unregulated but for safety.
4. Businesses that choose public care for their employees will have no financial obligations or any other responsibilities concerning health care.

(The Best Care Anywhere by Phillip Longman)

Dispensing health care efficiently, and collecting the money to pay for it cheaply, that's the purpose of the exercise, and no one can compete with the government at these two tasks.

An OMB study showing how many hunderds of billions of dollars this reform would save annually over any other proposed reforms would be fascinating.

Everybody healthy and financially better off, including our government, why isn't everybody demanding this?

This is the best that we can do!

Posted by: BillWatson1 | June 12, 2009 1:30 AM | Report abuse

seemstome, you've got a lot of opinions; any facts in there anywhere?

You ought to check out the stats on european vs american health care sometime. Including consumer satisfaction.

The purpose or patriotism isn't to explain away failure.

Posted by: nodebris | June 12, 2009 1:07 AM | Report abuse

Socialized medicine is inferior. You cannot pick your own doctor. You must wait to get badly needed treatment. It will be more costly and bankrupt the country.
What's that you say? European countries have better health care for less money?
There's no waiting list for important health issues?
That's socialism talking there. What kind of care can you expect from a doctor that doesn't own a private plane?

Posted by: seemstome | June 11, 2009 11:04 PM | Report abuse


This is a beginning. I hope a sea of advertisements engulfs the airwaves. The US is one of the richest, if perhaps no longer the most stable, economies on earth, at least currently.

If other industrialised economies throughout the world can provide their nationals with complete healthcare, dental care, and vision care, WHY is this the ONLY country in the entire industrialised world which denies that RIGHT entirely to approximately 35% of its people and forces the remainder to pay huge amounts of their income to health insurance companies who, staffed with high-school level educated bean counters, spend all their time trying to approve as little as possible so as to maximise profit?

Pres. Obama is ALREADY trying to find a middle way, but a completely watered down version of TRUE healthcare reform WILL NOT DO.

The problem is that 47 million Americans are completely without health insurance of ANY kind. Healthcare in the US has become a for-profit system, and in order to get their profit, the health insurance companies are BUSINESSES which have an interest in DENYING treatment and medication to those who need it most. Their profitability resides in the fact that they are able to deny care, NOT in providing it.

Health care is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT, not a 'privilege', like the ability to marry, to live where one chooses, to have access to potable water, sunlight, and fresh air.

Can you imagine the hue and cry which would ensue if people were forbidden from moving house beyond a 50 mile radius? From having more than a designated amount of sunlight per day, or so-and-so many gallons of water? These are extreme examples, but they ARE analogous.

The Right are doing their usual fear-mongering, citing frightening cases from various countries, citing long waits, etc., and worst of all, talking darkly about the dangers of 'Socialism' or 'Scandinavian-style healthcare'. The last time I looked, the Scandinavian countries were Social DEMOCRACIES, and the populace were extremely healthy.

As for 'rationed healthcare', another bugaboo in the fear arsenal, just what does the present system do but ration healthcare? I'd sooner have a neutral bureaucrat make health decisions than a for-profit, greed motivated company flunky.

Posted by: sverigegrabb | June 11, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse

I'm struggling here. Who is more loathsome: Jaked or Thinman1? L-O-V-E to see them both go away.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | June 11, 2009 8:50 PM | Report abuse



Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2009 3:55 PM | Report abuse

>>Hopefully, those opposed to socialized healthcare prevail. If not, we should file lawsuits to delay it as long as possible.

Have you ever been to a nation with 'socialized' healthcare Jake? Just curious actually because in the few that I have been to I've really come to see that America overinflates the problems. There are always healthcare problems but to be fair I find them to be worse here than abroad. Most of which stem from the same one we have which is not enough general practioners, and too many people going into specialties combined with a decline in the overall numbers of medical professionals.

My Husband is from one of these countries, Australia, and he's never had to wait for care anymore that I have here. His emergency treatment has always been first rate. Except he pays less in costs than I do and has actually more options. His doctors still make housecalls if you're too sick to come in and are open on weekends without appointments. He's actually appalled at how badly I was treated when I had to be rushed to the ER and the first thing they did was demand insurance and to process me into their system in the middle of the night with no one else there and wracked in pain. He had some choice words for them making me wait two hours when no one was there instead of treating me when I was ill. And frankly I have issues with it as well.

Posted by: mtcooley | June 11, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Two million? They should take a page from the Obama playbook and buy a half and hour on every major network.

Posted by: newbeeboy | June 11, 2009 3:32 PM | Report abuse

"Both JakeD and the white supremacist who killed a guard yesterday at the Holocast Museum both believe that President Obama is hiding something about his background/birth.

I wonder what other views they share..."

Dude, just go away, you prick.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 11, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Back to racism, there are those indeed who argue that Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen, that there is a racoon in the oval office, and that the white house should use watermelons rather than eggs at easter now.

Posted by: nodebris | June 11, 2009 3:17 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty ironic to hear you talk about stuff like this considering the views you share with the white supremacist who attacked the Holocaust Museum yesterday, killing a security guard.

Posted by: thinman1 | June 11, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse

"Back to socialized medicine, there are indeed those who are advocating the SWEDISH Model."

Who in congress has proposed this?

Posted by: VTDuffman | June 11, 2009 3:14 PM | Report abuse


Think it's time to update the profile, especially "Someday I'll have childs" part...

Congrats to you and Mrs. Fix

Posted by: Corey_NY | June 11, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Back to socialized medicine, there are indeed those who are advocating the SWEDISH Model. The American government should not be mandating coverage for all citizens.

Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Both JakeD and the white supremacist who killed a guard yesterday at the Holocast Museum both believe that President Obama is hiding something about his background/birth.

I wonder what other views they share...

Posted by: thinman1 | June 11, 2009 2:43 PM | Report abuse

As "nodebris" knows, that thread was about trapping actual RACCOONS on the White House grounds, and in the context of using eggs, I proposed other round fruit (including oranges and apples) in case they ran out. Of course, "nodebris" doesn't post that part.

Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2009 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"Raccoons love raw eggs too. Was this one caught in the Oval Office? Instead of the Easter Egg roll, are they going to use watermelons this year?"

Posted by: JakeD | February 25, 2009 4:40 PM

Posted by: nodebris | June 11, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Fortunately, the Democrats have the best salesman in the world in Wisconsin today.

I'm not 100% in agreement with everything Obama is doing, but I think its just incredible that he's willing to get involved with so many things at once. This level of activity might be unprecedented.

Posted by: DDAWD | June 11, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse

If I were a septuagenarian against socialized medicine, I'd start by rejecting medicare and suing the government over that. Why wait?

Ah, right: too busy litigating over Obama's birth certificate and reveling over the success of ally Scott Roeder. Priorities, priorities.

Posted by: nodebris | June 11, 2009 2:34 PM | Report abuse

No, I am not (I voted Alan Keyes for President ; )

Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

JakeD is a white supremacist too.

Posted by: drindl | June 11, 2009 2:20 PM | Report abuse

"Hopefully, those opposed to socialized healthcare prevail."

Prevail against what?

No one is proposing Socialized Health Care.

Posted by: VTDuffman | June 11, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

You know what I find an interesting? That both JakeD and the white supremacist who killed a guard yesterday at the Holocast Museum both believe that President Obama is hiding something about his background/birth.

Given that they both spew hate, albeit in different forms and in differing levels of severity, I can't help but wonder...

Posted by: thinman1 | June 11, 2009 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, those opposed to socialized healthcare prevail. If not, we should file lawsuits to delay it as long as possible.

Posted by: JakeD | June 11, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

There's nothing odd about Big Pharma being involved in this -- it's very clever. What they want -- first and foremost -- is to kill the public option, a plan based on Medicare but open to everyone.

Why? Simple. Because it would not have to build in profitablity and therefore will be more competetive than they are. Medicare model allows you to choose your own doctors -- that's all just a scare tactic.

Then they want a plan like Medicare Part B, where the government pays them more than Medicare to deliver the same services.

Then they want to to rid of regulation so they can screw us even better than they are now.

Posted by: drindl | June 11, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company