Campaign Against Obama Health Plan Run By Notorious Conservative PR Firm
A new group called Conservatives for Patients Rights (CPR) is about to launch the opening salvo in the fight to sink President Obama's health care plan.
CPR is running TV, radio, and web ads that attempt to stoke irrational fears of "a central national board" in charge of medical decision-making, asking Americans to envision a world where "bureaucrats decide the treatments you receive, the drugs you take, even the doctors you see." Of course, that vision has nothing to do with the president's health care plan, but the truth shouldn't be an impediment to CPR's dream of killing health care reform.
After all, the group has hired Creative Response Concepts, the same PR firm that represented the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential race. The "media relations" contact number listed on CPR's website, (703) 683-5004, is the same phone number as Creative Response Concepts, as one liberal organization discovered when researching the new health care group.
Creative Response's past clients also include the Christian Coalition, the right-leaning National Taxpayers Union, and USANext, the front group that led George W. Bush's failed push to privatize Social Security. Hilariously, Politico could only bring itself to observe that CPR has hired "veteran Republican consultants" for its new anti-Obama effort.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Harry and Louise redux.
March 3, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
CPR - get it? Get it?
March 3, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Envision it? I'm living it. It's called US health insurance, where my "insurance" company told me what doctors I couldn't see, what drugs he couldn't prescribe, and what treatments I couldn't receive.
The question is - what bureaucrats do I want making these decisions? Ones who are responsible to the electorate (and hence the contry) or those who are responsible to Humana?
March 3, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
But are you going to get that with the bill that comes out of Congress? Too early to tell. We may find that all they've got is a legal mandate to buy the same insurance policy from the usual suspects. The big question is if this is going to be a bill to provide health care to all Americans or if its just another bailout bill for the insurance industry.
March 3, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the nail on the head concerning the problem with health insurance. There is an inherent conflict concerning health insurance. Insurance carriers owe a duty to their shareholders to limit payments as much as possible to maximize profits for the shareholders. Therefore, they are not interested in the health of the people that have their insurance. Their goal is to collect the money and not pay claims, so that they can pay dividends to the shareholders and bonuses to the executives. Would you rather have that type of system or a system with government bureaucrats concerned about the health of the population? It really is not rocket science.
Incidentally, what has happened in europe is that the governments are all over pollution and environmental problems and hazards, unlike in the us, because they have to pay for the healthcare of the population. In order to keep down costs, they are all over the environment and preventive care. By way of example, china has problems getting toys into europe and other third world countries have problems exporting to europe because of the health issues. So where do they ship their toxic toys? The good ol us of a.
Government run health care is totally the way to go. Get rid of the insurance carriers. It really is a no-brainer.
March 3, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fundamental problem is this: If I sell shoes, I can compete with other shoe sellers by offering better shoes. If I sell cars, I can try to offer better cars than my competitors. What can a health insurance company offer? They don't directly impact your health - they just pay for the services. To increase profitability they compete in the only way they can - by trying to be most efficient at excluding people who might require services and denying benefits when they do. Nothing you can do can ever change this dynamic.
This is why publicly funded health care will always be better - the need to compete is removed. They're not judged by how profitable they are; they're judged by how efficiently they deliver services.
March 3, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I'm all for a national health service, your logic is flawed. Private insurers can compete with each other by offering lower rates to consumers. I myself chose a lower cost insurer and get terrific care and coverage (so far).
Private, for-profit health care and insurance is a terrible idea, but let's use appropriate arguments to define them. while some may compete to raie their profits by not paying off, others seek to raise profits by expanding their customer base through lower rates.
March 4, 2009 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have many patients who feel they got a great deal on their insurance company. When something even mildly catastrophic happens, they're less happy about the deal. I've sadly seen dozens of instances where companies use any excuse to deny coverage. I have not seen one company that stands out as being compassionate, and I've dealt with a couple dozen.
March 4, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
But how do companies reduce their costs to be able to offer lower rates? Answer: they aggressively exclude people who might cost them money and try to find ways to not pay for those who slip through. That's the only way. (Well, they could reduce administrative costs, but much of those administrative costs are associated with the above, which is why administrative costs for private insurance are so high.)
March 4, 2009 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly the point the Obama Administration should be making. Along with tying it into making good economic sense, and being good for small businesses.
March 3, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all private insurers have shareholder. Most Blue Cross-Blue Shield orgs are nonprofits. BCBS has a huge piece of the market--in some states a majority.
What I hate is that they use the fact that they have to compete with for-profits as an excuse to justify bloated exec compensation, spending up to 20% of revenue on marketing--marketing, for God's sake--and discriminating and intruding into treatment decisions like they were for-profit themselves.
March 3, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, their non-profits and I have a bridge to sell you. It's called "administrative costs." They don't pay profits to shareholders, but I guarantee you that the executive compensation, "administrative costs," are tied into what is brought in in premiums and what is paid out. There is still a huge conflict.
March 3, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Private insurers run overhead of 30%. Medicare has overhead of 3%. That means that under Medicare, 97 cents of every dollar funding the system gets spent on actual care. Under private insurance, only 70 cents of every dollar you pay in premiums goes to your actual care.
March 3, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always bemused by the names these groups choose that say the exact opposite of what the group is actually trying to accomplish.
Conservatives for Patients' Rights??
The absolute LAST thing they care about is patients' rights.
March 3, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least they admit they're conservatives. I'm surprised they aren't calling themseleves "Liberal Peaceniks who Adore Puppies and Kittens for Quality Health Care for Everyone" or some such Owrwellian claptrap.
March 4, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dems are really going to have to fight this one hard - they really need to get out in front of the PR battle and not let the other side frame it first.
March 3, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is too important for PR and frames alone. The plan needs to be carefully explained. People need to know what they're being asked to support.
March 3, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's can't be won on a good frame, but it can be lost if the lobbyists get to frame it.
March 3, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilariously, Politico could only bring itself to observe that CPR has hired "veteran Republican consultants" for its new anti-Obama effort.
Even more hilarious than that is the headline today: how the press sucks up to the White House.
DRUDGE DRUDGE DRUDGE DRUDGE DRUDGE!
Walter Jonze Mitty is right: Democrats need to be out front defining the terms of the debate.
March 3, 2009 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't find the article now, because I wanted to give you a link. However, I read an article where pelosi was being interviewed about healthcare and she was reframing the debate. It's not about the uninsured, its about good, affordable and cost effective healthcare for all americans, which we don't get now. Smart way to reframe it and it looks like that is the way dems are going to go.
March 3, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most employers that provide coverage are being buried by rapidly spiraling costs. There will still be a lot of pushback from drug companies and insurance companies, but I don't think there will be the pushback from the general business community that we saw in the 90's.
March 3, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping you're right.
I think people are worse off right now than in 93, and that will influence attitudes as well.
A cat can only dream.
March 3, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The business community is totally on board with universal healthcare. It will totally help detroit and any companies that pay for health insurance, which few that do today. The us chamber of commerce is on board as well. Also, the american people and the healthcare industry. Alot of doctors don't take insurance anymore because of the administrative costs and bullsh*t associated with it.
Everyone is on board except . . . Insurance and pharmaceutical companies as you pointed out. Insurance knows that it will die and it should. AMF criminals. Pharma knows it has a huge problem because the us subsidizes drugs for the rest of the world and feeds their profits. Most countries limit the drug costs, other than the us, so when they price for the us market they price as much as possible not in any relation to r&d or costs of production. We are basically getting raped by the pharma industry and the government gave them a huge handout with that medicare program. The costs of healthcare would go down dramatically controlling pharma costs and getting rid of insurance and the care given would be better in the long run.
It really is disgusting how the republicans have manipulated this problem to line their pockets. We just need a good communicator in the whitehouse to go to the american people and explain the problem and the solution. One can only hope. Oh, yeah, that's right we have one.
March 3, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in northern VA there are health care ads running fairly often. Pharma, SEIU, and AMA and other Associations and orgs are behind comprehensive health care. The more people taking medications and going to the hospital, the better for them.
Where you will see the battles is if there are pushes for generic drugs and of course the insurance companies and large HMO's.
March 3, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is glaring evidence of the problem with the pharma industry, in case you missed it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/04pfizer.html?hp
Sure, pharma is for "universal healthcare" as long as they keep raping americans with absurdly high drug prices and get to keep shoveling drugs that have little or no effect and great side effects, like viox. We need massive regulations of the industry, which we have not gotten.
Also, I don't get the marketing commercials that I see all the time. Here is this drug that does x,y and z, and has horrendous side-effects. Go ask your doctor to prescribe it????? WTF. That's absurd.
March 4, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do communications for a health care reform advocacy group in the Midwest. The bottom line phrase you want to use when talking about this issue is "access to quality, affordable health care for all." (Obama used that phrase in the speech last week.) It's dial tested and rates through the roof - resonates with most people. The values you want to activate in talking about the issue are fairness, equality, and justice.
Health care is the key to economic security and opportunity. Especially in these economic times, Americans need the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they aren't going to go bankrupt or lose their home if an illness strikes their family. It's not fair when Americans who work hard and play by the rules have to choose between filling their gas tanks or filling their prescriptions.
And PLEASE, PLEASE - if you want to see health care, I beg of you to BOMBARD your local media with letters to the editor and calls to ALL your legislators.
We are having a hell of a time getting pro-reform ANYTHING printed, but in my market, the two major newspapers had a free-marketeer doctor do an op ed on how bad the Swedish system of socialized medicine was, and a government policy dork say that "the best we can hope for right now is incremential reform" (not full reform - which is b.s.) These op eds appeared on Thursday and Friday last week with no space on the page for rebuttals.
Pro-reform folks are working on this around the clock, but we are no match for the money machine that this post describes - it is really time for everyone who wants to see real change and real fairness raise their voices.
March 3, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't imagine this line of attack gaining any traction because pretty much anybody fortunate enough to have insurance already has bureaucrats making those decisions. Everybody has a story to tell about dealing with insurance customer "service" and getting the run around. Even people with "good" insurance wind up fighting to get their prescriptions covered and get referrals to specialists.
Really, these people are going to have to come up with something a whole lot better than that if they hope to stop the healthcare juggernaut.
March 3, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want to see real bureacracy in action? Time how long it takes you to speak with an actual human being next time you call your insurance company.
March 3, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the way that the conservatives use "Britain and Canada" as the scaaary systems we might adopt. The U.S. is 46th on the C.I.A.'s ranking of life expectancy by country. What better measure is there for which systems work best?
Ahead of us at #42? Bosnia/Herzegovina. Seven countries ahead of us at #39? Jordan. Canada is #8 (how horrible to be like them!) Although the UK, whose national health system was severely defunded by Thatcher and Blair, is only #36. Of course in Britain, they achieve that mediocre rank without the guaranteed bankrupcy for anyone who faces a major illness without health insurance and likely bankrupcy for those with insurance.
Also, it would be so terrible to have actual studies that showed which treatments worked the best, rather than rely on studies, funded and designed by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, that need only show their treatment works better than a placebo.
March 3, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Brits are low because they're still learning how to cook their vegetables.
March 3, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
what's wrong with roasting the shit out of them?
March 4, 2009 5:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
anyone have a link to Bill Kristol's 90s anti-Clinton healthcare memo? Was it on huffpost recently?
As I understand it, it was a strategy to attack the Clinton Healthcare initiative because it might work and people will like government.
March 3, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to more about the 90s GOP attack plan on healthcare:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/03/bill-kristols-1993-memo-calling-for-gop.html
March 3, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
i will never understand why anyone would object to universal health care.
who exactly are these people that would buy into these scare tactics and why?
yet, those same people support massive military spending that does nothing but transfer wealth.
i could pay for health insurance simply by cutting the defense budget to 100 billion a year.
there is no excuse to be spending more then that. NONE.
after death,the stupidity of people is the only sure thing in life.
March 3, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fear is what we all, in some way or another, battle to overcome.
March 4, 2009 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dems should seize on the fact that this is the Swiftboaters PR firm. Call them on it, say they're trying to "swiftboat healthcare"...
March 3, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point!!!
March 3, 2009 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, but let's not divert our attention from the real issue. While we're out there crying "Swiftboat!" they are out there getting their anti-reform message out. We need to be talking about why reform makes sense, not decrying their tactics.
March 3, 2009 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets do both
March 4, 2009 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama, or at least Gibbs, should stand in front of a large monitor and show the Harry and Louis ad and then the new one and be as open as they can about the manipulation that is going on there. Give some history and perspective. Use the bully pulpit. Acknowledge who the forces are who are producing these things and get out ahead of it. Make the CPR stuff look like ADS!! Give your average low-info person something to think about, not to react to (which is CPR's whole strategy: dog whistle).
March 3, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was Families USA that redid the Harry & Louise ads to be pro-reform. It was awesome.
March 3, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
To continue on with my theory of Republicans can't suggest conservative solutions to anything, including health care, because, according to them, Govn't needs to step aside and allow the free market to solve problems.
Can you imagine how demoralizing it must be to be a Govn't employee when Republicans run the House, Senate and White House. You've got a bunch of leaders that think you are worthless. I wonder if this attributes to their lack of motivation.
Republicans keep going back to Govn't shouldn't be involved because Govn't is inefficient. Well no shit. Maybe Republicans should get serious when in office and hold not only employees accountable, but also themselves.
Maybe Obama can turn things around and give people back a sense of pride about their jobs and get people a little more motivated to strive for goals in the Govn't.
Anyways, back to you regularly scheduled programming.
March 3, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are about Patronage. Same as Rome 2000 years ago.
March 4, 2009 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just who the hell is paying for a PR campaign against a healthcare reform policy that has yet to be fully developed and has yet to be proposed to Congress or to the American people??
The inside of this problem must be so bad that the inside actors know that they have to get waaaaaay out front on this one.
March 3, 2009 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "Politico" reads like a zine version of the Washington Post editorial page. The format is all groovy and paperless, but gosh, I might as well be reading Broder.
March 4, 2009 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Broder's better. It's more like reading krauthammer.
March 4, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't an average citizen have an opinion without being dismissed as "wanting to sink Obama's agenda"? The truth is, independent patients' rights and reform groups are needed. The government adds to rising cost by advocating a FALSE fee structure that purposely understates the fair market value on medical fees, which drives up the consumers' costs. All one has to do is just look at the legal actions taken against Ingenix (owned by United Health Care). Here's a company that knowingly set medical fees well below market value, leaving consumers to make up the balances on their out of network expenses. The company publishes the pricing utilized by most major insurers, including Medicare/Medicaid - many of which are now settling out of court or making donations to build an "independent" fee database (which is how Ingenix was built to begin with, duh). Well, I'm one of those affected consumers, and I can tell you my doctors billed fairly and did not inflate their rates. Ingenix cheated so they could get government contracts, and subsequently the insurance companies cheated. And the government let them all do it. Look it up for yourself, it's all right there in public legal documents.
And THIS is the system that our very government contracts with for its health care administration, including setting its Medicare/Medicaid fees. Sure, keeps costs down for the government, but how about the consumers left holding the bag when their health plan is supposed to cover 80% of the UCR rate but Ingenix sets UCR at 30% lower than fair market value? Has Obama denounced this system and demanded they cut contracts with this company, which has admitted to providing false data and hurting consumers? No. Instead he vows to increase funding to expand these very programs and says nothing of the Ingenix fee structure. That is not reform. (Need I remind too that former HHS nominee Daschle "consulted" United Health Care and Ingenix during this time? I wouldn't exactly call that an unbiased selection...that sort of made any respect I had for Obama decline more).
President Obama (or any president) just needs to enforce existing laws to make the insurance companies honor their policies when we use the medical services they say that they cover. And they need to stop unfair price fixing. Other than in oversight, the government does not belong in the health insurance provider business and is the primary INCREASER of costs. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, and would simply like the government to stay out of my health care.
March 5, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink