I'm in Congress giving psychiatric evaluations.

CNN won't air truthful ads about Lou Dobbs, but the networks will air this lying tripe? That damn liberal media!

There doesn't seem to be any accountability from the media on such egregious claims, and this is truly a sad reflection of where things stand on health care reform and largely on the story state of affairs in this country. The status quo, with a complicit media, all in the name of 'fair and balanced' equivalency reporting, will gladly take a fat check and air and ad like this one.

As for CNN, their ratings tell you where they are headed, but I doubt they care.

What's worse than this ad? The fact that Progressive groups could make an ad just as scary and brutal...but they wouldn't have to lie AT ALL.

It would be fantastic if they grew some b***s and did that.

They're rolling out the heavy artillery

Me and Kleefeld

John --

I just talked with David Axelrod, former Obama for America strategist and current Senior Adviser to the President.

David knows that with the fight over health insurance reform at a fevered pitch, the organizing we're doing is more important than ever. So he asked to be able to speak with a few of our most active supporters to update them on the state of the fight -- what we'll need to do to make sure real reform passes.

As a monthly donor, you're one of our most valued supporters, so I wanted to make sure to invite you.

I've set up a conference call for Tuesday night, and I'd like to invite you to join us.

What: Health Care Conference Call with
David Axelrod

When: Tuesday, August 11th
8:00 p.m. Eastern Time

Eric,

Thanks for keeping this up. Sourcewatch stated part of the money was coming from Big Phrma.

Sourcewatch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=60_Plus_Association

In the middle of bashing everything about the United States, Senator Tom Coburn said he thinks the United States cannot do anything well, including fighting wars.

This comment is a little off topic, but If you are from Oklahoma, PLEASE watch this clip and read this post.

http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2480

My morbidly obese aunt, who would vote against anyone supporting a public plan, has availed herself of 2 knee replacements - 300+ pounds is hard on knees, and they'll need to be replaced again eventually. She has COPD from 40 years of smoking, so Medicare pays for the air concentrator that prevents sleep apnea.
She also thinks any national health plan would "take it from seniors" but she deserves everything Medicare can give because she "paid into it all those years". Not the way it works but never mind.
She hates the idea of any help for people whose mortgages are under water. They made bad choices so they should live with them. She hasn't paid taxes in years because of a loss carryover due to some bad choices of business partners her husband made years ago before he died.
In the GOP mind personal responsibility is for others. But don't take any entitlements away. And don't raise taxes.

Um, so if these guys are funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and the white house just made a deal with big pharma.... why are these ads running?

The Borgen Project has some good information on the cost of addressing global poverty (borgenproject dot org).
It only takes $30 billion annually to end world hunger!
Yet... we are spending $550 billion annually on the defense budget.

I feel like the Onion is running these ads. They are extremely difficult to take seriously, and it's even more difficult to think that anyone else is taking them seriously, especially the 'greatest generation.' But, Ah!, the American public continues to amaze me!

http://www.enewse.com

I saw this ad. Who is this group?

When is Big Pharma going to run their $150 million worth of ads?

I have refrained from commenting on the deal with Big Pharma, but if Rachel Maddow's report tonight that 60 Plus' main funder is Big Pharma, then what was that deal the administration thought they had with Big Pharma? The pro-reform 2009 version of Harry and Louise ads (very ineffective IMHO, but better than opposition, I suppose)? Except now we see they're ALSO funding the most extreme and extremely dishonest anti-reform ad of the season. This isn't "on our side" at best it's playing both sides of the fence, and in return we gave up on how many billions from the industry?

Sounds like reneging to me.

It is interesting that in this long string of commentary, nobody evaluates the statements that are made in the ad. Here are the four central propositions of the ad. Are these propositions true or not?

1. Congress plans to cut $500 billion from Medicare. This will mean long waits for care, and cuts to cat scans, mri’s and other vital tests.

This is a true statement. Congress is, in fact, proposing at least $500 billion in health care cuts as part of the health care reform bill. With the rapidly growing need for Medicare with our aging population, there is no question that cutbacks of this magnitude will mean longer waits for many healthcare services. Regarding cuts in diagnostic imaging, the federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) are advocating big cuts. Physicians who read X-rays, CT and MRI scans will get a 30% cut Jan. 1, on top of a 23% cut they got five years ago. And the required utilization of imaging and therapeutic radiation machines would rise from 40%-50% at present, to 95%, forcing the shutdown of many centers, especially in rural and minority areas, leading to accelerated rate of deaths from cancer.

2. Seniors may lose their own doctors.

No evidence that this is a true statement.

3. Government, not doctors, will decide if older patients are worth the cost.

Substantial elements of truth. The health care bill would create a new commission, the Independent Medicare Advisory Commission (IMAC), appointed by the President, whose specific mission is defined as reducing Medicare expenditures. This panel would make the decisions about what procedures would be paid for by Medicare, in what circumstances, and at what reimbursement rates. IMAC has been targeted by Congresswoman Woolsey and 50+ other progressives in Congress, who expressed their concern about “the impact it would have on seniors, people with disabilities, doctors, and hospitals.” IMAC would take away Medicare reimbursement decisions from our elected representatives, and place this in the hands of the anonymous bureaucrats. One of the president’s senior healthcare advisors, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, has advocated that scarce medical resources be allocated according to principles he calls “complete lives,” which would provide young people in their 20s and 30s with two or three times as much access to scarce medical resources as would be available to senior citizens. (See pp.428-429 of “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions,” The Lancet, Jan 2009).

4. Congress could better health care than the rest of us.

Definitely true. Congress has a much better health care program than the overwhelming majority of the citizens.

So there is real evidence behind three of the ad’s four propositions. Three out of the four are valid criticisms. And what is wrong with the last statement the ad makes: ““Don’t pay for health care reform on the backs of our seniors.” Who disagrees with that proposition?

Instead of raging about such television ads as this, advocates for progressive health care should look critically at the negative aspects of the pending “reform” and lobby to fix them. Advocates for reform would more likely be successful if they promoted the policies supported by most Americans: dump the HMO’s and insurance companies; negotiate serious drug purchase deals with Big Pharma on the public’s behalf; give us a single payer system; and with the savings from these steps, expand Medicare services, build more hospitals, and insure everyone.