Pro-Reform Message For August Ad Wars: Hammer Insurance Companies
With both sides of the health care fight gearing up for a merciless August blitz of ads targeting Congress, there are signs the pro-reform forces are settling on a message heavily focused on demonizing the insurance industry and on tying it to reform foes.
Case in point: A source sends over a new ad from a liberal group allied with the White House, targeting GOP Rep. Roy Blunt with a script that mentions the industry six times:
“The insurance industry makes more than $15 billion a year in profits. Now that money is going to fight health care reform. In Washington, opponents of health care reform are spending more than a million dollars a day, just on lobbying alone. On top of that, the insurance companies give millions to the politicians who support them.
“Congressman Roy Blunt has taken more than half a million dollars from the insurance industry. No wonder he’s against reform that will lower costs, give us more choices, and keep the insurance companies honest. Meanwhile we are left paying more than three times what members of Congress pay for good health care. It seems that Roy Blunt is against anything that will hurt the insurance companies’ bottom line. Call Roy Blunt and tell him to side with us, not the insurance companies.”
The ad, paid for by U.S. Action, will start running today on four Missouri radio stations.
Meanwhile, there are signs that the White House, too, is settling on a message strongly targeting the industry. Obama’s pollster said recently that extensive polling has revealed to the White House the depth of hatred for it. As I noted yesterday, the White House will be deeply involved in coordinating the pro-reform forces’ August message.
Anyway, the above spot is a preview of the tidal wave of ads that are heading our way.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Not a bad way to frame it. I still think they need a more personal touch to the story.
Telling people that insurance companies cancel policies due to pre-existing condition, I believe, still doesn’t fully resonate with people. I’d love to see the President do a townhall and ask everyone who has healthcare to raise their hand. Then say:
“Look around at this room. Studies have shown that about X in XX lose their coverage because of a pre-existing condition. And that’s out of everyone who has insurance. Since the insurance companies really only try to wiggle out of paying once they know you’ll be expensive to cover, it means that if one of you get diagnosted with a heart condition, or cancer, or some other expensive life threatening desease – you’re chances of getting your coverage pulled is higher. If you have your hand raised, you’re paying the insurance company your hard earned money every month, and you have a better than X out of XX chance of having your care rationed by an insurance executive looking at a spreadsheet right when you need it most. Maybe when your life depends on it. This is why we have to pass reform, because men and women in this country are going through this already, they’ve been going through it for decades because Washington has delayed and delayed and killed anything that’s sought to change the status quo. That’s why we need your help…etc etc etc”
I think I remember that stat being 1 in 10…but I’m not completely sure, and don’t remember where I heard it. But obviously you’d want to get the stat right – and have a legit source before making this case. If you did, and if it’s something like 1 out of 10, it’s a powerful message. A personal message.
While it seems long in text, if spoken, I think it falls into about the range of one of Pres. Obama’s answers during a town hall (it might even be shorter).
Everyone should read this article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/30/AR2009073004267.html?hpid=topnews
And if you’re in a Blue Dog District, how about calling up your rep during the August recess and asking for a comment? Sounds like the reporter had no success with this, but I’d love to hear the Blue Dogs’ defense of the issue.
“If the current effort to reform American healthcare ends in frustration, much of the blame rests on our political culture’s empowerment of deception and ignorance. Fake erudition is revered, every hoax is deemed brilliant, and prejudice is presented as knowledge — while actual expertise is disregarded or devalued.” http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/07/31/bill_betsy/
“So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opinion/31krugman.html?_r=1
And a quick reminder that nearly 30% of all Americans are already on government run heath care.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121970/Nearly-Insured-Government-Coverage-2008.aspx
Single Payer is the way to go, but I’ll take a strong Public Option…for now.
A little late to the game, hopefully it’s not too late. Progressives let the message get away from them.
@Southern:
I think many are misreading the change to “Health Insurance Reform”. I see it as shifting to an attack posture. It’s about making “Evil Health Insurance CEO murder-by-spreadsheet” folks the enemy. A potent message, reiterated by this post by Greg.
It’s not a failure, it’s about messaging. HealthCare IT is still in the bill. Changing doctor reinbursment incentives are still in the bill. Etc. etc. The bill is the same as it was (I’d like more, but whatever)…the language change is about changing the focus, framing it so that anyone who is voting against reform is voting FOR giant insurance companies (which is basically true anyways).
It could be very effective.
For a compelling story on why coverage should not be tied to employment, which can be lost, especially in this bad economy, see the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/07uninsured.html?_r=3&scp=2&sq=health%20insurance&st=cse about mother whose insurance ended before delivery, and stuck with $17,000 bill when unemployed.
Forced Bankruptcy = part of current broken system.
First para: three simple sentences, one complex. Second: two simple, three complex.
Actually, not bad given DC’s penchant for twisty pronouncements.
THEY ARE NOT BLUE DOGS, THEY ARE BLUE TICKS, RIDING THE BACKS OF BLOODHOUNDS SNIFFING UP THE BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD MONEY.
Interesting. If health insurers are the enemy, why are the DEMS taking so much of their money?
“Democrats so far this cycle have received $7.3 million in contributions from the health sector, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which is 72 percent more than the GOP’s haul. The top two recipients of cash from health sector political action committees are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The top recipient of PAC money from HMOs is Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., lead architect of the House plan. And then there’s Baucus, whose coziness with industry lobbyists is legendary. Last election, Obama far outpaced John McCain in contributions from the health sector, HMOs and drugmakers.”
The way to go is a single payer system. It saves money, delivers better care to everybody, removes the profit so the Dr. not Mr. Insurance fat cat decides what should be done and removes the chains the present system keeps on workers who want to move or change jobs. We have a single payer system in Medicare. At least 30 different single payer system are in use in the developed countries so it should not be hard to find one that works best in the US. Unfortunately to get reform we have to force congress to stop taking cash from the hands of the medical industry who are getting rich at our expense.