Blogs and Stories
The Scariest Health Care Ads
Which side of the Obamacare debate is winning over voters and senators? Adam Hanft puts the ads under the microscope. Plus: Watch the best and worst commercials.
Is health care bailing out the networks? Already, more than $50 million is being spent on TV advertising to twist America’s insured and uninsured arms about whether health reform is critical and long overdue, or if it’s a catastrophic disease itself. The advertising is coming from all sides: the parties, conservative groups, PACs, unions, the AARP.
The new health care ads are designed to jack up sentiments to the kindling point.
And it’s rapidly reaching the drown-out level. So just imagine the din when the drug companies unleash the $150 million they’ve said they will spend through their trade association, PhRMA.
What is this onslaught supposed to accomplish? Since only 5 percent of people are unsure about whether they support or oppose the president’s plan—according to a CNN Poll conducted between July 31 and August 3—this huge investment isn’t being made to change a few minds.
No, the advertising isn’t targeted to that handful of thoughtful fence-sitters who are genuinely torn. It’s designed to jack up sentiments to the kindling point. It seeks to mobilize the base, to provoke and demonize, to get people enraged enough to email, call, heckle at Town Hall meetings. It’s also meant to be incendiary enough to make the advertising itself an issue, bringing more media attention and coverage.
This level of intensity and traducement is more rhetorically explosive than anything I’ve seen. Sure, we’ve had roughneck messaging in the past—especially in local political races—but there’s an O’Reilly vs Olbermann gladiatorial quality to these proceedings that feels qualitatively different.
What it feels like is Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf on a national scale. We’re watching an ugly fight where each side dredges up all of its toxic history and accumulated vitriol and dumps it into the mix. And because it’s a scratch match, the attacks ratchet up to the point where any effort at reasonable conversation vanishes.
The commercials fall into boring and familiar categories. One technique is to use sad and scary stories of people who either got screwed by the current system—or got screwed in Canada or England by a single-payer system—narrated by an ominous announcer.
Another approach makes health care a proxy for a larger political agenda. Use your commercials to shout that the Democrats are secret socialists who have always wanted a single-payer system, and want to bankrupt America. Or argue that Republicans have always been creatures of the special interests and want to use this issue to crush Obama and maintain the status quo.
But curiously, regardless of the message, most of the sports look and feel the same. That’s because they were created by political strategy firms, not conventional ad agencies. The people who sell you Nike and Coke are in the business of highly produced, subtle manipulation. But these spots work by a kind of bludgeoning artlessness. They take poll-tested language, and message bibles like Frank Luntz did for the Republicans with his Language of Healthcare 2009—and turn it into smash-face advertising.
It’s a little different on the web, though. Here, in an effort to be more “creative,” the DNC and RNC freestyle a bit, hoping for some humor or irreverence that will trigger the forwarding finger.
Like John McCain’s web video where he compared Barack Obama’s celebrity to Paris Hilton’s, the online videos in the health-care debate are often commentaries on the debate itself. The Democrats use mock horror-movie tropes to mock the Republican scare tactics. The Republicans use the convention of drug advertising to deride the Democratic plan as a feel-good, mood-altering drug called Reforma.
Here’s a sampling of what’s out there now. And what’s interesting is that neither the DNC or the RNC has their advertising up on their website. Why are they making it so hard to track down their messaging? Seems like transparency is in no one’s plan.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Obama's New Reverend Wright
Adam Hanft is a decoder of the consumer culture and our branded planet. He blogs for The Huffington Post and FastCompany.com. He is also the co-author of Dictionary of the Future and is founder and CEO of the marketing and branding firm Hanft Raboy. Follow him at Twitter.com/hanft.
Uncle Walter Was Too Old for Prime Time
Adam Hanft is a decoder of the consumer culture and our branded planet. He blogs for The Huffington Post and FastCompany.com. He is also the co-author of Dictionary of the Future and is founder and CEO of the marketing and branding firm Hanft Raboy. Follow him at Twitter.com/hanft.
Why Did Visa and MasterCard Get Off Scot-Free?
Adam Hanft is a decoder of the consumer culture and our branded planet. He blogs for The Huffington Post and FastCompany.com. He is also the co-author of Dictionary of the Future and is founder and CEO of the marketing and branding firm Hanft Raboy. Follow him at Twitter.com/hanft.
Naturally,
liberal ads will support reform,
conservatives ads will oppose reform.
The question is. Do you trust the government bureaucracy ?
The post office is near broke. Obama himself said free market FedEX and UPS are successful,
while (government run) post office is in bad shape.
Amtrack is a debacle,
the DMV is a nightmare. TAKE A NUMBER.
The private sector is less efficient than Medicare. Medicare gets better results for less money because they have the clout to negotiate things like drug prices. The people who have medicare like medicare.
The whole "government sucks at everything" line is really getting tired, don't you think? McCain lost on it, and the Repubs still don't realize it's a dud. If the government sucks at everything, I suppose you hardcore conservatives would like to privatize the military, eh? You people shoot through the roof whenever anyone criticizes the military, we have to support the troops! But the military is nothing but a massive government program. Make up your minds already, either the government can do things right or it can't, but your hypocrisy is getting you nowhere. Anyway, the troops and veterans have government run healthcare. Are you saying it's good enough for our troops, who deserve nothing but the best, but it's not good enough for the rest of us?
Medicare also has less overhead. An insurance company has to generate profits (record ones last year), pay CEO salaries (averaging $11 million), advertise, spend money on research to determine which people should not be allowed to buy policies, retain lawyers to fight people appealing denied claims, etc. This varies from 30% to 50%, and money spent on overhead cannot be used to help sick people.
Medicare, on the other hand, has an overhead of about 1%. So if you really want the money you pay to be spent helping sick people, Medicare is a much better bet.
No! Stop! Too.. much.. logic.. brain is melting,.. aaughh... drool _____
I agree with the premise of your argument but I have a quick correction. Medicare and Medicaid don't get to negotiate for drug prices. It be great if they did. All the other evil socialized countries in the world do with their health programs; which is why I buy my epilepsy medicine from Canada for 1/3 the cost that I can here. Negotiating drug prices for Medicaid/Medacare was one of the main planks of health care reform initially, but it looks like it's been jettisoned.
The difference here is that the "free market" solution of private insurance paid for by employers or individuals *doesn't* work. Not to mention it is simply a different *type* of service: Profiting from transporting things, a non-vital service, as in the case of FedEX and UPS, is smart. Profiting from people who are sick or dying by not covering their costs is disgusting.
This is something constantly being lost among the fear of: "Oh no, what will happen if we reform!?!"
Well, the long and the short of it is that if you have good insurance, you'd rather we didn't reform, because you somehow think someone is going to swoop in and take it from you. If you're currently being financially raped by an insurance company or are uninsured altogether, changing the system sounds like a pretty good idea.
The fact is that if you have good insurance, no one is going to take it from you. If you have no insurance, you'll be able to get insurance. Even with a public option you will still have the option to seek (and PAY FOR) private, more immediate, luxury care. The UK has nationalized healthcare, but that doesn't stop people from purchasing extra health insurance - in fact it often comes with a good job. So if you have a lot of money and/or a good job, your situation isn't changing.
And to boot, we spend a lot more. The UK spends 8% of GDP and everyone is covered - we spend 15% and over 40 million are uninsured. I hate to be politically incorrect, but that is flat-out retarded.
The Canadian woman whining about her Canadian healthcare, for example: she went somewhere else and paid. That option isn't going to go away.
And it's interesting they don't choose to juxtapose her story with those of uninsured Americans, or Americans denied coverage under an existing plan, who die or get sicker waiting for greedy corporate bureaucrats to figure out how they can avoid paying for care to up their bottom line.
The bill is supposed to reform healthcare, including the cost structure. If we do not reform healthcare, your employer may not be able to continue to provide health insurance or will provide an even smaller percentage of your health insurance cost (you may not notice it since your employer pays the insurance bill, but you are paying a larger percentage than prior years) in the future. Just because you can afford health insurance now, doesn't mean you can afford it in the future. The trend is going against us all:
1) Less companies provide health insurance now than in the past.
2) Companies pay a smaller percentage of the total insurance bill now than in the past.
3) The cost of insurance/healthcare is projected to continue to increase significantly.
4) Your wages have not kept up with the increase in healthcare cost.
5) Your job may move out of this country because the cost of medical insurance drives up your cost and the company can no longer afford you.
sophia5: The real question is: Do you trust the insurance company bureaucracy?
Check the following before you answer:
"An investigation by the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations showed that health insurers WellPoint Inc., UnitedHealth Group and Assurant Inc. canceled the coverage of more than 20,000 people, allowing the companies to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims over a five-year period."
As long as rescission is allowed, you cannot count on your health insurance.
Why do you say conservatives oppose reform? Conservatives want reform, they just differ on how it should be accomplished. Example: insurance companies don't want to be forced to sign people with pre-existing conditions. Liberals don't want to change the system that allows lawyers to get rich suing doctors. Both need to change, but neither will give in. The reason conservatives are upset is the Obama plan cherry picks only those parts that irritate the other while leaving things like tort reform off the table. A couple of reasonable adults could figure this out in about an hour.
flyoverland: Reasonable adults are few and far between. And I suspect that my definition of a "reasonable adult" would be quite different than yours.
By the way, if you get tort reform and get rid of medical lawsuits, how do you propose to hold doctors (and others in the medical industry) accountable for the 100,000 deaths caused by medical errors each year?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Yea and Enron and Worldcom and Wall Street were successful too. Visit other countries and see how good their mail service is. Same thing goes for Social Security and Medicare. Bureaucracy is not all bad nor is the "invisible hand" always good.
I just think it is fundamentally wrong that the richest country in the history of the world cannot find a way to give basic healthcare to all of it's citizens who cannot pay for it themselves.
"I just think it is fundamentally wrong that the richest country in the history of the world cannot find a way to give basic healthcare to all of it's citizens who cannot pay for it themselves."
hmmmm sorry, but it's still survival of the fittest. if you can't pay for it yourself/can't find a job/ etc....why should my hard working tax dollars go to your healthcare plan? oh that's right, it shouldn't!
eeasyrider, i think your list just made sophia5's point....all government funded programs that been manhandled to the point of no return.
ps....bytheC, i don't think it's safe to say that we are the richest country anymore.
You can find examples of success and failure on both sides of the government versus private sector debate. To blindly assert that one would be better than the other is childish and foolish. Clearly our current system, which unfortunately does not provide a "safety net" (if I can use that over-used term) for all of our citizens, needs improving. And the American people are a compassionate people and we will find a way to do it.
But the American people are also a wary people, epecially wary of too much power, be it in an industry, a company, or, yes, even our government (perhaps ESPECIALLY in our government).
It's quite possible that the vast majority of the US citizens truly WANT a way to insure the 20 million or so that are not currently insured. And perhaps they understand the need and VALUE of true preventative care and how it ends up costing LESS in the long run. But they also may simultaneously believe (and may be right) that the bill that Nancy and Co. have come up with (and our President is presently endorsing) perhaps goes too far, perhaps puts too much power in the hands of the US Gov, and perhaps may change their healthcare (the ones that have it) to something less than what they have now?
It's certainly understandable, right, and yes moral, for the 70% of the population not already on Medicare/Medicaid and not uninsured to rightly question, "Is this in my own personal best interest?", especially when those individuals have their own kids to worry about.
Where was your wariness of big government during the Bush years, when he got us into 2 wars and trampled the Constitution? Or when he added $5 trillion (yes, that's a "T") to our national debt?
By the way, if you are a Christian (or, if not, at least moral), what would be your response if you heard Jesus say "I'd like to help these sick people, but my disciples need the money."?
P.S. The actual number of uninsured is closer to 50 million. And 22,000 of them die each year. Many of these might have lived with appropriate medical treatments.
To AlanD2,
I didn't like Bush either. It might be hard to believe but it's quite possible to dislike some of the things the previous President did and also dislike some of the things the present President is doing, unless you'd like me to regress into some kind of high-school-ish "my side, right or wrong" stance.
WRT to me being a Christian and Jesus showing up, I don't know what He'd say, but I'd guess He'd probably have a lot of constructive criticism about many thoughts and beliefs of the left and the right. I don't doubt we will find a way to help those citizens (yes, citizens) who are not yet insured, or didn't you read that in my last post?
WRT XX Million, you may in fact be correct. I do not know the correct number, but I do know enough about statistics and politics that the numbers reported in the news on ANY station are most likely inaccurate. I don't think the magnitude of the uninsured number is important but rather that people are, in fact, uninsured.
downbytheriver00: Being a life-long liberal, I have a number of disagreements with Obama and other moderates. I agree with you that having uninsured people in this country is a disgrace.
Didn't like the Democrats' Horror Show ad at all. Who picked Night on Bald Mountain as the background music? Not that I don't love Mussorgsky, but they ought to have used some cheesy stock music instead, or at least Fugue in C Minor...
Anyway, sorry to interrupt everyone's rants. I'll get us started again: DEATH PANELS. BIG GOVERNMENT. DEFICITS. GLENN BECK. SOCIALISM. FASCISM. SCARY BOO!
The post office may be struggling now, but remember it was created to deliver mail. With the advent of email and the internet, the post office needs to redefine itself. It is going through what other businesses that have existed for a while have had to do: redefine its business model.
Businesses are not always that efficient either. I see a lot of waste. I was part of a biotech that built out a new building and equipped it with $10 mil in new equipment only to be taken over and shut down by its new owner (one of the best known company in the U.S.) within a year of being acquired. I sold brand new equipment for pennies on the dollar or donated the equipment to educational organizations if I couldn't sell them. Within one year of shutting down this operation, employees of this biotech created a new startup that does exactly the same thing as the shut down operation and received $100 mil in funding from VCs. How efficient is that?
But there is a huge differences between government waste and inefficiency and private sector waste and inefficiency. If such waste occurs in the private sector, eventually the business will go out of business, or lose customers and go out of business. That is not so with government. If there is waste and fraud in government, it will be funded with taxes.
Either way, it all comes down to: "Who's paying the freight on this crate?" Whether it's increased costs borne by the consumer or higher taxes. The public will pay, and pay and pay. Can't wait for the next installment of "People In Depends Gone Wild" at Town Hell.
The U.S. pays twice as much per capita as any other country in the world yet only has the 37th best health care system and ranks 50th in longevity.
You must think Americans are pretty stupid if you believe that we can't fix health care to be at least as good as any other country and no more expensive.
Apologies in advance for the meandering post - I've got a splitting headache :)
1. What is the role of government in society? To regulate the free market, to participate in the free market, or to supplant the free market?
2. What do you want your government 'to do for you'? Security? Defense? Education? R&D? Health Care? Judicial pocess? Subsidized business ventures?
3. How much does that cost and how are you going to pay for it? If you want the government to do it, you have to give the government money to do it. Thru across the board taxes? Point-of-delivery fees/charges? Leave it to local communities to provide the funding?
Every business looks at its bottom line, be it a mom-and-pop shop on the corner, the insurance companies, oil companies, hospitals, or the government. Whether it is maximizing profits or minimizing tax payer expense, every organization is pressured to deliver top quality for the least dime. Some succeed, some don't, and some sacrifice quality for the consumer in order to line their upper-management pockets. In the end, any company is as efficient as you the customer allow it to be or not to be.
In terms of health care, we are dancing around a very core philosophy that isn't getting addressed: Is everyone 'entitled' to affordable health care? - ie, do you have the right to extend your life artificially or is that a luxury item? If you believe it it a right, then the government should provide a reliable mechanism to ensure every citizen has it (be it thru govt service or a freemarket system) and you just have to suck it up and pay for it. If you believe it is a luxury, then it is purely freemarket, and the emphasis should shift to ways in getting more of the nation financially solvent in order to afford it or outing predatory practices that cut away from it.
Myself, if I didn't take my meds every day, I'd be dead already. I have insurance that each year gets more expensive in premiums, deductibles and co-pays in order to maintain 'the same coverage" - my out of pocket goes up but my coverage doesn't. I can afford it, thankfully (barely) but I have to ask myself in the midst of this debate: do I 'deserve' to extend my life like this? My heart says yes for myself and for everyone. My mind says well, not exactly necessarily.
So, what's the purpose of government in this? To provide for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or, to stay out of it and let the dog eat dog world take care of itself? Or, is there a fair balance inbetween?
Evaluating whether or not people are 'entitled' to affordable ( not free ) healthcare is a bit of an ideological discussion. I personally believe that the 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' goal outlined in the Declaration of Independence does support this line of reasoning.
That is not the only reason we should reform the healthcare system so that it is affordable by all. Only humans are capable of creating something that can produce economic value. If we want to grow and improve our economy, we need as many productive value-creating humans as possible.
I have a couple friends who have been fighting workers compensation claims for multiple years, fighting insurance companies to fund their healthcare. While they are engaged in this struggle, they are _not_ producing. They are going to the doctor, they are in court, they are trying not to look productive so that they can convince the insurance companies that they have indeed been injured. They often don't get the best care either, so their condition drags on for years, as their health deteriorates.
I have another friend who had cancer. She did all the research, opted for an invasive surgery at one of the nation's best cancer treatment centers, learned how to walk again, and beat cancer. She is a very motivated and productive person ( a Republican too ).
Some may look at others and judge them for their *willingness* to produce value and contribute to society. Based on their impression or evaluation of the value of another persons life and contributions, they sometimes see themselves as more valuable producers who can afford and who "deserve" better healthcare. However, this idea means that there will always be a constant drag on the economy by those who consume and who are not in a position to produce value.
My friends who were on workers comp do not earn as much as my friend who beat cancer, even if their income was combined. Still, it is still better for all of us if they had access to the best care from the very start, and did not lose valuable productive years of their lives while not paying taxes.
We should make good health care affordable to all because it makes economic sense.
Do I trust my health care to Government?
Or the Insurance Companies?
The insurance companies.
I love that the insurance executives take home twenty and thirty million dollars for a years pay.
I love that if you get sick, after paying premiums for fifteen years, the insurance companies will cancel your coverage. I love that your chances to sue insurance companies and win a suit is Nil.
I love that insurance companies can and do cancel coverage if they find out you had a gall bladder attack fifteen years ago and forgot to list it on your initial application. And after you have brain cancer and a hundred thousand dollars in bills, they cancel your coverage because you lied.
I love that United health care system in New York State, last year, paid a four hundred thousand dollar penalty for defrauding their customers over a four year period.
After all, cheating the citizens in the US is a big game... and it is so much fun to watch.
The fact that your medical insurance has gone up nearly three times in the last eight years is also hysterical... After all, you did not need the raise you might have gotten if your health plan was not so high.
Of course, you would actually have to have the ability to think and analyse matters, to get the whole picture.
That is part of the game... most people in this country that are even covered by their employer have no idea how much their employer pays for
that coverage
And they go around yapping about not getting a raise for the last five years.
Who can be bothered with serious stuff when you can stand and stare at some insurance
company executives ten million dollar estate.
Bloomberg News reports today that an army of no less than 3,300 registered lobbyists is working the halls of Congress these days, twisting arms on health care reform. That is about six well paid lobbyists for every representative of the American people.
The lobbying dollars are in a free flow. $263.4 million was spent by opponents to any health plan eform in the first half of 2009.
It is difficult to do the right thing when you took 3.2 million dollars from an insurance company for your re-election campaign .What are you going to do.. cut off your plush living just to help the American citizens.... I think not.
CNN likes to bill itself as THE MOST TRUSTED VOICE IN
TELEVISION""
YEAH RIGHT!
There has been a subtle change on CNN since the election last November. First these changes went unnoticed to a great extent and then more exposure appeared and people started noticing more and more and commenting on it.
Because a friend mentioned this to me I started to pay attention and one night one of the reporters I used to have a lot of respect for, Gloria Borger made some right wing comments that made my skin crawl for its duplicity and barely concealed contempt for the Democrats. . Then, a couple of weeks ago there was publicity about CNN turning down a very lucrative deal to show ads that were critical of the insurance industry... talking about the rate the companies dropped people who became ill from the rolls immediately.
Recently, my friend sent me this link you might find interesting... CNN can now be called "ONE OF THE MOST RIGHT-WINGED TELEVISION VOICES ON TELEVISION.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fo rtune/index.htm
5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
EMAIL | PRINT | SHARE | RSS
feed://rss.cnn.com/rss/money_news_economy.rss
Paste this link into your favorite RSS desktop reader
See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close)
By Shawn Tully, editor at large
July 24, 2009: 10:17 AM ET
follow up.. 8/17/09
STATISTICS SHOW THT CNN WATCHERS HAVE BEEN REDUCED 17% SINCE jUNE 1.
THAT IS THE WAY TO GO..... THAT IS THE WAY TO GO! NOT ALL AMERICNS ARE STUPID.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.