Date: 7/6/2009 5:40 PM
EDITOR’S NOTE — An occasional look at political ads and what’s behind them.
By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Staring at the camera, Canadian citizen Shona Holmes says a brain tumor would have killed her had she relied on her government-run health plan that would have provided treatment far too late. “Now, Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.,” a narrator says darkly.
The television ad from a conservative group is dramatic — but deceptive.
In fact, President Barack Obama and Democrats pushing to overhaul health care want to create an optional, government-run plan to compete with private insurers, not replace them. As Obama told a health forum last week, “We’re not suddenly just going to completely upend the system. We want to build on what works about the system and fix what’s broken about the system.”
The ad is part of a handful of commercials that are expected to grow this summer in both numbers and criticism as detailed health bills emerge from Congress and dozens of interest groups, companies and labor unions tussle over influencing lawmakers.
Through June 27, $31 million has been spent for roughly 47,000 TV ads on health care this year, says Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, a firm that tracks issue advertising. That’s double the roughly $14 million the insurance industry spent in 1993 and 1994 for the famous “Harry and Louise” ads credited with helping kill President Bill Clinton’s health care drive, but a fraction of the $250 million Tracey guesses will ultimately be spent this year.
Hoping to shape the early debate, the initial ads are “really being aimed at some people in the administration, some people on Capitol Hill, a whole bunch of reporters, a few bloggers,” Tracey said. As Congress’ direction becomes clearer and interest groups seek public support, “then I think you’re going to see the spending go on a hockey stick curve straight up,” he said.
So far, Tracey said about $15 million has been spent on ads favoring the Democrats’ push to revamp the health care system and $4 million to oppose it. Another $12 million has gone to ads generally favoring better health care — nearly all of it by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, representing drug makers, which hopes its market will expand if more people have insurance.
These figures might be too low, with several groups reporting higher figures reflecting costs Tracey doesn’t track.
Ken Johnson, spokesman for the pharmaceutical group, says the association has spent tens of millions on television ads since late 2008, thanking lawmakers for supporting previous health initiatives or urging them to support a comprehensive effort this year.
“It’s conditioning the environment, it’s setting the table for the debate to come,” he said.
The ad with Shona Holmes — who says she borrowed and saved money for a crucial operation in the United States — exemplifies how groups are intent on bending the debate toward their agendas.
Its sponsor, Patients United Now, is an offshoot of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a privately funded, Washington-based conservative group that believes in limited government and cutting taxes. Among its directors are businessman and conservative activist Art Pope and James C. Miller, a top Reagan administration official.
The group says it has spent nearly $1.8 million running the ad in Washington, D.C., and 11 states with senators on committees writing health care bills or ones seen as wavering. Patients United spokeswoman Amy Menefee says the ad is fair because giving government more control over health care would be a slippery slope toward increasing the federal role, and because some Democrats still favor government-only insurance.
Dominating the spending among opponents is Conservatives for Patients Rights, led and largely financed by Rick Scott, who was ousted as chief of the Columbia/HCA health care company during a fraud probe that ultimately saw the firm plead guilty to overbilling charges. Spokesman Brian Burgess says the group has spent over $4.5 million on TV ads that have run hundreds of times this year, mostly criticizing public health coverage.
On the other side, progressive and labor groups have not been shy about using ads to assail Democrats viewed as insufficiently loyal in the struggle.
Health Care for America Now says it plans to spend $11 million on TV ads. The group is funded by labor, liberal groups and the progressive Atlantic Philanthropies, an international grant-making foundation whose president, Gara LaMarche, worked previously for billionaire Democratic donor George Soros.
Its latest ad: A $1.1 million campaign aimed at prodding senators of both parties from 10 states to support a public health insurance option. Targets include Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who HCAN says has not shown strong enough support for the government-run option.
“Tell Senator Wyden, it’s your health, it should be your choice,” the ad says.
MoveOn.org and other liberal groups began airing a 60-second ad on Friday in Louisiana criticizing Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., for not yet embracing a public insurance plan. They also dropped plans to run ads challenging Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., after she expressed support for a bill containing a government insurance option.
Last Tuesday, the Laborers International Union of North America began airing ads in the home states of Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Kent Conrad, D-N.D., criticizing them for considering a tax on workers’ employer-provided medical benefits to help finance the overhaul.
Union spokesman Jacob Hay says the ads, which had been scheduled to run through Friday, were pulled after a request from Baucus aides. Baucus has agreed to meet with the union’s president, Terence O’Sullivan, to discuss the legislation.
“Ads really do get their attention quickly,” Hay said.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Editorial: Infant Mortality/TimesDaily
Date: 11/13/2008
TimesDaily on infant mortality:
The infant mortality rate is inching upward in Alabama, and there is little extra money to educate and provide care to those who need it the most.
An unsettling trend that for years was being reversed has changed courses, causing concern among state health officials that money may not be available to continue combating the problem.
The Alabama Department of Public Health reports that infant mortality rates crept up slightly from 2006 to 2007, the latest year information is available. In the Shoals, the rate continues to decrease, except in Colbert County.
Numbers compiled in 2007 show that for every 1,000 live births in Alabama, 10 children did not live past their first birthday. That compares to nine deaths per 1,000 live births in 2006.
In the Shoals, the trend is less clear. Franklin County’s deaths per 1,000 live births has shown a steady decline — from six in 2005 to four in 2007 — while Lauderdale County’s rate dipped from nine to seven per 1,000 between 2005 and 2006, but jumped to nine in 2007. Colbert County, however, has shown a steady increase in infant mortality. The rate has increased from five in 2005 to eight in 2007.
Health officials aren’t sure why the rate has increased, but lack of health care insurance may be one of the culprits. Another culprit may be the reversal of the decline in teen pregnancies. Officials say the lack of prenatal care, low education attainment, smoking, and health problems associated with teenagers becoming pregnant (some as young as 11 and 12) all contribute to the rising rates of infant mortality.
The solution? One of the answers is more money, which could be used to provide prenatal care to all women who don’t have health care insurance. Don Williamson, state health officer, said an ideal solution would be to provide coverage to unborn children, but admits that the state would have a difficult time finding the money.
Others say the relative lack of sex education in schools — particularly safe sex and birth control information — may be contributing to the problems.
Once again, Alabama is faced with a public health problem and little money to reverse it. Budgets will be tighter than usual in the coming year, but the governor and legislators should work to find whatever extra money may be available to combat the rising infant mortality rate.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
TimesDaily on infant mortality:
The infant mortality rate is inching upward in Alabama, and there is little extra money to educate and provide care to those who need it the most.
An unsettling trend that for years was being reversed has changed courses, causing concern among state health officials that money may not be available to continue combating the problem.
The Alabama Department of Public Health reports that infant mortality rates crept up slightly from 2006 to 2007, the latest year information is available. In the Shoals, the rate continues to decrease, except in Colbert County.
Numbers compiled in 2007 show that for every 1,000 live births in Alabama, 10 children did not live past their first birthday. That compares to nine deaths per 1,000 live births in 2006.
In the Shoals, the trend is less clear. Franklin County’s deaths per 1,000 live births has shown a steady decline — from six in 2005 to four in 2007 — while Lauderdale County’s rate dipped from nine to seven per 1,000 between 2005 and 2006, but jumped to nine in 2007. Colbert County, however, has shown a steady increase in infant mortality. The rate has increased from five in 2005 to eight in 2007.
Health officials aren’t sure why the rate has increased, but lack of health care insurance may be one of the culprits. Another culprit may be the reversal of the decline in teen pregnancies. Officials say the lack of prenatal care, low education attainment, smoking, and health problems associated with teenagers becoming pregnant (some as young as 11 and 12) all contribute to the rising rates of infant mortality.
The solution? One of the answers is more money, which could be used to provide prenatal care to all women who don’t have health care insurance. Don Williamson, state health officer, said an ideal solution would be to provide coverage to unborn children, but admits that the state would have a difficult time finding the money.
Others say the relative lack of sex education in schools — particularly safe sex and birth control information — may be contributing to the problems.
Once again, Alabama is faced with a public health problem and little money to reverse it. Budgets will be tighter than usual in the coming year, but the governor and legislators should work to find whatever extra money may be available to combat the rising infant mortality rate.
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
