Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Swift-Boating Healthcare: Facts Are First Casualty in Health Care Debate
People relying on TV advertising or partisan sources for information about health care legislation in Congress have heard that it will "ration" care to the nation's oldest citizens and hike premiums "95 percent.
Or that Republican voters "might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system." President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan "will be paid for."
Such statements, made in what analysts say is likely to be one of the most expensive issue-oriented campaigns ever, are misleading - if not flat-out wrong.
More than $67 million has been spent on TV advertising on the health care debate so far this year, according to Campaign Media Analysis Group, which analyzes TV political advertising, and more misinformation and nastiness is expected when Congress returns next week.
"Definitely, the debate is going to ratchet up," said Keith Appell, a spokesman for the group Conservatives for Patients' Rights, which plans to spend $20 million against the Democrats' health care plans.
Appell works at the public relations agency that represented Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Navy veterans whose attacks on the war record of 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., helped doom his campaign.
Big money
While twice as much money has been spent on ads supporting the health care reform plans this year, anti-reform groups "have spent only slightly less than the pro groups" in the past month, said Evan Tracey, chief operating officer of Campaign Media Analysis Group.
"This is one of those issues where neither side will be underfunded," he said.
Through June 30 of this year, the health care industry - which includes doctors, nurses, HMOs and other groups - had spent more than $263 million to lobby Congress, which is on track to surpass the $484 million it spent in all of 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that charts the influence of money on politics.
"Somebody sitting at home is not able to have their voice heard at any level with the millions of dollars flowing into this debate," said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics.
Changing tone
In recent months, the tone of the advertising has changed from soft-focus and issue-oriented to more direct and political. And misleading.
"If there continues to be a debate over a public option, then the rhetoric is going to get even sharper," Tracey said. "In the fall, you'll see even more targeting of individual members (of Congress) who might be seen as on the fence."
In the contest for influence, opponents of the health care plans have an easier task, Tracey said. "They just have to install doubt in the viewer's mind," he said.
This month, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele sent the "2009 Future of American Health Survey" to Republican voters to gauge their attitudes on health care issues.
Question No. 4 read: "It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?"
When asked who specifically has "suggested" that Republican voters could be "discriminated against," RNC spokeswoman Katie Wright said "the question was inartfully worded" but did not say who suggested it.
The American Medical Association said the House bill "does not ration medical care or discriminate based on political affiliation."
Rowdy meetings
Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, who as chair of the House Education and Labor Committee is one of the architects of the House version of the health care bill, said some of the misleading advertising contributed to rowdy town hall meetings this month.
"So much of it has been misleading and designed to disrupt the debate," Miller told The Chronicle. "The efforts of town hall were so you couldn't convey to the public what the bill actually did."
As for how much such efforts stalled the conversation, Miller said: "We shall see."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/30/MNFT19FC7K.DTL#ixzz0PlalBzXW


20 Comments so far
Show AllWhen the lies are exposed, how can the media that propagated them be trusted? Why is it legal to broadcast lies on public airwaves, on shows that advertise that they are the news? Where is the accountability?
johntwodogs: 1.the media that propagates lies canNOT be trusted until it corrects such lies on the air and encourages rather than suffocates ACTUAL public discourse INDEPENDENT of corporate maneuvering....2 the broadcasting of lies has become normal because of the misplaced trust in our 'end of history' trance-state perpetuated via moral cowardice in broadcasting leadership and the clever (tho when viewed through the lens of our interconnectedness as a species with all life, abysmally unintelligent) erosion of ACTUAL mechanisms of justice through myopic self-interest and 3.the accountability lies within all individual persons and groups from small to global who need to assess the longterm sustainability of this obviously broken system.... human health care cannot be separated from earth health care or agriculture health care or conscience health care or community health care or ethical health care. respect for actual truth is a prerequisite to dealing realistically with real problems. to attack the problem of a diseased economic system utilizing only the tools and philosophies and skills grown out of that system ( especially the utilization of lies/duplicity/secrecy!!!) is to assure failure and digging the hole we're in ever deeper. we won't get out of the rut til we collectively open our minds and hearts to SEE the suffering and harm rippling out from such a pinched willingness to shore up and perpetuate false systems of 'security' or 'freedom' that in reality do their utmost to strip people of the power of critical thinking and resilience.
For example (quoting the article::
******"It has been suggested that the government could use voter registration to determine a person's political affiliation, prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system. Does this possibility concern you?"
When asked who specifically has "suggested" that Republican voters could be "discriminated against," RNC spokeswoman Katie Wright said "the question was inartfully worded" but did not say who suggested it.*****
Pretty ARTFUL wording in defense of the Machiavellian ART of LYING, if you ask me, Katie.
"It has been suggested" is a red flag that the marketing of the message is not just a higher priority than, but an obfuscation of the truth, which would logically demand ACTUAL journalistic integrity, as in quoting a SOURCE and would include specific facts as to who or what is doing the 'suggesting'.
OUR GOVERNMENT ALREADY PAYS FOR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE
WE JUST AREN'T RECEIVING IT
OUR GOVERNMENT PAYS $3300.00 PER PERSON PER YEAR AVERAGE FOR HEALTHCARE
THEN THE REST OF US PAY THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS MORE
ENGLAND PAYS $2900.00 PER PERSON PER YEAR AND THAT IS ALL THEY PAY AND THEY HAVE NATIONAL HEALTHCARE
Hey the media are conspirators at all levels of the MIC-cheat, they (broadcast/cable) give themselves away when they conspire to all switch to commercials at the same time. Proof they conspire. Proof of untrustworthyness. God bless the mute button
OUR GOVERNMENT ALREADY PAYS FOR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE
WE JUST AREN'T RECEIVING IT
OUR GOVERNMENT PAYS $3300.00 PER PERSON PER YEAR AVERAGE FOR HEALTHCARE
THEN THE REST OF US PAY THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS MORE
ENGLAND PAYS $2900.00 PER PERSON PER YEAR AND THAT IS ALL THEY PAY AND THEY HAVE NATIONAL HEALTHCARE
Why are conservatives so ignorant?
The existing criminal US totally for-profit health care system already de facto rations health care. Let us not kid ourselves. It makes many decisions based on profit that kills many people.
I'm registered "no party affiliation", I'm sure that's worse than Republican!
OOps, I posted on the wrong subject!
The problem of the uninsured in the US is an international human rights issue similar to what Apartheid was in South Africa. Perhaps we should try divestiture. Anyone can do this, even people in foreign countries. If you have US stocks, dump them and move to overseas investments. When you shop, don't buy anything made in America. Disconnect the cable. We shouldn't make any distinction between Fox News and the cable companies that carry it.
yes, but divestment/boycotting is most effective if one makes a point of informing the corporate structure (as well as media willing to report it) WHY and joining with others to do so, since the power of one is so negligible in some ways... does anyone know of (other than boycotting walmart or israeli products) concerted efforts of the kind en masse??? wish every city had a reverend billy and church of life after shopping..... how's his mayoral bid in nyc going... anybody know?
"More than $67 million has been spent on TV advertising on the health care debate so far this year"
Nice to see us get some value for our health insurance premium dollar. (/sarcasm)
"Facts Are First Casualty in Health Care Debate"
This is correct. On bioth sides, but more from Pelosi/Reid/Obama. They have looked straight into the Camera and lied.
This plan stinks of Lobbyists and industry money. No one interested in getting care for Americans that don't have it could support this farce.
They are asking for it right betweeen the eyes with their prsent course and they are going to get it.
These people and their dishonesty disgust me.
Henry8: How can we expect other than that 30-second commercials will be lies, whether delivered as Pelosi/Reid/Obama look into the camera and lie; or whether the opposition uses its ridiculous expanding balloons to show how universal health care is going to bankrupt us? What we really need now is not duelling commercials or vigils and congressional call-ins to support (what?); but some right-out public education on the facts of the health care situation. We need real health care forums in which health care delivery experts who are able to talk in human speech will speak to the people about both the health care system we currently have and that which would result from public familiarity with the details(still unknown but with enough possibility that the public should understand them) of any given proposal). I know it's a radical thought but as a professional educator I can't bear to see the mindlessness with which the people are being lined up by their "leaders" to support or oppose legislation that they don't even understand. More radically still, I would propose a 4-month moratorium during which any debate on health care directed toward support or opposition to any specific legislation would be delayed as this period of time is devoted to a period of education; after we've done the "course" and taken the "final exam" we'll then be certified as fit to become involved in the "debate." Short of something like this (and I'm speaking figuratively here, don't bombard me with "how you gonna do it" questions), we ain't seen nothin' yet in the deluge of commercials that is yet but a sprinkle by comparison. Just wait until the $150 million that Obama got from pharmaceutical companies for PR work in support of "his" plan (whatever that may turn out to be) in exchange for government agreeing to forego negotiations in drug prices
kicks in. We may shortly see on the air waves a brief interruption in endless commercials to bring audiences a snippet of the program that are sponsoring. This could truly make you sick with no health care remedy to media nausea.
What we need is radical campaign finance reform.
Without lobbyists and their corporate paychecks, the people may then get what they need.
And while we are talking campaign finance reform, I'd also insert term limits to all members in both houses. I'm tired of supporting the walking dead.
I just saw a clip on the 10 O'Clock News of a health care public meeting in Philadelphia tonight. It was "moderated" by a local wingnut radio personality; Joe Sestak and Chaka Fattah represented the Democrats, and GOP winger Pat Toomey was there for the Republicans.
It showed a few seconds of the Q&A. A thirtysomething man, seemingly a Solid Citizen, asked aggressively, "There is not a SINGLE TIME IN HISTORY that socialism worked. So why do you think socialism is going to work for health care?"
There were cheers and applause from the rabble as he finished asking the question.
The clip ended without showing the response from the pols at the table.
FWIW, the guy may have been yelling just to be heard-- he didn't appear to be self-consciously melodramatic, as many yahoos have learned to be from watching the dregs of daytime-teevee, e.g. Jerry Springer, and local news.
But his Earnest Assertive Stoopidity was painful to behold. If this guy were a high school freshman, and I was his history teacher, I would've sat him down and gently unpacked all of the misinformation, disinformation, oversimplification, and absence of logic and critical thinking in his loaded question.
But even though I didn't see the response, it's a foregone conclusion that politicians participating in this so-called "informational" meeting and dialogue will accept such questions at face value. It certainly wouldn't look good if they EMBARRASSED a voter by critiquing the question.
Instead, they'll respectfully and politely respond with scripted bumper-sticker talking points that implicitly accepts the questioner's lowbrow demonization of "socialism", and effectively assure such questioners that No Socialism Will Be Used in the Making of This Law.
Since the news report described the crowd as generally "opposed" to "Obama's health care legislation", I'm sure the other questions were on the same level.
Toomey gets to demagogue, and the Dems get to blandly reassure the hostile crowd that Obama's No Insurer Left Behind legislation won't be socialist-- as if-- pay for "illegals" health care, etc.
Even in the terminal phase of The Dumbing of Amerika, it's depressing to watch the degraded and brutish hysteria that passes for public discourse. It really is a pathological communication nexus right out of Jerry Springer-- all brutish confrontation and high melodrama, where chest-thumping and head-banging rule the day, and the dialogue is driven by shrieks and growls of raw and untempered passion.
And moderators, in the current Master of Ceremonies style of part showman, part therapeutic facilitator of dialogue and insight, elicit appropriate bromides and blandishments from the politicians.
Garbage in, garbage out. It's really a shame.
· Yr Obd't Servant
In truth, Socialism has been with us throughout History and has a greater success rate then does "Capitalism".
Capitalism is a late comer. Its short time on earth has led to massive structural failures the world over.
The ideals that underpin "Socialism" have been with us for thousands of years/
I'm starting to plan a walk from California to D.C. with the arrival date of July 4 2010. If anyone is willing to walk along or meet along the way, please email me at rahten@netptc.net I'm calling it the paucity of hope walk,
Health care is part of Universal Human Rights.
The US signed that treaty but continues to thumb it's nose at the American people.
We have the right and duty to protect ourselves from these homocidal Christo-Corporate hit men.
"Facts Are First Casualty"...in POLITICS!
Read about facts and human casualties here:
“Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<