Health Care Reform Ads: Opponents Outspent Supporters By 3-1 Margin

WASHINGTON -- Two years after President Barack Obama signed his name to landmark health care reform, polls find that millions of Americans disapprove of the law. Driving that opinion in part may be the remarkably unbalanced television advertising around the law, as opponents have outspent supporters by a 3-1 margin since the president signed the Affordable Care Act.

According to Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group, opponents of the health care law have spent $204 million on TV ads since Obama signed the law. Proponents have spent only $57.9 million, with 65 percent of that spending coming from the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that oversees implementation of the law.

"At least at this point in the story of the healthcare law, just ahead of the US Supreme Court arguments next week, one side has made a much bigger investment toward winning the argument with voters," said Elizabeth Wilner, vice president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, in a prepared statement. "For the law's supporters, closing the gap in advertising would require not just more spending and different targeting, but the sudden boost of a Court victory."

The media group's analysis finds that the two opposing sides have largely advertised to different swathes of the population.

Opponents focused their spending mostly in large metropolitan media markets in states that featured marquee contests in both the Senate and House during the 2010 election cycle. Much of that spending came from Republican-aligned groups and Republican candidates for office.

Topping the list of states hit with anti-health law ads was Pennsylvania, which in the 2010 cycle had multiple contested House races and the close-fought Senate contest between Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Sestak. Some $7.3 million was spent in the Philadelphia media market, and another $6.8 million was spent in the Pittsburgh market.

Florida, the site of a half-dozen contested House seats and a three-way Senate race among Republican Marco Rubio, independent Charlie Crist, and Democrat Kendrick Meek, saw the second-highest spending on anti-reform ads. Opponents spent $6.8 million in Orlando and $6.5 million in Tampa.

Other metropolitan markets topping the list for anti-health law advertising included Denver ($7.3 million), Boston ($5.4 million), Phoenix ($4.3 million), Atlanta ($3.9 million), Las Vegas ($3.9 million) and Cleveland ($3.8 million).

Health law supporters focused their spending on national television ad buys: $23.6 million on national broadcast TV and $12.8 million on national cable. Most of that money came not from Democratic groups and candidates but from HHS, which cannot run political ads.

Among the state markets, California was king for pro-reform ad buys: $4.7 million spent in Los Angeles, $1.1 million in San Francisco, $677,150 in Sacramento, $612,810 in Fresno and $579,830 in San Diego.

The other top metropolitan markets for pro-health reform ads received far smaller amounts than the top anti-reform markets. They included Philadelphia ($1 million), Las Vegas ($796,350), Milwaukee ($636,670), Little Rock, Ark. ($601,690) and Seattle ($470,510).

The much lower spending by Democrats may reflect reluctance to promote the health care overhaul in the face of significant public disapproval. It may also be creating a chicken-or-egg situation, where the lack of pro-reform spending may be helping anti-reform messaging take hold.

Brendan Nyhan, a political science professor at Dartmouth University, co-authored a recent study that found Democrats running in contested districts who voted for the health care reform bill fared "significantly worse" in the 2010 midterm elections than those who voted against the bill. He said the key question raised by the ad gap is to what extent the ads were "a reflection of the fact that health care was damaging or part of the reason health care reform was damaging."

Democrats may be ready to take a different tack this year. On Thursday, the president's reelection website rolled out a pro-health care reform page, "Faces of Change," peppered with highly professional videos promoting the law.

Comments

[olerealist]

02:31 PM on 05/13/2012

MORE CORPORATE SPENDING TO LIMIT PATIENT'S RIGHTS
VERBATIM QUOTE FROM:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/healthcare/patient/240000160
May 10, 2012 02:44 PM

(Background: the prevailing customary time allowed for hospitals to release electronic patient records is 36 hours)

"An organization aimed at promoting collaboration among patients, medical professionals, families, and other caregivers is fuming about an American Hospital Association (AHA) recommendation that hospitals be given THIRTY DAYS to release data in electronic health records (EHRs) after patients request access."

"Perhaps the most important time for patients and their chosen caregivers to have access to their electronic medical record is during a hospitalization and in the week following discharge--particularly access to information involving the medications. The health toll of medication errors during and shortly after hospitalization is considerable," Dr. Alan Greene, past president of the Society for Participatory Medicine (SPM), told InformationWeek Healthcare via email."

[Norskie]

05:01 AM on 04/27/2012

Back a month later to read the comments...I find people so uneducated about the bill. How many of you have read the bill or have you "just heard" about it. I have read the bill. When I sit down face to face with people I get the same rhetoric...you shouldn't force people to do things....well hospitals are forced everyday to provide care for the indigent so those of you who "choose" not to get health insurance are gaurunteed to provided adequate in fact good care regardless of your ability to pay. Secondly, people say they are tired of people getting something for nothing. Well, my individual insurance plan is not costing "nothing". I pay a reasonable premium each month. I qualify for social security disability physically, but I make a little too much money on an annual basis to be approved and even if I was approved, because a group of lawmakers out there decided people like me had to be "truly" disabled - more than two years of continual disability...you don't qualify for medicare until you have been on disability for at least 24 consecutive months.

Two groups of people profit by overturning this bill...prescription drug companies who can keep charging humongous rates for pills for people who dont have a prescription drug plan and health insurance companies who have had the biggest profit margins ever in the past few years and pay out billions of dollars in bonuses

[Jon Dorian]

08:00 PM on 03/31/2012

"Health Care Reform Ads: Opponents Outspent Supporters By 3-1 Margin"

What does it mean? It means the majority do not want the unconstitutional healthcare bill.

I don't need no stinking Obamacare; I don't even need no stinking Obamacar.

[lisalulu]

07:32 PM on 03/23/2012

My friends in Boston love their health care system - its working.

This law is not perfect but its a START - at least POTUS had the guts to bring it into the american narrative and now law.

Its funny - the people who oppose it don't know that we all pay for the uninsured now. This is why a 5 minute visit to the Dr. costs $150 and an hour trip to ER is $5000!

Why do we need a middle man at all?

[Jon Dorian]

08:03 PM on 03/31/2012

Give up your freedom if you want, but please do it in another country.

The government must not be allowed to force people into contractual agreements with private businesses.

[flipacoin]

04:59 PM on 03/23/2012

I couldn't but help notice at the glaring statistic of the amount of people opposed to the nicely titled healthcare plan was missing from this article...it's 67%. [Too embarrassing?] Two thirds, people! That means democrats and independents want this Obama Care snuffed out along with conservatives. How many things have you seen in the last twenty years that has a two thirds agreement? And really outspent three to one? What about all the mainstream media articles supporting and not asking the tough questions of the Affordable Health Care Act? That just had it's estimated cost that has almost doubled? News articles are advertizements in themselves.

[lisalulu]

07:27 PM on 03/23/2012

That double estimate was debunked!

Once people understand how the coverage expansions protect them and their families - instead of the "fear factor" paid for by opponents - many more families will poll more favorably.

But Gawd forbid we try to address health equity and the dysfunctional care we have in the United States - I mean gawd forbid!

[Bushwhacked]

11:17 PM on 03/23/2012

F/F.

[Unindoctrinated]

10:19 AM on 03/24/2012

Now let's find out how many that oppose it actually comprehend it, versus those who have mistakenly believed the hype by those with a vested interest.

[knotsonorml]

11:27 AM on 03/23/2012

There has been a whole lot of discussion about the Affordable Health Care Act, aka "Obamacare" -- most of what we hear is how it's a "government takeover" that will cost billions...... The other side says it will lower costs and cover millions more people. Who to believe?? Well - I have a simple method for deciding which way I will go on this and many other issues. I follow the money. Who is behind the opposition?? Mega Health Insurance Companies and the Koch Brothers. Easy decision. I support the law.

[kevmi16]

11:14 AM on 03/23/2012

With so many flaws Obama Care is easy to attack, live with it.

[olerealist]

02:47 PM on 05/13/2012

QUOTE KEVMI16 :
"With so many flaws Obama Care is easy to attack, live with it."

PLEASE IDENTIFY A "FLAW" (oether than the fact that the OBM reports are a difficult read so that the "costs" or budget effect is debatable) Also the public saving in preventing hospital freeloading is not or under reported. Essentially the OMB says the Reform will save taxpayers billions over next decade.

[CaptainObvvious]

10:11 AM on 03/23/2012

I love the conservatives who claim that the CBO just reported that the cost of Obamacare has DOUBLED. The GOP is reporting it and they're buying into it without asking questions and taking it as FACT... It is a LIE.

The numbers they are quoting is one half of the equation. The original CBO estimates included COST and REVENUE and SAVINGS... These reports do as well but the GOP is only looking and cost and actually comparing incorrect numbers while they're at it.

The entire report says that the COST side is increasing a small amount but overall the law will reduce the deficit even more than they had originally projected.

Whenever a conservative tells you the cost has doubled to almost $2 trillion you can tell them either they're lying or ignorant.

[lisalulu]

07:29 PM on 03/23/2012

The Big Lies - that is all they got and fear/loathing towards women, gay people, poor people, single mothers, public employees....etc etc etc

[Unindoctrinated]

10:27 AM on 03/24/2012

Sometimes I wonder whether it would be possible to make lying to and/or intentionally misleading the public a criminal offence for politicians and corporate Public relations departments. Then I realise it would take an honourable president and an incorruptible majority of the Supreme Court. So no. It could never happen outside of works of fiction. Shame though.

[olerealist]

02:50 PM on 05/13/2012

BRAVO "CAPTAIN"
Yu are really hittinjg the nail on the head. The issue is complex but TRUTH WILL OUT.

[Republibaggers]

09:42 AM on 03/23/2012

we've known Etchy was sketchy from day one, welcome aboard Rick!!

[John Shuck]

08:44 AM on 03/23/2012

Yes, as always the Republicans are the ones who throw money at a problem without worrying about negative consequences.....

[Unindoctrinated]

10:37 AM on 03/24/2012

As long as it's not their money.
p.s. Cool Sig. Funnily enough they're lying to you about the way "Shakespeare" spelled his name as well. He used four different spellings on his works and none of them were the way we all accept today.

[KatRB]

08:29 AM on 03/23/2012

The left doesn't like it because they wanted single payer. The right doesn't like it because they don't want govt regulating business. Those of us in the middle see it as a mixture of both republican and democratic ideas. You know....that sticky little thing our founders wanted in governing?....the dirty word of compromise.

[Derni]

08:08 AM on 03/23/2012

If the plan is so bad then why is the similar plan that had been around much longer and used in MA and brought into existence by the GOP doing so well???

[gaydood]

08:19 AM on 03/23/2012

mittsMandate?:)

[Derni]

08:07 AM on 03/23/2012

the 21-26 year old population and those with pre-existing conditions have done well under the new lae..so why are people against the new law?? Ameicans have become less concerned about the country as a WHOLE and all of us and turned to a very self-centered preoccupation with their own interests and needs..a very dangerous slop for a country..it may signal a larger social and economic problem..a fall from grace..a fall from leadership..

[Voice of Reality]

08:02 AM on 03/23/2012

Bad plan. Bad for America. Needs to be repealed and redone. It does nothing to address the costs of healthcare. It justs moves those costs to the government and taxpayers.
100% inclusion is a good thing but government run anything is a bad thing.
This is a bad plan and that is why it almost did not pass with a Dim majority in Congress.

[gaydood]

08:20 AM on 03/23/2012

w had 8 years to do something yet he only did the wrong things. w=wrong

[Voice of Reality]

08:28 AM on 03/23/2012

So a really bad plan is better than no plan? Really?
Blaming GWB 3 years after he left Washington is weak. The Party of No Responsibility will not accept responsibility for anything.

[CaptainObvvious]

09:53 AM on 03/23/2012

The CBO estimates its going to reduce the deficit... So universal coverage and savings is a good thing no?

What is the government running in this health care reform? It is still run by PRIVATE insurers... There is no government option. It is not a GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE

[north of the boarder]

06:40 AM on 03/23/2012

If America's health care (pre the affordable health care act) is so good, why hasn't the rest of the civilized world adopted that model for their country?

[Something Else]

07:46 AM on 03/23/2012

It would give their people freedom.

[north of the boarder]

08:50 AM on 03/23/2012

So if you get sick through no fault of your own and have limited or no coverage you can either go bankrupt and get treatment or deal with it. I hope folks with your point of view never have to make that decision. Also, your reply suggests the folks in Canada, England, Germany, etc are not free. Nonsense!

[CaptainObvvious]

09:55 AM on 03/23/2012

Freedom to die...

Freedom to go bankrupt even though they HAD health coverage...

Freedom to be denied a perfectly mainstream procedure because it will cost the company money they don't want to pay.

Yea, its wonderful isn't it.

[bookreader451]

10:29 PM on 03/23/2012

because they have a better one