Obama Hires 'Harry and Louise' to Attack Hillary's Plan for Health Care: Republicans Thrilled!

Here's a top contender for the most egregious political strategy of the current campaign season: the ObamacCampaign is now circulating a mailer that resuscitates the images of "Harry and Louise," the notorious stars of a political ad that was part of a $300 million campaign by the health insurance industry and others to bring down the Clinton administration's health reform proposal in 1993. The photograph of a middle-aged couple looking troubled as they pour over a pile of papers on their kitchen table adorns the first page of the Obama mailer -- but it looks like it could have been a screen shot taken from the original Harry and Louise piece.

But there's more. The accompanying copy in the mailer is nothing more than a list of untrue assertions and seemingly deliberate misrepresentations of Senator Clinton's positions on health care. It is simply false that Senator Clinton's plan would "force everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." In fact, Senator Clinton's plan not only includes nearly twice the resources for health care tax credits as the Obama campaign but would cap premiums at a low share of a family's income, to ensure that everyone could afford to be in the system. And according to the Commonwealth Fund, the best way to maximize cost reductions in health care is to make it truly universal, with an individual requirement as part of the shared responsibility needed to make the whole system work.

Yet if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, the Obama campaign has just packaged an ad that could be used, essentially unedited, by the Republicans next fall. To make matters worse, Barack Obama's resuscitation of Harry and Louise ad also helps bolster the cause of those who, at all costs, oppose meaningful health reform.

I can only imagine a clutch of smart, experienced health care policy wonks, a few political advisers and Senator Obama trying to come up with a plan that would address the uninsured, the under-insured, the mind-numbing bureaucracy, the $2 trillion of costs now attributed to U.S medical care and the rest of problems that have led most people to understand that the system is in crisis.

You can almost hear the advocates for genuine reform telling the Senator that you can't fix the problems of the uninsured and bring costs under control without making sure that everybody was covered. And there were just two ways to go, the advisers probably pointed out: either a single-payer system, a la Canada, or individual requirements for every citizen to buy coverage. The latter approach, of course, would also need serious cost controls, big-time regulation of health insurance practices and subsidies to help low-income families. This is the direction that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards took.

Maybe Senator Obama got all of this. But then, one of the political advisers must have said something on the order of "No way. Single payer or individual requirements will never sell...Americans won't buy it." In fact, The New Republic explained that Obama advisers were concerned about "excessive ambition" and feared that a "mandate sounds scarier to the public, particularly middle-class voters."

While we can only speculate on Senator Obama's personal motivations, what is perfectly clear is that he ended up proposing a plan that would not require individual citizens to do anything and, according to many independent experts, would leave at least 15 million Americans out of the system. That means 15 million people out of the insurance pool, jacking up costs for the rest of us. It also means millions of people still crowding up the emergency rooms, getting care that, to them, is "free" but actually gets paid for by the rest of us through tax-based support to the hospitals and doctors who actually provide care to the uninsured.

Senator Obama is a very smart guy, and I would like to think that he wouldn't mind a re-do on this issue. But, of course, that is a no-no in American presidential politics. So, Obama is left in the extraordinary position of now having to defend a position that most progressives would never embrace -- in essence leaving large numbers of people without health care. And to top it off, he's now attacking universal health care and making a reincarnated Harry and Louise to do the dirty work. I suspect that many Democrats will simply see this as a desperate "go Republican" strategy that could have the unintended consequence of setting back the cause of universal health care.

Comments

[lpeacock]

Same old same old from both Obama and Clinton.

I voted for Edwards in the TX Democratic Party primary.

Edwards did NOT withdraw. He suspended his campaign and can still win delegates.

Vote for Edwards if you want to influence the Democratic Party´s plaform.

[DouginMountVernon]

Mr Redlener conveniently seems to portray the Obama mailer as an attack on universal health care, itself. Nothing could be further from the truth, and he and the rest of the Clinton smear machine know it.

The similarities to the Harry and Louise ads by the insurance companies in 1993 end with imagery. IN FACT, Obama's mailer merely points out that universal health care (or as near as you're gonna get) is achievable WITHOUT mandatory insurance and the penalties or enforcement that would go with it!

His mailer DOES NOT repeat the assinine assertions of the health care industry about forced doctor choices, the rhetoric about "socialized" medical care, etc.

The stretch here is appalling and insulting on the part of the reactive Clinton-pushing pundits who fear that Obama gained significant credibility in Thursday night's debate on the issue.

Shame on them. Will the misprepresentations of Obama's campaign never stop?

[dadw5boys]

What are you guys afraid of ???
Universal Health Care works.
Waiting time? We all make appointments and wait. We all expect to wait in emergency rooms unless we are bleeding don't we, or those with common sense.
So if the wealthy want to pay more for private doctors they will have that option just like Eroupe. But at least the Wealthy will be contributing back for the poor who fight the wars and do the dirty work they makes the lives of the wealthy so enjoyable.
Go Ahead belive all the lies published but ask any Englishman if he would give up his free medical care! The answer is a resoundiing NO!
Regan Ecomonic robbed the greatest nation on earth of the huge Equity it had build up in this nation. Now the bridges are falling and Health Care is in the toliet. How far will you allow these theives to go in robbing the American People?? ROBBING YOU SILLY!

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

TO: Obama Campaign Headquarters

FROM: Average voter guy

RE: Harry & Louise Re-Issue Ad GREAT as Satire & Critique of HillaryCare v08

Thanks so much for taking a political jab that is actually funny. Some of us do understand that . . .

The Republicans really DO KNOW that Hillary is reissuing HillaryCare v92 as HillaryCare v08.

We remember that it LOST US CONGRESS FOR 10 YEARS and . . .

IS THE MAIN REASON HILLARY CLINTON HAS THE HIGHEST DISAPPROVAL RATING OF ANY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

We understand that the two plans differ little and that recent studies HAVE FAILED to account for the fact that between 10 and 15 percent of Americans WILL NOT participate regardless of potential PENALTIES - AND THAT WILL TRANSLATE INTO MUCH HIGHER COSTS THAN OBAMA'S PLAN.

And, YES, we know that the Republicans will run the same "Harry & Louise" ads against HillaryCare v08 as they did against HillaryCare v92 . . .

AND THEY WILL WORK.

And, thanks to the left wing fringe of our party, we will once again sacrifice a sufficient mandate to govern, LOSING by failing to realize that being POLITICALLY CORRECT falls far short of the ideal of victory that will allow us to craft solutions via consensus at the table of democracy.

Understanding all that, we are convinced that the majority of Americans will get it, too.

We just hope that the left wing fringe that would rather destroy our party and our chances at a victory in November than live in the real world takes a moment to either reconsider the unwise expenditure of their vote or simply withdraw to do some political role playing with each other.

Either way, we're taking back our country in November.

[ALMAL]

I say ,OBAMA can find common ground with republicans.

For example,HEALTH CARE

He came short by 15-30 millions uninsured.

So,probably 45-50 millions UNINSURED,i'd say

would be GOOD COMPROMISE FOR OBAMA SUPPORTERS and REPUBLI

[Vixen0932]

Dr. Redlner someone mentioned this on Bill Maher last Friday. I am too young to remember the Republicans doing this...lol thanks for explaining this.

Another reason why I will not vote for this guy tomorrow

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

TO: The extreme left-wing fringe of the Democratic Party that has lost us the Congress AND the White House, essentially for a generation.

FROM: America/Planet Earth (where most of us live)

RE: HillaryCare & Why Americans Prefer a CHOICE

There is an appreciable difference between tough politics and race-baiting. So, I don't think that Obama should worry about a piece that lets people know that they WILL HAVE NO OPTION with HillaryCare.

I know that a lot of the socialists (whom I don't happen to dislike) on the left fringe of our party simply don't get the FACT that the YOU HAVE TO PLAY plans WILL NOT PASS CONGRESS NO MATTER WHAT!

AND would you please look at the results of HillaryCare in Massachusetts?

I'm not sure why it's so hard for the wild-eyed dreamers in our party to get the fact that we live in a country that includes blue AND red states.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME PLAN SHE SUBMITTED ONCE BEFORE.

And the author complains about a "Harry & Louise" ad as if to say, "Oh, my gosh, the Republicans might figure out that Hillary Clinton is doing what she did before."

Which is to say that Hillary, AGAIN, has come up with a plan born and raised in a vacuum.

And she USED TO TALK about being REALISTIC?

I don't get it . . .

FIRST we were dreamers. NOW we're too pragmatic? AND ON ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES (OTHER THAN THE WAR) IN THIS CAMPAIGN!

My head's going to explode.

[StephenDedalus82]

So this is what Obama's magical unity message really amounts to. Pandering to the right. What Clinton haters call triangulation. What sort of change is this? If you can't see what's going on you're not paying attention. Republican talking points on Social Security. Republican talking points on Reagan and now on healthcare. Combine that with some vacuous words about there not being any blue or red states, and presto, you've handed legitimacy back to the Republicans. Am I the only one who feels that they've had their shot, and it's time for liberal, Democratic ideas to dominate our conversation? So our choice is between a true liberal, a Democratic standard bearer, or this new guy in full pied piper mode, promising to end partisanship by capitulating to the enemy. It's cowardly.

[itsnotmyfault]

Obama has run a scorched earth campaign and has had an unbelievable propensity to channel Republican talking points on issues which are fundamental to the Democratic party and it's ideals. Paul Krugman addressed just this issue as Obama agitated with the framing language of Karl Rove about "the impending implosion of social security" and his readyness to promote the notion of privatized accounts. He has now served notice that the vital effort to address the issues of healthcare will be undermined by Obama's decidedly more vital need to promote his own election.

As you have said Dr.Redlener, this strategy, regardless of the the outcome of the primaries, will effectively handcuff any Democrat going forward. And the net impact is ultimately on he backs of the people of the country who do not have access to appropriate healthcare.

There has been no authoritative healthcare individual or organization who has endorsed the Obama plan. Both Hillary's plan and Edward's represented the Democrats real chance to see this vision realized in a transformative way. But the tools necessary to undermine that real substantive progress have been forged by Obama himself. That is an unforgivable act.

[mark77]

According to her website, Clinton's plan only provides tax refund assistance. That would leave out the unemployed and other populations that don't have income or pay little in taxes. If someone gets sick and becomes unemployed, there is no help there from Clinton's plan, even though that's a scenario where people would need health insurance the most.

Edwards' plan provides sliding subsidies as a function of income, to ensure health insurance accessibility for all Americans. Edwards has the truly universal health care plan.

[snoop bloggy blog]

Obama is not opposed to progressive ideas. In fact, he is more progressive than Clinton. He opposed the war from the beginning, the entire progressive community in Illinois has backed him, he offers a plan we can buy from the government that is affordable that is the same insurance he has, he wants students to get $4,000 scholarships in exchange for service, fully fund our VAs, invest in alternative energy as a means of spurring economic growth...
I'm pretty sure he's got solid progressive credentials. What about Clinton? She claimed in NH that "she just loves this country so much she can't see it fall backward." Really? Why didn't she run in 2004 against Bush then? Wasn't 31 years of experience enough? She takes more corporate contributions than any other candidate, where do her interests lie? She is as hawkish as Lieberman and McCain when it comes to foreign policy. She is a good person, and has done good things. However, I think it is laughable to insinuate that she is some sort of progressive champion. By the way, her argument that she's been taking on the right wing for 16 years isn't helpful to her argument either. The right wing became as powerful as it did during the Clinton administration. She took them on and helped make them more powerful than they had ever been, and they exercised that power in 2000 and 2004. Where was the energy the Clintons showed in NH then? Why didn't they campaign for Gore in 2000 with the emotion that they showed with their backs against the wall in New Hampshire? I can tell you why: because to them, its about the Clintons, not the country.

[Boadicea]

Hillary has admitted today that her plan involves the garnisheeing of wages for those who don't buy health insurance.

Paying taxes into a health care pool that EVERYONE benefits from is a good idea, provided those taxes don't feed the profits of corporations. Unfortunately, Hillary's forced coverage fails on two counts.

First, people like me who can barely afford to pay our own health care will continue doing that to benefit corporate coffers. Perhaps worse, we will be forced to pay for the program that covers others who cannot afford these outrageous costs, and we will not benefit ourselves from that program. And now I hear that we will also be paying for a bureaucracy to police the whole system.

Forced health care only works when it is one system which benefits all. Otherwise, resentments understandably arise, and the next election will undo it.

[zull2]

Don't know if anyone else has mentioned it yet, but there's a big gaping hole in your belief that Hillary's plan won't slam folks who can't afford to pay into it: If you're making just over the arbitrary "poverty line", say, you're right out of college but have to pay college loans, your loan payments, plus bills, will take you far below that poverty line. Then on top of all of that, you have to pay for health care (that you may not feel you need at that point). Here's the thing though: the poverty line and cost of living varies dramatically between different locales, but some professions literally require that you work at some localities that may cost more than others...and the reality is that telecommuting for every job is still not a reality, and long distance commuting doesn't work for the environment or for the person's pocketbook.

So, putting a cut off line still doesn't make any sense at all. It's still a mandate. And that commercial? If the Republicans are using that as an attack ad, then that would be probably the most friendly attack ad that one could conceive the Republicans producing against Hillary Clinton.

[Skilletlicker]

Thank you, Dr. Redlener. The “Yes We Can” man is trampling on a noble attempt to liberate millions of Americans from the hell of prohibitive health care costs. What has happened to our party? Do the Kennedys know how it feels to be diagnosed with a really scary illness that’s curable or at least maintainable IF you have insurance? Do the giddy celebrities running around in glamorous Obama ads ever experience the anxiety and fear of having a debilitating illness but lacking the financial means to treat it? At least Hillary, like Edwards (the real architect of her universal health care plan), dares to imagine a radical new health care paradigm that doesn’t exclude millions of Americans. That's what real CHANGE would be. This fear-mongering (wage garnishing) strategy of the Obama campaign also cynically relies on a generally uninformed public’s gullibility and is designed to get voters who would benefit from a universal health care plan to vote against it. Forget race-baiting; this is in-house class warfare.

[IntrepidReader]

It was just a picture! Hillary shouldn't whine! Obama's campaign didn't even mail it out! Anyway, she and Bill have been really mean to him! It's her fault, she's done much worse!

But...but...Clinton!

Congratulations, Obamaniacs, you now sound EXACTLY like the worst of the wingnuts from the far right, not only sharing their hatred for the Clintons but parroting the right wing tirades. You must be so proud.