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

[bdd]

Where is your evidence that this came from Obama? I suspect this came from rove and his rethug party.

[sickofhypocrisy]

the thing that bothers me most is that he constantly portrays himself as being a normal, trustworthy guy. he's no different than any politician; certainly no better than clinton.

obama brought race into the race when he carted oprah out and had his surrogates keep the "fairytale" story in the news (knowing full well that it was taken out of context). don't get me wrong, it was a brilliant political strategy that even rove would have been impressed with. i just can't stomach the fact that he paints himself to be someone who's so above that sort of behavior. i call bullshit.

[1LESSUV]

Dr. Redlener,
As a VA physician who is strongly in favor of single-payor healthcare (for all those who question it, examine the performance of the VA over the past decade), and who is expressing his own personal views, I think you are out of line. Stop whining about politics-as-usual. Of course we need universal coverage. And none of us know exactly which approach will get us there. No candidate has put out a plan for single-payor healthcare, which is clearly the right choice from a quality and cost perspective. Hillary hasn't done it, Barack hasn't done it, only Kucinich has done it. And look where that got him....
Why don't we just all focus on choosing A candidate, and getting him or her elected?

[Zanti]

Dr. Redlener,

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Expect a ton of irrational responses, many of the we-need-un­iversal-he­alth-care-­yes-but-no­t-if-it's-­universal variety.

Give it to us, but don't have us pay for it--that's the brain-dead Republican mantra. Obama, the ostensible Democrat, figures he may as well use that mentality for his own gain, and this tells us all we need to know about the guy.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me repeatedly, and you can be sure I'm an American.

[adcatlett]

Of course, Obama supporters believe Hilary is the only one trying to subliminally mudsling as they call. My vote was to Obama but then I'd outweighed what I believed in most. Healthcare is a major concern and when I'd heard on Bill Maher that this was happening, I was sure happy with my switch to Hilary. Thank you for blogging this.

[DietrichMoody]

The Clinton's have partook of egregious actions only to be pardoned, forgiven and forgotten.

But in the words of Nancy Reagan, "Just say NO" to the Clinton drug. Caution: apathy, familiarity, and the comforts of the past are addictive.

[Eire]

Not to worry. Hillary won't be the candidate.

[ac1]

Nice. New tone. The future. But the only reporting this last week has been and will be Oprah/Kenn­edy-center­ed. This isn't the first of Obama's negative mailers, either. The hypocrisy of the media not challenging him on his campaign tactics and empty rhetoric is pathetic- any remote inference of negativity from Clinton is jumped on. The MSM prefers covering pep rallies or fights.

I hope President Obama actually delivers on his promises- so far, he hasn't done much standing up when it comes down to voting- when he shows up and hits the correct button.

[MartiP]

Obama is a big divider and has been using low tactics from the beginning, while accusing Hillary. He does not offer change, he offers "changiness"

[Rainman]

Barack must be crazy to hire Harry and Louise. It appears as though none of these candidates are NOT going to deliver on healthcare­....Pharma and the insurance companies are looking pretty once again.

[shreveportrose]

You're worried that Obama has given the Repugnants ammunition? Oh my gosh - his policy disagreement, handled in a professional and articulate way, brings comparisons with Nazis??!! And its Obama that you criticize? What do you think those Repugnants will do with those clips of Bill shaking his finger at reporters and clenching his teeth, his irrational anger impossible to control? And the low-down, unfair, and untruthful comments from the Clinton campaign, you don't think they will be used by those running against the Democratic candidate if it is Obama? The Clintons have behaved just like Rove & Co. I never realized how like their worst enemies they are. Every time they have directed one of their dirty, underhanded tactics at Obama, I have immediately gone online and contributed to his campaign. Alone, my contribution is not much, but if enough of us do that perhaps the message will be heard loud and clear that if we want to support candidates who have no scruples about dirty campaign tricks, we would be Republicans.

[ConcernAmerican]

Thank you Dr. Redlener. My brother is also a doctor in Dallas, he said the same thing about emailer of Obama pertaining to healthcare, it's the same Harry and Louise of 1993 campaign of Insurance industry when Hillary work hard for us to have Universal Healthcare. Many in medical profession are disgusted by Obama's campaign just to win. As you've said, the Republicans will use this campaign in general election against Hillary.

The emailer of Obama was misleading, never expect Obama to withdraw it or admit to the fact he mislead once again the American people. He's GOING FOR BROKE Doc, he's ready to destroy Universal healthcare we all wanted to have to serve his purpose and that is to win by hook or by crook.

I've never seen a politician running in primary election as crook as Obama and yet the media remain silent about it.

[DietrichMoody]

Are you really picking at this, is this the hot issue or a smoke screen? Give be a break " A no no in Presidential Politics".
Who's to say his position cannot be tweaked, sharpened, and corrected down the line. You disingenuinously leave out this equation.

All is fair in politics, love and war.
When the establishment Clintons do anything of a "no no", it;s "brilliant, and shrewd" nonetheless misleading - but you always give them the room and ability to sharpen or correct down the road no matter how much they mislead the public early on. Chances are they never promise what they preach.

But when a newbie, with powerful connections, the wind at his sails, and what has historically been the natural evolutionary change in America government, policy and movements, the older established crowds cry foul and all actions engregious. What's engregious is that it;s your allegedly enlightened crowd manipulating to hold on to power.

The Clinton's have partook of egregious actions only to be pardoned, forgiven and forgotten.

But in the words of Nancy Reagan, "Just say NO" to the Clinton drug. Caution: apathy, familiarity, and the comforts of the past are addictive.

[S1m0n]

SO what? Does the Clinton camp understand just how whiny they're sounding with this objection?

It's an ad. With a photograph. One that makes a mostly valid point about a controversial subject without using 'negative' personal attacks, race-baiting, or 'code' words.

Damned if I can tell what grounds the Clinton camp could have for their objection, but the only remotely plausible one is "it's working".

[Countess]

Believe me the republicans will have plenty of dirt on the Clintons just using video from their own slimy primary campaign against Obama.