Health Care Advocates Denouce Obama's Negative Mailer
"Demonize."
"Grossly untrue."
"Disgusting."
"So far over the line."
"Drive to the lowest common denominator."
"Retract it."
These are all words currently used to describe Barack Obama's negative health care mailer, including coming from a former Edwards health care adviser (speaking for himself and having not spoken to Edwards about Obama's mailer). Experts who are not supporting any candidate, but are health care experts, were included in the Clinton camp call, all of whom charged that Obama's mailer could cause permanent damage to universation health care efforts.
"The mailer is wrong and misleading." - Peter Harbage, former Edwards health care adviser
I don't remember when I was on a media call with uncommitted experts denouncing the tactics of a Democratic candidate so strongly. But that was the case today, in a conversation that had Barack Obama being called "disingenuous," and the health care mailer he's currently sending out across the country roundly denounced.
Nothing like channeling insurance industry talking points, complete with art. As Paul Krugman says, the politics of hope, indeed. For those of you have been around for a while, you'll likely remember this beauty from 1993, which was bought and paid for by the insurance industry.
On the call they mentioned expecting this type of Republican talking points in the general election, but found Obama's mailer "very distressing" coming from a Democrat, going so far as to say it could damage the general efforts of getting universal health care going forward. On the call was former John Edwards adviser on health care, Peter Harbage. He is not joining the campaign, and he had not talked to Edwards about being part of the call. However, he believed the Obama campaign mailer "drives to the lowest common denominator." The experts on the call accused Obama of trying to "demonize" Hillary Clinton. Len Nichols, director of the health policy program fort he New America Foundation, who is also uncommitted, was particularly furious about the Obama mailer, which he feels uses the same language the insurance industry did to attack Hillary's plan in 1993. Nichols characterized the mailer as "so far over the line" that he was personally "outraged" by it. He said Obama should "retract it," retract the mailer. He went further to call it "disgusting," and called Barack Obama personally "disingenuous."
It's exactly as Ben Smith stated, showing the mailer: a flood of negative mail.
Clinton mentioned last night that the forces wanting to stop universal health care spent $300 million to attack her in 1993. Well today, Barack Obama is spending some of his big bucks to act as an agent against universal health care. He knows her plan is better. It doesn't leave 15 million people out, as well as aligns her with John Edwards. You have to wonder what he'd think about these negative and patently false mailers.
Clinton rebuts Obama's attempt to "demonize" her plan and universal health care in general:
Sen. Obama fails to mention Hillary's plan cuts costs just as aggressively as Sen. Obama, if not more so.Hillary's plan contains more generous subsidies than the Obama plan. Noted health expert Ken Thorpe of Emory University concluded that under the Hillary plan, everyone will be able to afford coverage.
The Obama plan leaves 15 million people out, which drives up costs because everyone else ends up subsidizing their emergency care.
Mr. Hope and unity in action. Saying anything to win, include parroting wingnut talking points that could scuttle efforts to get universal health, by sewing doubt into the electoral fabric.
Universal health care is something that should be as important to Democrats as Social Security. It's yet another rung on the social network ladder that F.D.R. began so long ago that has become the foundation of the Democratic party. That Barack Obama is demonizing Hillary Clinton's efforts using right-wing tools should send a chill through the entire progressive network.
UPDATE: Ezra Klein:
... .. In the end, his plan is not universal, does not attempt to be, and is probably less generous in its affordability provisions than Clinton's. And even so, I wouldn't really care, as it's still a pretty good plan, except that he's decided to respond to the inadequacies of his own policy by fear-mongering against not only better policy, but the type of policy he's probably going to have to eventually adopt. It's very, very short-sighted.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Hillary Clinton after attempting to side-step the question on George Stephanopolis' Sunday Morning talk show revealed that she would automatically enroll people in her health care insurance plan. And, she would also garnish wages if people refused to buy health care. This is very significant given what has transpired in Massachusetts where according to Business week
(carried through the Associated Press) on 1/31/08
When the new year begins Tuesday, most residents who remain uninsured will face monthly fines that could total as much as $912 for individuals and $1,824 for couples by the end of 2008, according to penalty guidelines unveiled by the Department of Revenue on Monday.
I am sure that Obama's plan is more nuanced and many people do not understand that Senator Clinton's plan continues to favor insurance and pharmaceutical companies where as the Obama plan favor families, and health care workers
I did not know that Hillary is such a powerful person that had she voted no on the Iraqi resolution, then everybody ( or at least 2/3) who voted yes on the same resolution would now vote no with her. And add to the fact that it was still a Repub dominated Congress.
To me, even if she had voted no, that Iraqi resolution would have still passed.
Mr. Hope is coming off as Mr. Dope with this one. Clearly Sen. Clinton has a better plan, but instead of trying to improve his own, he has chosen to join forces with the health care industry to smear her. Is this what we can expect from an Obama administration?
BAC
1-So what does happen to those who can not afford to buy insurance under HRC's plan? Are people forced to choose between health care and other bills? And risk a fine/garnishment? That is generally what happens to those who break universally mandated laws.
How can HRC's plan be called complete if that is not answered?
2-Supporters of HRC's plan say Barack's will leave 15M uninsured (high estimate? Low estimate?). This will result in some, actuarial (not to sound cold-hearted, but this is an "insurance policy wonk" discussion) number of deaths/prolonged conditions due to untreated conditions (not counting those who still go to emergency rooms for treatment).
How many? What is the consequential harm?
Is it less than the number of American, Coaltion and Iraqi (civilians) killed and wounded.
HRC's supporters claim she is a "policy wonk" and "the smartest woman in the room."
I just wish she had spent 4 hours less on health care and devoted that time to reading the NIE on Iraq.
Obama just wants to perpetuate the current broken health care system by leaving millions without health insurance in order to satisfy his contributers from the health insurance industry, who would not benefit if forced to compete with low cost government
Insurance is not care. Mandatory insurance is not care. Mandatory insurance is a VERY VERY BAD IDEA regardless who is proposing it. I suspect you know this Taylor. What is needed is universal, single payer health CARE. No insurance is needed.
Her plan does force everyone to pay for health insurance. I don't see the problem with the add. I think it's un-American to take away someone's freedom. Forcing people to pay for something they don't want is just wrong. Do you think poor people will celebrate when they find out they just got a new monthly bill? Gee thanks, just what I needed, and if I don't pay then what? Do we start fineing these poor folks? I understand the good intentions behind it, but why not just make health insurance as cheap as we possibly can and let people decide for themselves? Why is that so evil?
If Obama is right, why then do Paul Krugman and Edwards' Health Care advisor say that Obama is not only wrong, but he is hurting the cause of universal health going forward??? Are they Hillary supporters?
Obama may be a nice man,but we need the experience and intelligence of Hillary in the WH. Clinton/Obama 08 is the best ticket. Then he can run after 8 yrs as VP.
The fact that she did not get Universal Health care against tremendous odds and $ from the Insurance companies to prevent her success is NOT a negative.S
Great post, Taylor and thanks for the amazing amount of detail. Obama and company may be against "mandates" but they don't have to invoke left-wing themes and imagery to make their point. That's the problem I have with the mailer.
LA Times just endorsed Obama.
Here's Robert Kuttner's take:
"Barack Obama has been criticized by some for not including an individual mandate in his health plan. But Obama is correct. The individual should not be punished for government's failure to do reform right. Universal social insurance signals government help. A mandate signals government coercion."
http://www
I simply cannot believe Obama has stooped to such a low level. His healthcare plan is inferior; he knows it; his campaign knows it and he is too damned proud to adjust his plan. Instead, like the coward he is, he turns on Hillary's plan and tries to portray it as bad for the country.
I am disgusted with Barack Obama. The word "creep" comes to mind. God help the Democratic Party.
"That Barack Obama is demonizing Hillary Clinton's efforts using right-wing tools should send a chill through the entire progressive network."
This is the part that bothers me most about Barack at a gut level. He's an amazing speaker. However, as Paul Krugman has illustrated, his talking points use the phrasing of the right, whether its health care of social security.
He should be rallying support for Universal Health Care and showing while his plan is the best from a positive standpoint. If demonizing Hillary's health care plan wins him a few votes, is a Pyhrric victory, because it will harm his efforts at Health Care Reform should he become President.
He needs to stay positive. He doesn't need this kind of campaigning to win.
However, these types of ads only prove to me that we have TWO DLC candidates left to choose from, which leaves Mike Gravel as my protest vote. Sigh.
I wish Edwards had stayed in the race until Feb. 5th.
Why does everyone forget Massachusetts? They have a mandate and there are people that can't afford it. They get a waiver from the state to not have to carry insurance because they can't afford it. How exactly is that "universal"?
The "universal" label can only be claimed by single payer. Neither Clinton's plan or Obama's plan is "universal".
Obama's team went over the line by evoking the same image as the 1990s attack commercials, and I am an Obama supporter, but, his argument that her plan forces people to buy insurance is true...tha
Taylor's claim that Clinton's plan is universal is bullshit. Also, where is Taylor's mention that the "health care advocates" that were so pissed off called Obama's campaign "Nazi". Hmm....for
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
