Details


I did speak to Julie last night, and her write is definitely closer to accurate (though she did get the website wrong). It’s healthcareforamericanow.org:

New Health Reform Group to Spend $40 Million
By JULIE BOSMAN

It could be a version of the “Harry and Louise” television commercial that helped kill Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan in 1994, only this time, it will be in favor of reform.

A national advertisement by the newly formed group Health Care for America Now, to be released on Tuesday, will take on insurance companies and argue for comprehensive, affordable health care in the United States, a spokeswoman for the group said Wednesday.

Its theme? “You can’t trust the insurance industry to fix the health care mess,” said the spokeswoman, Jacki Schechner. “We’re educating the public about our principles and what we’d like to see from the president and the new Congress.”

Health Care for America Now, an umbrella group of labor unions, health care organizations and liberal activists, said Wednesday that it would spend $40 million to promote affordable health care.

And it has chosen Elizabeth Edwards as its most visible public face. Mrs. Edwards, the wife of former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, will speak at the group’s inaugural event at the National Press Club in Washington on Tuesday.

After making an initial buy of $1.5 million for national television, print and online advertisements, the coalition said it would pour $25 million into additional advertising. The first commercial will run in national newspapers, on CNN and MSNBC and online.

The presence of Mrs. Edwards, an outspoken liberal activist and health care advocate, could give fund-raising efforts a boost. Mrs. Edwards, who has incurable cancer, has made health care her signature issue since Mr. Edwards dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in January.

On its Web site, cancampaign.org, the group is described as a “grass-roots movement” for affordable health care. It includes MoveOn, Planned Parenthood, the Campaign for America’s Future and the Service Employees International Union.

UPDATE: More press this morning. From the WSJ:

Big-Spending Groups Enter Campaign Fray
By BRAD HAYNES

As Democrats and Republicans gear up for the general election, a string of interest groups are launching their own campaigns to elect candidates who support their agendas.

A coalition of liberal organizations will announce plans next week to spend $40 million this election cycle to promote health-care reform and candidates backing the group’s proposals. The interest group, Heath Care for America Now, is the latest to unveil an issue-based campaign to influence the November election, and its budget makes it one of the largest.

These independent groups are playing a growing role in national politics, especially since a 2002 campaign-finance law banned individuals, corporations and labor unions from making unlimited donations to the national political parties.

The National Rifle Association has said it will spend $40 million on this year’s presidential contest, combining registration, turnout and advertising efforts, and devoting $15 million to attack Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s positions on gun ownership.

Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group, says it could spend as much as $200 million to try to elect Republicans to the House of Representatives. The liberal groups Campaign for America’s Future and Defenders of Wildlife each have said they will spend roughly $4 million. Planned Parenthood, through a subsidiary, has said it will spend $10 million this year to push candidates who support abortion rights.

Spending by outside groups grew to nearly $600 million in the 2006 midterm elections, from about $210 million in the 2000 presidential and congressional elections, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis. Independent expenditures are expected to break records again this cycle.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, championed by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, aimed to reduce the influence of money in politics by limiting donations to political parties. As a result, a number of major donors have turned their money over to interest groups, many of which can accept unlimited contributions without disclosing donors or spending.

Health Care for America Now is an example of one such “issue group.” The coalition, which will employ organizers in 45 states, plans to spend $25 million on advertising in closely contested areas, promoting guaranteed health care. The organization’s launch Tuesday is paired with $1.5 million of advertising on national television, in print and online.

The group says it is nonpartisan, but the principles it has laid out fit the universal health-care proposals from all of the major Democratic presidential candidates in the primaries. And the coalition has begun identifying friends and foes of its agenda.

“We’re asking members of Congress and candidates, ‘Whose side are you on?’ ” says Jacki Schechner, the coalition’s spokeswoman.


Survey Says


Well, this is a fascinating twist. I am learning about the media from the other side for the very first time, and it is not hard to see why there’s skepticism and growing mistrust.

Politico got it wrong. And then The Page got it wrong because they grabbed it from the Politico. And then TPMElection Central got it wrong because… You see where this is going.

Guess how many of these reporters bothered to call me before they posted that Elizabeth Edwards was either heading up our coalition or headlining our launch event.

Yup. None.

When you’re a reporter, a little fact-checking goes a long way.

She’ll be there, speaking on behalf of Center for American Progress Action Fund, and we’re thrilled to have her. But to say she’s headlining the launch – let along heading up the campaign – is just not true.

Mark corrected his headline, and Greg has too (which I definitely appreciate). But in the day and age of instant publishing, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to make sure you’ve got the info right before you put it out there.

And as an aside, how many times does Politico have to get it wrong before people starting taking notice?


If you haven’t read Chez’s piece yet about the insurance industry, you should.

Why Health Care Needs Fixing


From yesterday’s NYT:

EDITORIAL
Maybe I’ll Get Better on My Own

While politicians have been debating endlessly over the best ways to reform the American health care system, the plight of American patients has rapidly worsened. A new national survey found that an alarming 20 percent of the population, some 59 million people in all, either delayed or did without needed medical care last year, a huge increase from the 36 million people who delayed or did not seek care in 2003.

As expected, people who have no health insurance — there are some 47 million of them — were most likely to make that difficult choice. But insured people also chose to go without care in ever-larger numbers.

According to the survey, the main reason is soaring medical costs, which have outstripped the modest growth in wages in recent years. High costs are deterring not only the uninsured from seeking care, but also many insured people who are struggling with higher deductibles, co-payments and other out-of-pocket expenses as their employers or health plans shift more of the cost burden to them.

Many patients with insurance said they went without care because their health plans would not pay for the treatment or their doctors or hospitals would not accept their insurance. Both insured and uninsured patients said they skipped treatments because they had trouble getting timely appointments, were unable to get through on the telephone, or could not make it to a doctor’s office or clinic when it was open. No doubt a weakening economy, high fuel prices, the home foreclosure crisis and general economic anxiety also played a role.

Sadly, previous gains in caring for low-income children have reversed, largely because their parents lost employer-sponsored coverage.

The telephone survey of some 18,000 Americans was conducted by the Center for the Study of Health System Change, a respected nonpartisan research group, and was financed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It relied on respondents’ views that they needed the care and did not explore what health consequences resulted.

Champions of so-called “consumer-directed health care” might argue that the market is working — people are wisely delaying or forgoing care of low marginal value. But it is disturbing that unmet medical needs increased the most for people in poor or only fair health — those most likely to get even sicker if they don’t get treatment.

The new survey further strengthens the case for universal coverage, with moderate cost-sharing provisions. All Americans should be able to get medical care when they need it.



It’s official. I’m too busy to blog.

I just got home and realized I’d put nothing up all day. I’m going to have to find a way to be ok with leaving the blog alone for a bit. I know in doing so I run the risk of alienating what few loyal visitors I’ve managed to woo over the past 11 months, but I can’t see a reasonable alternative.

I’m just hoping that once I’ve won them quality, affordable health care, they’ll forgive me.