Health Reform AdWatch: Government bureaucrats in geeky glasses in your examining room???

Health reform commercials are everywhere this month, with media outlets reporting last week that more than $57 million has now been spent on such ads. Two of the latest entries bring a touch of kookiness and earnest hopefulness to home viewers. This quirky spot is sponsored by Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, a lobbying group, and produced by the same PR agency that orchestrated the 2004 "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" campaign against John Kerry. In the commercial, called "Drop It," a nerdy government bureaucrat with a clipboard marked "Federal Health Police" shows up at a woman’s doctor’s appointment and jauntily wags his finger "no" at what the woman and her doctor have decide presumably decided. "Today," a voiceover begins, "you make the medical decisions that are best for you," then goes on to explain that under Congress’s proposed health-care overhaul, "you could end up with government bureaucrats taking away your choices, getting in between you and your doctor."

They neglect to mention that someone already gets between you and your doctor: Insurance companies, who have their own bureaucrats whose job is to limit how much is paid out in benefits, in part by deciding which doctors, hospitals, and even brands of drugs they’ll pay for.

The ad repeatedly calls the proposed new system "government-run health care," a favorite catchphrase among reform opponents that is patently false, for two reasons:

• The reform bills under consideration include a public health plan as just one option for individuals and some small business shopping for insurance. The other option would be private insurance, just like we have now, but minus such pesky inconveniences as not being able to get coverage if you have an occasional migraine or were treated for acne as a teenager.
• The government already has its hand in plenty of people’s health care. It’s called Medicare, and while certainly not perfect, it gives more choice in doctors and hospitals and has fewer restrictions on treatments than most private insurance plans do.

On the other side of the debate, check out this spot from Americans for Stable Quality Care, an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink coalition of pro-reform groups that includes the American Medical Association, Families USA, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, and the Service Employees International Union. Called "What Does Reform Mean for You?," it’s the first ad in a $12 million campaign that will run in key states in the coming weeks.

To a background of poignant piano music, images of happy-looking patients and health professionals cross the screen and a voiceover lists the specific ways Americans would benefit under a reformed system. Most of these points, like not being denied coverage because of preexisting conditions and not getting dropped if you get sick, are right on. But two other statements overpromise about stuff that’s really still unknown. 

• Health care will be between you and your doctor. Funny, that’s the exact opposite of what the first ad says will happen. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle: Nothing in the bill will change the way health plans pay for things, and they’ll still be able to limit which doctors, hospitals, and brands of drugs they’ll cover. But there will be no new types of government interference.
• Less waste and red tape. Sounds great, but it’s tough to quantify. The bills aim to reduce insurance-related red tape by eliminating medical underwriting and standardizing the Byzantine process by which doctors and hospitals collect reimbursements. But the bills don’t do much to reduce unnecessary treatments that, by some estimates, could be cut by 30 percent without compromising quality. One man’s waste, after all, is another’s livelihood.

—Jamie Kopf Hirsh, associate editor

Keep up with our health reform coverage and find out how we'd fix the broken health system.

Comments

[Gerald]

This one change can make a difference in government bureauacy run programs as a whole. This one thing is what Paul Harvey pointed out years ago.
Government bureas are designed to be inefficient. After his page two pause he explained his logic.
Government supervisors, managers, directors etc. are given raises and promotions based on two primary facts. One, how many people work for them and two, how much money is in their buget.
Make this one change to efficiency i.e. how much is done and how to do it better.
The ripple effect of this can be history making.

[Linda Pharmacist in Tennessee]

I can understand why the insurance companies and their owned politicians have hired goons to disrupt meetings and post lies about a public option in healthcare reform. Yes, I did notice that the nerdy government employee is in the ad but not the DOCUMENTED Problem of insurance companies representative who have been intervening in the doctor-patient relationship and making healthcare decisions by determining what they will pay for. The republicans and other corporate owned politicians have reached a new low if that is possible. Government for the corporations by the corporations.I stand for people having a choice to not have to deal with private insurance companies and having a choice of a public option. This will lessen the ability of the insurance companies to take their astronomical unearned profits so of course the liars and hired goons are out in force. They would be funny but they insult my intelligence and are just transparent irritating liars.

[Ron]

At least a third of the doctors in my area won't take new medicare patients. I believe because their reimbursement is so little. Will they with changes in our system?

[Burzin]

Nancy,

Why do we assume that the government will be able to run the healthcare program in a responsible and efficient manner? History teaches us that major government run programs are riddled with cost inefficiency, relatively poor service, and influence by lobbyists and special interest groups.

Medicare is a perfect example of what problems arise with a government run program. I'd love for a program to provide healthcare to all citizens, however we need to find a more responsible way to get there, rather than mortgage our children's future (and that is exactly what the CBO's office estimates we will be doing when the deficit balloons). If the government can show us a logical and effective way to fix what is currently broken (i.e. Medicare) then we can gain confidence in the governments ability to make a program work.

By the way, I do see valid arguments which point to how the current healthcare system needs to improve (and can be improved), but allowing third party intervention between a patient and their doctor would maintain status quo (i.e. replace insurance with government). The right way to go about this would be to put the health service recipient in charge of their own health and costs through monetary incentives (e.g. Pre-Tax Health Savings Accounts).

Regards,
Burzin

[TDA]

Reality.. the private option will be squeezed out.
The gov't option will be paid by all.. so everyone will just go with it, since they are already paying for it.
We will officially have a gov't mandated, socialist health care system.
What does that mean?
The current gov't health plans medicaid & medicare, really limit the care doctors/hospitals can offer. They pay very little to doctors & hospitals.
the result.. less hospitals, less doctors, less nurses, less medical personel.
with less medical staff/facilities, you will end up driving further to find a doctor. waiting longer to get care/appointment. have more limitations to the care you can receive.
the result? problems that were minor will become major since people can not receive timely treatment/care/diagnosis.
summary.. obamacare=bad option!

[Trancen]

Yes you can sue the insurance companies, but try to find a lawyer that will.

You won't find one, because they know the insurance companies will drag out lawsuits until a patient dies. And at that point the lawsuit stops and the lawyer is out any chance of a settlement and payment for his time.

[Nancy Metcalf]

DaveR

The health care reform that you recommend is exactly what Congress and President Obama are proposing. The public plan we're hearing so much about is simply an additional policy that people could choose if they don't like the private plans for sale in their region. But it's hard to see how we're supposed to mandate coverage and outlaw medical underwriting without some degree of "government intrusion," however. Who else would enforce it?

Nancy Metcalf, Senior Program Editor

[Dave R]

Does anyone ever think about the fact that you have the right to sue insurance companies? Try suing the gov't plan when they deny coverage or say you are too old for a procedure or treatment. The best way to reform health care is to demand everyone buy insurance ( probaly not constitutional though) mandate no pre-ex conditions and can't be cancelled. I think that would solve the problems this debate is all about without the gov't intrusion. Win win for all except those that have a differing agenda from just simple health care reform.