Banks Planning "Harry and Louise" Ads

[DetroitDad]

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_s...o-wall-st.aspx

A knowledgeable industry source confirmed yesterday that, as part of their efforts to roll back the Obama proposal for a consumer financial products regulator, several lobbying organizations representing banks are developing a "Harry and Louise"-style ad campaign, after the commercials that targeted the Clinton healthcare plan in the early '90s. The ads will emphasize the intrusiveness of the proposal--of the government "telling you what you can and can't buy," according to the source. The hope is to run them sometime in July, when House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank plans to move the measure through his committee.

The coalition has solicited pitches from at least four advertising firms. The source didn't specify the price tag for the campaign, but, perhaps tellingly, said it's intended to counter what the coalition expects to be $5 million in spending from consumer groups.
--Noam Scheiber
Posted: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:42 AM

It's interesting that the banks have to counter consumer protection groups....

[Lorax]

I heard on MSNBC yesterday that banks, as well as Big Pharma are spending 5 million per day of lobbying efforts to reverse, or severely damage Obama's policy initiatives.

This is how they spend the money their customers sweat to give them for the lousy coverage and customer service they receive.

I'm not surprised.

[MoparDan]

I heard on MSNBC yesterday that banks, as well as Big Pharma are spending 5 million per day of lobbying efforts to reverse, or severely damage Obama's policy initiatives.

This is how they spend the money their customers sweat to give them for the lousy coverage and customer service they receive.

I'm not surprised.

I remember a joke years ago:
Pharmaceutical companies spend 9 billion a year on research & 10 billion a year on marketing.
My deceased brother was a doctor & always getting cups, pens & oddball gadgets from pharm reps as well as samples. Talk about a racket!

[mjs]

Lorax, just occasionally cite a link. The MSNBC article I can only guess you are referring to says $1.4 million from the nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups. It also leads into what we keep trying to tell you; government is not good at cutting costs. For some reason, you can't buy American manufactured drugs from Canada because Congress claims its not as safe as buying American manufactured drugs in America. You think that will change once the government becomes the sole buyer? The drug companies are trying to bribe them now to allow even more over payment once this goes through. There isn't a chance in hell Uncle Sam will be paying less per pill than Blue Cross because a Senator's job depends on how much more he can get Merck to give him than his competitors and a Blue Cross CEOs job depends on how much less he can give to Merck than his competitors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31756020...shington_post/
http://industry.bnet.com/pharma/1000...thcare-reform/

[Lorax]

Lorax, just occasionally cite a link. The MSNBC article I can only guess you are referring to says $1.4 million from the nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups. It also leads into what we keep trying to tell you; government is not good at cutting costs. For some reason, you can't buy American manufactured drugs from Canada because Congress claims its not as safe as buying American manufactured drugs in America. You think that will change once the government becomes the sole buyer? The drug companies are trying to bribe them now to allow even more over payment once this goes through. There isn't a chance in hell Uncle Sam will be paying less per pill than Blue Cross because a Senator's job depends on how much more he can get Merck to give him than his competitors and a Blue Cross CEOs job depends on how much less he can give to Merck than his competitors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31756020...shington_post/

MJS, sorry, but I heard the story on air in the background, but it was MSNBC, for sure.

Suffice to say, our former president told us [[and this I saw with my own eyes!) that we shouldn't buy our prescription drugs from Canada, since we don't know if they are safe.

Bush was such an awful liar, since the very drugs he was mentioning were US made drugs, shipped to Canada, and then resold at less cost to US consumers.

Guess Bush didn't have any faith in his own FDA.

If drug companies can manufacture here in the states, then turn around and ship said drugs to Canada and then are able to re-sell them back to us at a lower cost, then the system is broken, and is designed to screw the American consumer in the first place.

Blue Cross is a not-for profit. For profit health care has been trying to destroy Blue Cross for years. Legislation as I understand it, will equate costs the government public option would pay, with what Blue Cross would pay [[most likely less than costs are now). The private health care middlemen will be cut out, or, will have to offer their product at lower cost. Big Pharma will have nowhere else to sell their drugs, and will be forced to comply with the public option's pricing allowance.

This is why they are currently fighting it tooth and nail, and spending billions in lobbying efforts to stop any public option dead in it's tracks.

[mjs]

We have to agree that NPR's "All Things Considered" is a fair source:

Why spend so much? Three words: return on investment. While a drug company might spend a few million dollars lobbying, it stands to gain, or lose, billions in the outcome.

One big example: the 2003 Medicare drug legislation, under which Medicare began covering prescription drugs. One provision shifted poor, elderly consumers from Medicaid to Medicare — more bluntly, from a program where the government can negotiate with drug companies over prices, to a program where the new legislation prohibited such negotiations.

Most estimates find that the Medicaid-to-Medicare shift was worth billions of dollars for the drugmakers.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=105923744

[mjs]

Blue Cross was only an example, replace it with HAP or Humana or whoever you hate today. I agree there's a conspiracy by the drug companies and Congress to take advantage of us. Its why I want Congress having as little say as possible. Lets assume the President's office is as powerful as you think and that Obama can keep these guys in check, what keeps what you call the next Rethugican administration from allowing these guys to pillage again?

And you can cite Bush all you want, but it doesn't effect me. I never voted for the guy. That's batson's candidate. Its also not my fault the Dems put up the dynamic do-nothing duo of Kerry and Edwards. There's a hundred other democrats that could have easily slaughtered Bush. It would actually have been better because if a Dem were in office when the large banks saw their inevitable fall in late 2008, they would never be able to pass their universal health care, cap and trade, or deficit spending.

[Lorax]

Sadly, there are no guarantees!

Whomever is in office needs to pass legislation that will be a permanent change to our nation's economic identity like Social Security and Medicare were. They aren't going anywhere.

My big criticism with Obama is that he's not proposing the real fundamental change we need to make permanent socialized health care a reality.

It will be the "don't ask, don't tell" legislation of it's time. Measured small steps that will prove worse- harder to implement, harder to manage, than if we jumped into a single payer system to begin with.

European friends of mine just scratch their heads, wondering why this country is so beholden to corporatist interests, and can't seem to do what is second-nature to them in their socicalized democracies.

The bottom line it that the profit has to be taken out of health care for such a system to work. Concurrently, the profit has to be taken out of our politics.

Without campaign finance reform, banning lobbyists- i.e. removing Big Pharma from the halls of Congress, we are only wasting our time and effort.

[ccbatson]

Look at other socialised medicine systems, progressive failures at various stages of decline...ALL OF THEM.

[Lorax]

Look at other socialised medicine systems, progressive failures at various stages of decline...ALL OF THEM.

You have nothing over the Father of Lies.

Wrong yet again.

[Detroitej72]

Look at other socialised medicine systems, progressive failures at various stages of decline...ALL OF THEM.

Yep, Sweden seems to be failing. Besides, a single payer system is not what Obama is seeking, even though thats how your ditto heads are trying to spin it.

Nice try though, thanks for playing.

[ccbatson]

Yep, Sweden, and all of Euro socialism is failing and, in response, are now swinging conservative.

Obama is very much pushing single payer, he is lying about the preservation of private insurance on many levels. For starters, taxing private insurance benefits paid for by employers will immediately have them dropping the option in favor of the public "option" [[it is nothing of the sort). Next, like public schools, individuals will be forced to pay for the public option, AND, if they choose to, pay again for a private plan...a slightly slower death to the private health insurance industry.

[Detroitej72]

Obama is very much pushing single payer, he is lying about the preservation of private insurance on many levels. For starters, taxing private insurance benefits paid for by employers will immediately have them dropping the option in favor of the public "option" [[it is nothing of the sort)

Obviously you have a short memory. It was the Republicans, under John McCain who proposed taxing employee benefits to pay for health care. President Obama has never said that he will embrace this plan, although he hasn't ruled out any option.

He would be wise not to give in to the Republican bullying and resist the urge to use the McCain plan as a form of bi-partisan co-operation and find another way to pay for health care, hopefully by cutting spending from some other source.

Health care reform will more than likely either succeed or fail completely at the hands of the Democratic Party, since the Republicans only seem to be interested in obstructing any of Obama's programs.

[ccbatson]

Yes, McCain was wrong on that issue as he was/is on immigration and freedom of speech/campaign finance reform. 2 wrongs DO NOT make a right, and, by degree, Obama is all of McCain's liberal mistakes exponentially amplified.