And all this time, FOX and other networks are accused of being biased.
Refusal to run opposition ads seems to be a bit biased.

What do you think?

To view the ad video;
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/28/abc-and-nbc-refuse-to-run-ad-critical-of-obama-health-care/

ABC and NBC Refuse to Run Ad Critical of Obama Health Care
Posted: 08/28/09

ABC and NBC have refused to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan. The commercial features a doctor who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to rationing and will disproportionately harm the quality of care for seniors on Medicare.

The spot has been running for two weeks on local affiliates of Fox, CBS and even ABC and NBC. But the two networks have refused to air the commercial nationally, according to Fox News.


The ad was produced by the League of American Voters, a national, nonprofit group that advocates for accountability by elected officials.

NBC responded to a Fox inquiry by saying it would consider running the 30-second ad if it were revised.

"We have not rejected the ad. We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed," said NBC spokeswoman Liz Fischer.

In June, ABC was hosted by the White House for a special on health care, which ran nationally in prime time.

But in response to Fox's question about the network's refusal to run the ad, ABC spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a statement that the network "has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue."

League of American Voters Executive Director Bob Adams takes issue with ABC calling the ad "partisan," saying: "It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind. Obviously, it's a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven't received yet."

Dick Morris, the former advisor to President Clinton, is the League of American Voters' chief strategist. He told Fox he is especially troubled by the hypocrisy of ABC's refusal to air the spot.

"It's the ultimate act of chutzpah because ABC is the network that turned itself over completely to Obama for a daylong propaganda fest about health care reform," he said. "For them to be pious and say they will not accept advertising on health care shuts their viewers out from any possible understanding of both sides of this issue."

ABC and NBC are only reinforcing the perception of a liberal media bias by refusing to air an ad that shows the downsides of the Obama proposals. The result is that the American people will learn about both sides of the health care debate from CBS, Fox and their local affiliates.

Good for ABC and NBC! FOX runs nothing but propaganda and BS.

I don't have a problem with commercials that don't tell the truth being pulled.

My security won't let me see the commercial but I read the article.

Saying that the healthcare program will "harm the quality of care for seniors on Medicare" is not true.

I just heard on radio news about the commercials telling lies about the healthcare plan to spread fear. They said that the Republicans weren't doing anything to stop it.

I agree, get the facts backed up they will run it, they said that did they not?

Seems a bit hipocritical to only run one side of a story. The representation of that health plan is in contrary, a lie, as to what is actually penned.
People have a right to all sides.
ABC and NBC will continue their bias as long as BHO keeps funneling our tax dollars into their system.

I want people to see the pros and cons about the health care plan.
But....what they say should be true!!!!!!

If you can't watch the ad, how do you know it isn't true??

Well, there's your Big Media. But - to not run an AD because of false lies is appropriate, that shouldn't be run at all, rather, belongs on youtube. lol.

If it was telling the truth about Obama's plan for healthcare (which will not go into effect anyway) then it would be great to show it on major stations - definitely for pulicity and getting people inolved to interest groups and lobbying to make it happen.

Too bad everyone always wants to destroy someone else's dreams.

People have the right to the TRUTH! You tell me, who is this "League of American Voters"?? I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that you will find that BIG INSURANCE money is behind their propaganda.

Just like all the Republicans quoting from the LEWIN study and playbook. They are part of UNITED Healthcare.

Insurance companies are pumping millions of dollars a day into fighting reform. Did you ever stop to wonder why?

Wake up. We need reform now.

I'm going by what the article that you posted said:

"ABC and NBC have refused to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan. The commercial features a doctor who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to rationing and will disproportionately harm the quality of care for seniors on Medicare."

The last sentence, "and will disproportionately harm the quality of care for seniors on Medicare" is NOT true.

Agreed. We do need to raise the Medicaid limit and include adults who fall below the poverty limits.

What we don't need is Obamacare and all the Gov. BS included in the package.

for those that support Big Media's filtering of free speech, "the truth" will only be what you want it to be. and until it comports to your view of what you think the truth "ought" to be, it will continue to be a lie, misinformation, propaganda, whatever..

For those that have looked into what the proponents of the Public Option actually have in mind when they propose further government intervention, the truth is clear. Paul Krugman freely admits in safe company that a public option will have the effect of killing private insurance. Ezra Klein, also, readily amits that he wants to see the private insurance companies legislated out of existence.

You are the company you keep.

it seems pretty clear to me what the end game is.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy5-OzyfyvA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7WNxrySFQA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FElipqE_Dl4

You can tell they are desparate. All they are trying to do is SCARE the Seniors in this country.

Scare them about death panels and rationing.

They seem to be pulling out all the stops...but it will be futile.

We will have reform and a public option.

And 10 years from now, people will look back and say, thank God people had the courage to pass reform.

In Health Care Debate, Fear Trumps Logic
by Julie Rovner

August 28, 2009

In this 1993 television commercial, a couple named Harry and Louise helped sow seeds of doubt in the public about how changes to health care would affect them. The ad was funded by the health insurance lobby to defeat President Clinton's proposed health care plan.

In this 1993 television commercial, a couple named Harry and Louise helped sow seeds of doubt in the public about how changes to health care would affect them. The ad was funded by the health insurance lobby to defeat President Clinton's proposed health care plan.

Past efforts to overhaul the nation's health care system had different proponents, different opponents and different plans that were under consideration. But they have two things in common: They all ended in failure, and in every case, opponents used fear as a key weapon in their arsenal.

So Jonathan Oberlander, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says he's not at all surprised to see recent claims — all thoroughly debunked — that suggest, for example, that bills under consideration would encourage senior citizens to commit suicide when they become ill or infirm.

"It's really a case of deja vu," he says. "You hear in today's debate echoes of the past that extend all the way to the early part of the 20th century. And I think the reason that people use fear again and again is that it's effective. It's worked to stop health reform in the past. And so they're going to try and use it in the present."

History Of Scare Tactics

Oberlander says opponents used scare tactics the very first time the idea of national health insurance was broached — around 1915 — by tying would-be reformers to the nation's then-greatest international threat.

"They said that national health insurance was a plot by the German emperor to take over the United States," he says.

The next effort to remake the health system came during the late 1940s. This time the opposition, led by the American Medical Association, exploited the newest fears. "They said if we adopted national health insurance, the Red army would be marching through the streets of the U.S.; they said this was the first step toward communism," Oberlander says.

By the time the Clinton administration took on the health effort, the power of the American Medical Association was fading. But now a new opponent took its place — the health insurance industry. It ran ads using an ordinary looking couple, named Harry and Louise, to raise doubts among middle-class Americans about how the Clinton plan might hurt rather than help them.

Says Oberlander, "The opponents have changed over time; the tactic of relying on fear and scaring Americans has not."

The Science Of Fear

But exactly why is fear such an effective tactic? Simple biology, says Joseph LeDoux, a professor of neuroscience at New York University.

It turns out that fear is a very primitive response, and "once fear is aroused in your brain, it tends to take over and dominate," LeDoux says. A brain paralyzed by fear is unable to think other things through.

It actually makes sense on a survival level, he says. "If there's a chance that you'll be harmed, then you better attend to it. In other words, you better be afraid of it and be careful about what's going on."

There's another thing that makes fear effective in political debates — it's contagious.

"Rats have ways of sending out ultrasonic calls to other rats to warn them that, say, a cat is nearby," LeDoux says. "And these sounds are a secret code, because they're outside the cat's hearing ability. So it's pretty primitive in nature that we have these kinds of mechanisms for detecting danger, for experiencing danger within the individual, and for sharing that information across individuals."

Biology Wins

Republicans insist that fear is not part of their strategy in trying to defeat the current health overhaul effort. "No one's trying to scare people with sound bites. I mean, you know, I've not done that, and I don't know any of the leaders in the House and Senate that have done that," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said on NPR earlier this week.

But that's not convincing to many political scientists like Oberlander, who say they're hearing a lot of what they consider to be deliberate scare tactics.

"Fear is crowding out the truth. And the truth ought to count for something in health care reform and American politics. And right now it doesn't," he says.

The current debate isn't yet over, but so far at least, biology has defeated logic every time.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112315433

The last sentence, "and will disproportionately harm the quality of care for seniors on Medicare" is NOT true.


You can not "know" this for certain.....


No one knows what will happen....the fate of seniors will be determined by the , yet, unnamed, unelected, committee .....

HR 3200 defers all final decisions to committee.....

NO one know how this committee will act.....


No one!!

It appears that YOU have bought into the FEAR that is being spread.

Don't be afraid.....it will be OK.

read the bill(1 of 5) anyway.......


Committees make the decisions....not you, not your Doctor...

Q. Will Medicare be eliminated or gutted to pay for reform?

No. It’s inconceivable that any lawmaker would commit political suicide by proposing to get rid of Medicare. But the rumor has fast gained ground.

Where did this myth come from? Dick Morris, a political commentator, posted an article on his blog that began: “Obama’s health care proposal is, in effect, the repeal of the Medicare program as we know it.” Morris claimed that the proposals “will totally gut Medicare and replace it with government-managed care and rationing.” His article was picked up within days on some 281,000 websites.

What do the proposals say? It’s true they all seek to save billions from Medicare costs—not by cutting benefits, but by setting up new ways to pay doctors more fairly and to reward providers for quality of care instead of (as now) paying them a fee for each separate service; reducing waste and fraud; and reducing preventable hospital readmissions.

All the proposals would cut the amount of subsidies now paid to Medicare Advantage private health plans, which cost an average of 14 percent more per person than traditional Medicare does. Without subsidies, the private plans could become more efficient, or they could raise premiums, reduce benefits or withdraw from Medicare.

The proposals also add benefits to Medicare­—such as covering more preventive services and narrowing the Part D “doughnut hole.”

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/health_care_reform2.1.html

The OP's article:

"ABC and NBC have refused to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan. The commercial features a doctor who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to rationing and will disproportionately harm the quality of care for seniors on Medicare."

Rationing:

Q. Will the government ration care?

No. But the specter of “rationing” is the battle cry of reform opponents. They say people in their 90s, 80s or even 70s will be deemed “too old” for joint replacements and cancer care—and even, in one persistent rumor, that “Obama​care” would deny treatment to people going blind in one eye as long as their other eye still works.

Where did this myth come from? It’s part of the “government takeover” argument, playing on often inaccurate beliefs that countries with national health systems severely ration care. In a widely circulated memo, political consultant Frank Luntz offered Republicans language that he believed would most resonate with Americans to defeat the Democrats’ push for reform. He suggested they say: “In countries with government run healthcare, politicians make your healthcare decisions. They decide if you’ll get the procedure you need … We can’t have that in America.”

What do the proposals say? In fact, they seek to prevent denial of care. Under every proposal, insurance companies would no longer be able to deny coverage on the basis of current health or preexisting medical conditions.

The proposals also would require plans to offer benefits packages with a comprehensive range of medical services equal to those in typical employer-sponsored plans. An independent advisory board, removed from political influence, would recommend new specific services to be covered based on scientific evidence. Annual or lifetime limits on coverage would be prohibited. None of the bills places any age limits on receiving medical care.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourhealth/policy/articles/health_care_reform2.1.html

no one seems interested in answering the charge that the proponents of Public Option seem certain that the installation of such WILL lead to single payer.. that it is in fact the intent and design of the 'public option' plan to become the defacto single 'option'..

So until such time as someone can demnstrate that Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein are wrong about that, I'm going to assume that this point is stipulated.

Public Option -> Single Payer i.e. gov't run healthcare.