Critics of Health Care Law Outspending Its Supporters on Ads

[Scuba]

$400 million bucks? Glad to see them wasting their money.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/us/politics/critics-of-health-care-law-outspending-its-supporters-on-ads.html

WASHINGTON — Seven months before the core provisions of President Obama’s health care law are to take effect, most television advertising that mentions the law continues to come from its opponents.

ince the law’s passage in March 2010, critics have spent a total of about $400 million on television ads that refer to it, according to a new analysis by the Campaign Media Analysis Group at Kantar Media, which tracks such spending. Supporters have spent less than a quarter of that — about $75 million — on ads that cast the law in a positive light, according to the analysis.

The biggest advertiser in support of the law has been the Department of Health and Human Services, which has run educational ads that mention it. Most of the negative ads have come from Republican outside groups, including Crossroads GPS, which was founded by Karl Rove and other top Republican strategists, and the National Republican Congressional Committee.

...

Elizabeth Wilner, vice president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, said it was “extremely unusual” for a law to remain the subject of political ads for so long after its passage. She also questioned whether all the advertising has significantly swayed public opinion. Polls by the Kaiser Family Foundation have consistently found Americans to be evenly divided on the law, known as the Affordable Care Act, with slightly more opposing than supporting it. “You could say all the spending on negative ads about the A.C.A. has kept it from becoming more popular,” Ms. Wilner said. “But it certainly hasn’t dramatically changed people’s opinions about it.”

[Swede Atlanta]

1. While this should not be the case it is....

This is human nature....

The opponents stand to lose lots of money. They will no longer be able to deny insurance based on a pre-existing condition. They must continue to insure a student until age 26. They must spend the overwhelming majority of their income for care which leaves limited amounts for operations/overhead and CEO salaries.

They also don't want to be required to carry some form of minimal insurance. I'm sure the people actually opposing this law on this point are not those without insurance. They are just using it as a reason to complain and challenge it. The vast majority of persons who have no insurance today will be able to have it in 2014 based on federal subsidies in order to meet their legal requirement.

The opponents are just those that oppose anything BO has supported and signed. They would be opposed to the Second Coming if BO was involved.

There should be a much bigger voice for those that are and will benefit from the ACA but that is reverse psychology. It will happen but until the full benefits of the law are realized in 2014, those voices will be muted.

[Egalitarian Thug]

2. If only someone had predicted...