WASHINGTON – The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future today announced that it will launch new television and digital advertising around tonight’s Democratic presidential debate. Part of a seven-figure national public education effort, the ads will run on ABC and Univision television stations during tonight’s debate coverage, as well as on both networks’ digital properties on desktop, mobile and Connected TV. The Partnership will also run advertisements on Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat, as well as a takeover of YouTube’s homepage following the debate.
- To view “Same Thing,” which will run on ABC television and digital platforms, CLICK HERE.
- To view “Amenaza,” a Spanish-language ad which will run on Univision and digital platforms, CLICK HERE.
- To view “Threat,” which will run on digital platforms, CLICK HERE.
“As health care continues to take center stage in the national debate, the Partnership is committed to ensuring Americans understand the facts about proposed new government health insurance systems, like Medicare for all, Medicare buy-in and the public option,” said Lauren Crawford Shaver, the Partnership’s executive director. “With about 90 percent of Americans covered, our leaders need to focus on solutions that control costs and build and improve upon what’s working – not on one-size-fits-all government-controlled systems that would force Americans to pay more and wait longer for worse care.”
Voter Vitals – a new quarterly tracking poll conducted nationwide and in 2020 battleground states – finds that “[h]ealth care will be the defining issue of the 2020 presidential election. However, a clear majority of voters nationwide are primed to reject new government-run systems that will cost voters more to expand coverage like Medicare for All, the public option, and Medicare buy-in. Most voters want candidates to lower costs, build on what’s working and fix what’s broken – not start over.” This tracks closely with recent national polling conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which finds that the majority of Americans, including Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, want our elected officials to build and improve upon on our current system.
Previous national polling from KFF reveals that “majorities of Americans are unaware of the kind of dramatic changes that [Medicare for all] would bring to the nation’s health care system,” while CNN reports that few Americans support Medicare for all once they better understand its consequences, and even most Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer our elected officials focus instead on improving and building upon what works in American health care.
Another national poll conducted earlier this year by the KFF revealed that support for Medicare for all “drops as low as -44 percentage points” when people find out it would “lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” and “is also negative if people hear it would threaten the current Medicare program (-28 percentage points), require most Americans to pay more in taxes (-23 percentage points), or eliminate private health insurance companies (-21 percentage points).” The Washington Post confirms in a recent story headlined “Why 2020 Democrats are backing off Medicare-for-all, in four charts,” that “[p]olls show why they’re doing this. On the surface, the idea sounds as if it would appeal to voters.” But when voters are made aware of the many negative consequences of such a system, including the elimination of private insurance and need for higher taxes, support drops.
And while some candidates continue to push the public option as a more moderate alternative to Medicare for all, the harmful consequences of such a government-controlled health care system for patients are now becoming clearer. A new study, conducted by Navigant, finds that the public option could put more than 1,000 rural U.S. hospitals in 46 states “at high risk of closure.” These hospitals serve more than 60 million Americans, and as Kaiser Health News and NPR report, hospital closures can have “profound social, emotional and medical consequences.”
An earlier study by KNG Consulting found that “[f]or hospitals, the introduction of a public plan that reimburses providers using Medicare rates would compound financial stresses they are already facing, potentially impacting access to care and provider quality,” while another study by Navigant found that new government insurance systems such as “buy-in” or “public option” could force hospitals to limit the care they provide, produce significant “layoffs” and “potentially force the closure of essential hospitals.” Meanwhile, in a story headlined “How a Medicare Buy-In or Public Option Could Threaten Obamacare,” The New York Times reports that the “public option may well threaten the A.C.A. in unexpected ways.”