Astroturf Health Insurance Lobbying Group Paying Social Gamers To Oppose Health Reform
from the wow dept
We've seen plenty of stories of "astroturf" campaigns by lobbyists looking to influence public policy by pretending that there's grassroots support for some corporate position. And, we've seen stories of virtual goods scams taking place on various social networks, which are used to get unsophisticated social gamers to sign up for subscriptions to things that they don't want. But what happens when you combine the two?Nicholas Carlson has an astounding story about a health insurance astroturf group that is using those social gaming "offer" services to get gamers to contact their elected officials to oppose health care reform in exchange for virtual currency in games. Yes, health insurance companies are basically trying to bribe a bunch of Farmville and Mafia Wars players on Facebook to send messages to their representatives, that say: "I am concerned a new government plan could cause me to lose the employer coverage I have today. More government bureaucracy will only create more problems, not solve the ones we have." In exchange, you get some virtual currency to spend.
The group behind this virtual bribery astroturfing effort is backed by a who's who of insurance trade associations... and when Carlson tried to contact them for comment, the email bounced. Nice to see that some of the scammiest lobbying groups out there have found some of the scammiest marketing techniques out there as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: astrotuf, health care, health insurance, health reform, lobbying, social gaming
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cue AC's "moral panic" rant in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another fact is that in 10 years, our healthcare system will look nothing like what is being debated today.
The fact is that in America, we don't have enough doctors to treat the people that are in the system right now, when you throw another 40-80 million people in that system, guess what, you will be waiting even longer. More coverage (at no cost) won't lead to less utilization.
The insurance companies are just running for their lives. Doctors are running for their lives, because they know that soon, the game is over.
Sure, everyone should be covered, but ask any doctor today how they feel about reform. Older ones will tell you that they are glad they are not in college today and if they were, they wouldn't become doctors.
The bumper sticker idea? Don't get sick in the next 10-15 years, after that, get ready to deal with a doctor that is a government employee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
so get off your high horse and GET A JOB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The troops - give them a big hand. Most are great, do their best, and care about their job. The running of the military? Our military runs like a Swiss...car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, pull your fat-head out of your behind and get a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: broke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you're missing the point. The issue is not the goal of the lobbying organization, but the method of the lobbying. They could be lobbying to give free puppies to disabled orphans of war veterans and lobbying scheme would still be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think you understand what the word "facts" means.
Government bureaucracy increases costs and overhead while lowering the bar for quality of service through reduced competition. That's a "fact", too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, because more government bureaucracy over our health is great for our health.
The government can't even manage their own budget yet alone my health.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For me, it just looks like the lobbyists from one side hit a great idea before the other side did, and the other side is upset. I can guess which side of the fence you are on, socialist Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Health care should be run at a loss!
It should be paid for by tax dollars!
Illegal immigrants should be given priority over white people!
Free copies of the Qur'an and cash back with every abortion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:illegal immigrents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mutually exclusive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mutually exclusive
You can't be serious. Using your logic, bribing a politician would be OK as long as he was going to vote that way anyway. A bribe is a bribe. Do you honestly think that the people who developed this scheme intend for people who oppose health care reform to "pass on the offer"? Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mutually exclusive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mutually exclusive
It's not different. They're both astroturf. I don't think I implied otherwise. Is applying a definition, like "astroturf", to all cases which meet the criteria, regardless of whether it's "left" or "right" so rare that you have to jump to this conclusion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mutually exclusive
As a voter, I took no oath to not e-mail my representatives without being coerced. There is no promise, no oath, no vow. An e-mail to a representative is not a vote.
So, really, what you said made no sense as politicians taking bribes for their vote is fundamentally different than someone e-mailing their representative (which has no weight or power over anything, it's an opinion ... a politician voting on a law is so vastly different from an opinion that it shouldn't have to be said) for promise of fake money.
A bribe is a bribe, just like a rock is a rock ... but I can drop a pebble-sized rock and a mountain-sized rock on your foot, and you'll admit there is a huge difference between rocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't have a dog...
Is it possible there's something good in this? Taking indifferent youth and thru modern media involving them somewhat in the processes which form our modern oligarchy?
Admittedly, if there's any full disclosure it's likely horribly mis-stated with a favorable bent towards the interested parties... but still, what if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't have a dog...
It isn't hard to figure out that Mike must be a very big supporter of the government's plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
And you know this how?
The post is packed full of derogatory terms, just as "astroturfing", "scams", etc.
And your point is? You might as well have said the post is full of verbs and nouns.
It isn't hard to figure out that Mike must be a very big supporter of the government's plan.
Not hard if you have a loose grasp on reality and jump to conclusions based on little to no evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
Clever Support Group Uses Social Gaming to Engage Youth
They would be astroturfing, they would be "setting the record straight". It wouldn't be a scam, but an "effective marketing tool for reaching the youth of today". It's classic Mike "smart - dumb", nothing more and nothing less.
It isn't hard to see what side of things Mike lands on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
Clever Support Group Uses Social Gaming to Engage Youth
You've simply restated your assertion without providing any evidence. So, this is two posts you've made where you accuse Mike of some political slant where none is obvious from the post. I'm sure Mike has an opinion on health care reform and since he's not a journalist he's under no obligation to hide this opinion, but what is being lobbied is all but irrelevant to the point of the post which is the problematic nature of the lobbying.
Astroturfing is wrong. Astroturfing is being combined with games on social networking sites. Mike posted a comment about how this is wrong. You state that he wouldn't think it was wrong if the topic of the astroturfing were different. I repeat...and you know this how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
So, for the third time, you've refused to actually support your assertion. If it's so obvious, then it should be a simple matter to explain your reasoning. The fact that you won't explain your reasoning, even after repeated requests and responses, would logically indicate that you in fact don't have any justification for your assertion.
You are choosing not to see it, that is your right. Enjoy it.
To quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again." I see a pattern developing. First, you accuse Mike of slanting the article to match his political leanings without providing any evidence other than "it's obvious". Then, when someone questions your unsupported assertions, your reply is that I must be blinding myself to the obvious. Well, I'd rather be blind than see things that aren't there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
The only thing I see here is your massive denial of what is obvious: slanted language that shows his leanings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
Repeatedly restating the same opinion does not equate to supporting an assertion. You said that Mike does not agree that the US health care system should be reformed and that because the lobbying is in favor of US healthcare reform, he characterizes the lobbying as the derogatory term "astroturfing". The only problem is that there is nothing in Mike's post that indicates his opinion on the health care reform issue or that he would hold an hypocritical viewpoint if the lobbying were pro-healthcare reform.
See, usually when a reasonable person wants to make an assertion, they make it and provide some supporting evidence or ideas. You, on the otherhand, are hiding behing the it's-so-obvious-I-shouldn't-have-to-explain-it technique. A technique which is, ironically, itself an obvious copout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't have a dog...
My views on Obama's healthcare plan are somewhat meaningless, but since it has been a point of discussion here, I'll say that contrary to the assertion put forth by the AC here, I do not support Obamacare. I think it will make the system worse.
But that has nothing to do with my feeling towards what is clearly a combination of astroturfing (not a loaded term -- widely used and accepted for many years) and bribery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What part of close to 50% of the people who voted in last election paid $0 in income taxes don't you understand.
Healthcare will pass, the healthcare of the average American will go up (because quite a few people that have no access to healthcare today will begin to receive it) and those that currently have healthcare will see their healthcare drop, but more will have access, so the averages will go up.
Here are a few other predictions. In 20-25 years, if you want to be a doctor, you will have to be in the government plan. Allowing doctors to work outside the system will create a 2 tiered system (which we have now) and won't be allowed.
Take a look at the UK system, because that is pretty much what ours will look like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe the statistic I saw was that 46% of the POPULATION didn't pay taxes. Let's look very closely at that statistic:
in my house (population 6) 67% don't pay taxes... of course the oldest of that 67% is 13 years old.
Thi thing about statistics is that without the full data set, they are utterly meaningless.
I agree that some sort of healthcare is going to pass, and I'm not so sure I like that. I miss the days of my DOCTOR making my health care decisions.. sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: doctor making descisions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: doctor making descisions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: doctor making descisions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: doctor making descisions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: doctor making descisions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
States have run wild - in Colorado we pay more than almost anywhere else...we now all get to pay for Austic Children...Women who have had hysterectomy's must still carry pregnancy coverage...
In the face of this and way more - I say whatever lobbying can be brought to bear is fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government run health-care.It can be scary!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Government run health-care.It can be scary!!!!!!
There are very, very few medications that are as dosage-sensitive as seizure control meds are. If you give someone 80% of their dosage of seizure control meds, they can have breakthrough effects (GENERALLY not seizures, but sometimes even real grand mals). If you give them 125% of their dosage, they will often have significant increases in side effects, sometimes to the point of being unable to function.
On the other hand, most other medications will work just as well at an 80% dosage level as they will at 125%, which is the same as 100%. Most medications are not that dosage-dependent. If you take 80% of a migraine med, it will still work in almost all cases, and it will work just as well at 125%. Hell, 80% of many med dosages do literally exactly the same thing as 100%. (Maximal human dosage, etc.)
I agree, there should be different FDA rules in those few cases where 80% does not equal 100%, and where dosages are very finely tuned.
-fred
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Government run health-care.It can be scary!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That will be one long line, but you could say the same for any hospital now, even worse in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're also assuming that in a free system, people wouldn't make any appointments anymore, but that's not necessarily true. Free hospitals don't necessarily mean being just giant walk-in clinics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It still costs money bet it's way cheaper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Medicare from birth to death for all and private supplemental insurance for those who want extra services. One stone, 2 birds. Moving on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thus, whenever I see the word used my first reaction is that once again persons with a specific view on an issue are using it to try and marginalize the efforts of those who hold contrary a contrary view.
I am not prone to gross generalizations, but by and large this is a word I have seen used by persons of "liberal" bent to mock those of "conservative" bent.
Of course, the issue here is not one specifically directed to the ongoing health care debate. It is the use of tools enabled by the internet to garner support and political action by persons who might otherwise sit along the political sidelines and do nothing, a proclivity not at all limited to just young voters.
A constant refrain on this site is that the younger generation is not going to "hell in a handbasket" because of the internet. It is asserted that many of the social networking and other tools engage users and improve both reading and writing skills. Assuming this is accurate, then I have a difficult time understanding why these same users are viewed by some of the commenters above are likely to be misled and encouraged to express an opinion by the dangling of a "carrot" in front of them. Surely with improved writing and reading skills these same persons are able to read the message and decide for themselves whether or not the want to participate.
Again, this does seem to be an innovative way to get a message out and solicit support for political action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Astroturfing simply means a fake grass roots effort. Fair enough if you've seen this used in the context of being critical of conservative efforts, but the term itself has no left or right connotation.
Assuming this is accurate, then I have a difficult time understanding why these same users are viewed by some of the commenters above are likely to be misled and encouraged to express an opinion by the dangling of a "carrot" in front of them.
The problem is not encouraging people to express an opinion. The problem obviously is that people are being paid to express a specific opinion. If you think that the people who are paying this virtual money care whether or not the recipients actually hold the opinion they're supporting, then I believe you're seriously mistaken. Do you seriously not see the difference between "write your congressperson and tell them what you think about healthcare reform" and "write your congressperson and tell them you that you oppose healthcare reform and we'll pay you with virtual money"?
Again, this does seem to be an innovative way to get a message out and solicit support for political action.
Just because something is innovative, doesn't mean it's good. Credit default swaps were innovative, but you won't find too many outspoken supporters of them these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? Then you apparently do not pay much attention to what goes on in Washington DC. The term has been around for many years, and is not associated closely with either party. It is a term that is used for fake grassroots attempts to influence policy.
The use that you suggest above is not how it is normally used.
I am not prone to gross generalizations, but by and large this is a word I have seen used by persons of "liberal" bent to mock those of "conservative" bent.
That is entirely incorrect. Your gross generalization is flat out wrong.
And, since I'm pretty sure I know who you are, I have to say you are also lying when you claim you are not prone to gross generalization. At times on this site you have repeatedly grossly generalized my position, the position of others, and -- quite regularly -- "the younger generation" who you have stated, repeatedly, are an entitlement society and who have no morals.
A constant refrain on this site is that the younger generation is not going to "hell in a handbasket" because of the internet. It is asserted that many of the social networking and other tools engage users and improve both reading and writing skills. Assuming this is accurate, then I have a difficult time understanding why these same users are viewed by some of the commenters above are likely to be misled and encouraged to express an opinion by the dangling of a "carrot" in front of them. Surely with improved writing and reading skills these same persons are able to read the message and decide for themselves whether or not the want to participate.
Not prone to gross generalization, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The majority of your comment, however, has nothing to do with the topic. Is it asking to much to engage in something other than a personal rant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Indeed. I thought it was a great response.
My comment did, in fact, have to do with the topic, though, so not sure why you suggest otherwise.
I will admit that I did read your comment in light of your past behavior on this site, and that may have lead me to be a bit more pointed than I would have been in other cases. In my experience such a response has a higher likelihood of getting through to you, whereas more toned down responses tend to be responded to with the usual "but I'm just a simple man asking simple questions -- merely FYI" pedantry you have been known for in the past. I also found it somewhat ridiculous given your regular attempts to take us to task for speaking about things you claim we know nothing about to then make ridiculous claims about what "astroturf" meant and how it was normally used. I apologize if it was too strong, but given your own comments in the past on this site, I didn't realize that you had become more sensitive to pointed responses. I will keep it in mind for future discussions we might have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for "astroturf", I believe all I said was that the first time I ever heard the term was when Pelosi used it to denigrate "Tea Party" participants.
Since first hearing it from Pelosi, I have seen it become the mantra of MSNBC commentators, and particularly Olbermann.
Given my limited experience with the word (other than for artificial grass), its continuing use by "liberal" commentators was why I happened to make the "liberal/conservative" distinction.
And, yes, I do see phony "grassroots" groups all the time, though in the vast majority of cases such groups have been local in nature and typically comprise groups like local Chambers of Commerce whenever a new construction project is proposed that will materially benefit its members at the expense of taxpayers.
Need a new NBA arena? "Grassroots" organizations spring up everywhere touting that it will be a job creating Godsend for the local economy (though every economic study has proven otherwise).
Need a mass transit rail system? Whoops...yet another "grassroots" movement. Of course, each and every time these movements create a website, and WHOIS identifies the same group of people who comprised the prior movements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
places liek canad athen cant have great health care
we do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Online currency=real money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You just lost a subscriber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is true, but what does that have to do with politics.
It is a fact that there are quite a few people who have no health insurance thus no access to healthcare. Sure, the people that currently utilize the systems healthcare will drop, the fact that millions of people will soon have access to the system will raise the average care of Americans. Increase the lines of course, but throw more people into the system, that can't be helped.
Look at Mass when they did that.
I know all about the Canadian system, I worked with someone that commuted from Canada to NYC every Monday and Friday. He paid into our company insurance program. I asked him why he did that and he responded "if anything serious happens to me or my family, I want to be able to get treatement in the U.S.)
Again, if doctors are allowed to practice outside the system, then we will have a 2 tiered system which we have now, and that just won't be allowed.
Best advise? Don't get sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]