We wrote several posts (including here and here) about comparative effectiveness in the economic stimulus package. The Los Angeles Times has a nice account of how the conservative attack on the proposal unfolded—as well how health reform advocacy groups launched a strong and organized counterattack.

The "ferocity of the struggle," as the newspaper put it, surprised observers who had not anticipated that comparative effectiveness (in this case, government-backed research into which treatments work and which ones do not) would ignite such a fierce opening battle in the health care wars. Foes of the research depicted it as the first step down the path to—you guessed it —socialized medicine. Or worse.

Rush Limbaugh joined the fray. So did an Iowa advocacy group that targeted Capitol Hill with a fierce e-mail campaign. The conservative Washington Times suggested that what Obama wanted to do might lead to Nazi-style euthanasia, and the paper posted a photo of Adolf Hitler next to an editorial denouncing the bill.

But unlike the 1993-94 health care debate, this time there was an "much more effective pushback" from pro-reform advocacy groups, noted Chris Jennings, a health care consultant who was part of the Clinton-era reform initiative.

Within hours, newly empowered liberals struck back. Using muscles honed fighting the Bush administration for eight years, bloggers and television commentators attacked critics of the legislation as uninformed and unprincipled.

Comparative effectiveness got $1.1 billion in the stimulus package. Victory—at least in round one— went to the Obama Administration, the Democratic Congress, and the advocacy community. Too soon to know exactly what the next battle will be (mandates? the public plan? costs?) but at least this time we don't have to worry about Harry and Louise killing health reform. This time, they're on the other side...