It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here's the commercial that ABC, NBC won't air.

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Sorry, but the commercial is very one sided and not very well researched.

At the end it should state: "Brought to you by the INSURANCE companies lobby effort consortium".

We need this to make change. No one is saying this is THE answer, but rather a STEP toward universal health care. We have to be willing to take the first step whether the situation is perfect or not. It will evolve from there. The current system will crumble into the complete failure it nearly is already anyway.

The corporate insurance greed has gone far enough. The first step is to go around this issue and then on from there.




posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sharps
 


Oh really, care to enlighten me? Have you read the bill?

How bout other options like tort reform. Of course, they can't do that because as Howard Dean put it, "The more stuff we put in the bill, the more enemies we make. The fact is that it isn't in the bill because Washington didn't want to take on the trail lawers as well."

Talk about ludicrous!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
Sorry, but the commercial is very one sided and not very well researched.

At the end it should state: "Brought to you by the INSURANCE companies lobby effort consortium".

We need this to make change. No one is saying this is THE answer, but rather a STEP toward universal health care. We have to be willing to take the first step whether the situation is perfect or not. It will evolve from there. The current system will crumble into the complete failure it nearly is already anyway.

The corporate insurance greed has gone far enough. The first step is to go around this issue and then on from there.


Competition is the key, not government intervention.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tenpensdown
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


Answer to your question, Yes, very much so.

I wish people would just take 10 minutes to go through some of the outrageous things that this bill allows. I think everyone would be against if so...


Have you read the bill, or did someone else do it for you & then post what's wrong with it?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spirit Warrior 11:11
Sorry, but the commercial is very one sided and not very well researched.

At the end it should state: "Brought to you by the INSURANCE companies lobby effort consortium".

We need this to make change. No one is saying this is THE answer, but rather a STEP toward universal health care. We have to be willing to take the first step whether the situation is perfect or not. It will evolve from there. The current system will crumble into the complete failure it nearly is already anyway.

The corporate insurance greed has gone far enough. The first step is to go around this issue and then on from there.


There is a battle being fought right now. Millions of dollars are being spent daily on lobbying. The status quo is in danger and monopolies are being threatened. Be prepared for it to get worse.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I think the corporations are fighting back, they make millions if not billions from insurance. You need to have a system which caters for everyone not just those who have insurance.

You try to knock down the English NHS but what you fail to see is that the government have run it incorrectly and not pouring as much money into it as it needs. But on the flip side even though beds are stretched and nurses/doctors work long shift like any hospital, it caters for everyone the poor and the rich.

If you wish to pay for a service then we have alternatives like BUPA which many business cover for employee's or you can pay insurance for this.




[edit on 28-8-2009 by Baldric]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I was in the U.S. for business the other day and i was with very well educated people. That only made their naiveté all that more frightening. I was asked about my healthcare system non-stop. They could not understand the concept that if the CEO of a company broke his arm and if a hobo cut his arm off the hobo would be seen first. We have no system that creates "death panel" or all those ludicrous lies. If a HUMAN walks in to an ER with more extensive injuries than you, you wait. Yes i have had to wait in the ER for 6 hours to get stitches on a couple of occasions, but its not like i was dying people who needed it more went first.
The rest of the world is watching you (America) right now and my best guesstimate is 90% of us know what is right, its socialized health care. You (again Americans) have let the globe down alot of recent. I believe when bush was elected to his second term Englands Headlines had "How can (whatever the population was at the time) be so dumb?"
We all used to gauge you guys as the one a few steps ahead, were starting to see you as the ones behind. If somehow this fails to go through and Americans veto this bill you will loose even more respect in the global community, and you ability to press you beliefs on other nations under the ruse of humanitarianism will no longer work. Humanity starts at home.
I despise how preachy this is for the record, the lies i hear about this stuff brings it out of me.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
My hope is that if enough Canadians say the same thing it will get through to some of those blinded by their own hatred towards "the other side":

Our health care system is very good. The only problems I have seen have come about due to NAFTA and the push to 'harmonize' our system with the states.

Every Canadian can go to the hospital. If you get in an accident an ambulance will come, they don't ask for your medical information before they treat you. They treat you, then they ask for it. If you don't have it, well guess what, they still get paid so that is not what matters.

Yes, our government is corrupt and it is owned by the same money interests as you, but even we get proper health care. Geez you guys, can't you put down your ridiculous 'right hand slapping the left hand slapping the right hand' rhetoric for just one minute and see that ALL of your politicians are on the same side?

They have billed you for TRILLIONS of dollars for war (killing people) and bailing out the banks (profiting a bunch of criminals). But dare to suggest that everyone will get health care and you are concerned about having to foot the bill?

That ad might as well have been a cartoon. I fear that the majority of you can't even see that. If that is the case then I'm sorry. Rather than help people rally together to save your nation, this level of discourse will only speed the collapse.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Baldric
 


We have a similar system being implemented, like a two tier system. Everyone gets it on one tier, the welathy can get it faster privately on another.
I would like to hear people issues with that



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The Broadcaste
 


AMEN!!!!!!!!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
All this commercial said was, hey if you can't afford it, you die.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hack28
I was in the U.S. for business the other day and i was with very well educated people. That only made their naiveté all that more frightening. I was asked about my healthcare system non-stop. They could not understand the concept that if the CEO of a company broke his arm and if a hobo cut his arm off the hobo would be seen first. We have no system that creates "death panel" or all those ludicrous lies. If a HUMAN walks in to an ER with more extensive injuries than you, you wait. Yes i have had to wait in the ER for 6 hours to get stitches on a couple of occasions, but its not like i was dying people who needed it more went first.
The rest of the world is watching you (America) right now and my best guesstimate is 90% of us know what is right, its socialized health care. You (again Americans) have let the globe down alot of recent. I believe when bush was elected to his second term Englands Headlines had "How can (whatever the population was at the time) be so dumb?"
We all used to gauge you guys as the one a few steps ahead, were starting to see you as the ones behind. If somehow this fails to go through and Americans veto this bill you will loose even more respect in the global community, and you ability to press you beliefs on other nations under the ruse of humanitarianism will no longer work. Humanity starts at home.
I despise how preachy this is for the record, the lies i hear about this stuff brings it out of me.


Propaganda is propaganda.

Why do I constantly see pundits interviewing Brits and Canadians who are willing to tell horror stories about ER waiting times and never see anyone talking to someone from Denmark or Sweden talking about how efficient their systems are?

A public option will create competition in the insurance market. The insurance monopolies will be forced to compete instead of price fixing. No one is forcing a the public option on anyone. It's an option.

In a nation as progressive as America, you shouldn't have to acquire wealth in order to have health care.

Here is a map which shows the nations that have implemented universal health care. Draw your own conclusions.
www.blogcdn.com...



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Living in Canada with socialized medicine is the way to go. ( I lived in Califorina for 30+ years.) I am tired of hiring that Canada and Great Britain have the worst health care, and lines to wait in, its (B... S...). I have friends and family that have never had to wait for anything and have recieved surgery with in a few days. Obamas health care plan is just a joke. Just another plan for the rich to steal from the poor.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
When I see words like "competition" with regards to health care I think.

I ultimately conclude that it makes no sense that there is any sort of "battle" or "competition" or "profit" that makes sense when we talk about the preservation of human life.

In my mind, ALL healthcare should be NON-PROFIT. This would include drugs as well as treatment.

It is clearly difficult to try to incorporate a non-profit entity into a society that thrives or dies based on money.

Two things that should be prevalent, completely transparent, available to EVERYONE and not for profit within any successful society are health care and higher-education.

Only elitist groups/families can afford to attend a higher-education facility to acquire the knowledge to be a health care professional. Grants and loans really only scratch the surface if we look at who ultimately receives them.

I'm not even going to try to detail the procedures that would be necessary to accomplish this but I can assure you that if someone were to outline such a plan that red flags would go up and claims of "socialism" would reign.

Would it be so bad if EVERYONE had virtually EVERYTHING that they could realistically want within a society? I'm not referring to ONE bottle of Vodka per week and ONE small car per family and ONE television per houshold etc. I'm talking about any and all reasonable comforts and any and all reasonable items to please the masses.

Canada - where I live - has the small population and the vast natural resources to EASILY accomplish this. The United States COULD acquire the energies and natural resources necessary to please EVERYONE with the right social plan.

A START to this would be NON-PROFIT health care and education! Lets start with healthcare since this is already an issue that seems to be pretty hard to deal with.

Currently it is ALL about MONEY. It should be ALL about the well being of EVERY citizen of your society!



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


"what is the big deal?"

One way to find out why these networks will not air it is to ask them or ask the producers of the ad what reason they were given for its rejection.

Is FOX airing it?

On the substance of the ad, it's message is insipid and fundamentally evil.

In essence, the ad's message is that we should not have universal health care because then more people will have access to a limited resource . . . i.e. doctors. The ad says "you have yours and if we give them (the uninsured) a share there won't be enough left for you who already have."

Anyone else have a problem with that message?


[edit on 8/28/2009 by dubiousone]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Hack28
 


Wrong, wrong, wrong. Socialism to any extent is WRONG.

Bring about tort reform and competition and let the free market work it out. There are plenty of other options than government run health care. This bill is designed to cater to the lobbyists and the politicians. We will suffer as a result.

You mean people like actually think that socialism is o.k.? My god, what is this world coming to.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Freenrgy2
 


"people like actually think that socialism is o.k."

Except when it's socialism for the rich?



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hack28
 


Can I just say that I agree wholeheartedly with this post. I have posted in other forums on the same topics and I can say that you americans who say that you are "awake" are still half asleep.

Seriously, this commercial SHOULD NOT AIR because it is just bs! You should be happy that a network does not want to air this crap. As I have said in other posts, I have lived in the U.S. and the U.K. and I wouldn't give away the healthcare system here in the U.K. for any amount of money in the world.
It should be people first not money.

Come on now get with it, insurance companies are earning Billions with a "B" so of course they are going to brainwash you all yet again with false statements and SCARE you in to wanting to keep paying for all this crap when you should be getting it for free (well taxes, but you get the point).

Again, look at canada, france, britain and other countries or better yet why don't you americans who have never left your country actually go to these places or talk to people who live there before taking what you see on T.V. and arguing it as fact.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I want to boycott ABC and NBC, but seriously, who still watches them? I think they both died out in the late 90s.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Semantics can get in the way of a word! Many are conditioned to believe a word has a negative meaning because it is often used incorrectly.

"Nice" used to mean "a sleazy woman."

I looked up "socialism" and I don't see a real problem with its application to a good and PROFITABLE society.

How about "utopian socialism." I found this meaning:

-noun (sometimes initial capital letter) an economic system based on the premise that if capital voluntarily surrendered its ownership of the means of production to the state or the workers, unemployment and poverty would be abolished.

We clearly see a very few "rich" individuals with capital they couldn't possibly spend in 100 lifetimes. We clearly see people starving and dying because they don't have any - or enough - money.

Somewhere in between seems very logical and right.

With capitalism, we are told that we all have a chance depending on how we apply ourselves. This is actually NOT TRUE. There are obstacles. It is OFTEN NOT that an individual doesn't wish to improve themselves and/or their education - it is that they simply CANNOT.

Capitalism is NOT working. People who don't lift a finger to produce or manufacture or contribute ANYTHING at all to their society are "rolling in dough" by GAMBLING - and SPECULATING and often MANIPULATING the so called "FREE MARKET" to make riches.

If everyone involved with manufacturing an item or product - and ONLY everyone DIRECTLY involved with the procurement of such an item or product were "rewarded" or involved with "profit" or "income" sharing, this would filter out the LEECHES who provide absolutely NO ASSISTANCE whatsoever.

Once you see this, you see that there is a very severe lack of logic involved with accepting that NON-CONTRIBUTORS benefit the most from the procurement of a product, idea or service.




[edit on 28-8-2009 by gtatix]

[edit on 28-8-2009 by gtatix]

[edit on 28-8-2009 by gtatix]



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join