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

reply to post by mikerussellus


Nice find Mike. Starred and flagged.

If some media outlets are not showing this, others should be willing to show it for the benefit of the people.

Originally posted by dubiousone
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

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

Except when it's socialism for the rich?

Nice and succinct. It's called capitalism. As I reference in my last post, "Utopian Socialism" sounds interesting!

reply to post by Spirit Warrior 11:11


You talk about greed yet people like you ignore the fact that the Obama administration, and President Obama himself were caught making deal with Big Pharma...

You can't just accept a reform because you believe any CHANGE will be good when if you do your research thee won't be any good changes...

How is it good for the government, and not doctors, to decide whehter a patient should have a treatment, or an operation?... Does the government know better than DOCTORS?....

How is it good that even through the mouth of President Obama himself he has stated elderly Americans are not worth the time and effort to have treatments, and operations that could save their lives? and this only because the treatments and or operation might not be "economically viable for the government"?...

reply to post by gtatix



"Utopian Socialism" is the perfect setting for a national, or even Global dictatorship... Utopian Socialism gives the power to the rich elite to control every aspect of our lives, that is "utopian Socialism"...

sounds like more misinformation to me ! some networks can distinguish between s**t and sugar !

All the quotes on the commercial are from a republican paper. That may be the bigger reason why they aren't putting this on their democratic stations.

Unbelievable how many fascist statements are dropped on ATS when it comes to Americans & social security or healthcare topics...
You all worship your holy liberal views (nothing wrong with that), but let me get this straight: If a government offers a service like this, (mostly) their intention is to enhance life quality for its people - cause in the end it benefits the whole country and economy...

if a company offers a service, their intention is ALWAYS to make profit and more profit. I know if they would privatize healthcare in Belgium, we'd have a revolt, no doubt.

And to make things clear: we do have private healthcare as well, but it exists next to a government regulated healthcare, of which everyone benefits. If you want more than just this basic package, there's still enough insurance companies ready and willing to receive your money
By the way, this 'basic package' foresees in cheap medicines and affordable hospitalisation for everyone - even if you can't pay your little contribution.

I'm quite convinced that, if you all live 5 years with a decent social security system, you'd fight to keep it. Until then: a good health to all of you. And get educated on the concept of 'welfare state' (it ain't socialism or communism and it doesn't limit your freedom in any way - on the contrary)
Blessings

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
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.

Over one million dollars is being spent ever day to lobby against health care reform. I don't understand how breaking the insurance monopoly and allowing low-income families to take their kids to the doctor is ultimately something worth fighting against.

You are a foot soldier in the war for the status quo. The 5% of Americans who hold 95% of the wealth are scaring people into fighting for their empire.

Or you could be like this guy, who is apparently just doing it out of spite.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

From the same Gang-Of-Six who are handing out copies of Glenn Beck's book at town hall meetings.

[edit on 28-8-2009 by suicydking]

Originally posted by KSPigpen
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

Thanks Mike.

I would say let's boycott ABC and NBC, but seriously, who still watches them?

Do you know anything about who else is heavily influenced by these two and how far-reaching the censorship goes? Do you know of any stations that have played the spot already?

Any comments about the accuracy of the statements, or the text throughout the add?

[edit on 27-8-2009 by KSPigpen]

Hey! Law and Order: SVU is a good show!

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

What's the difference between this ad and all the campaign/election ads they ran?

In this economy, I am surprised these two stations are by passing the opportunity to make money for their employees/company.

And i'm surprised that so many people on ats are bowing to obama.

Fear is a powerful weapon and it's used to manipulate the public.

This commercial is a great example.

I agree that poor Americans certainly do deserve better health care than they are currently getting. Wealthy people come from all over the world to buy American health care. Where are the poor people supposed to go? Besides the grave.

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Fear is a powerful weapon and it's used to manipulate the public.

This commercial is a great example.

Very true.

Folks, we need to stop looking at each individual issue in a vaccuum - combine the FACT that both the Health Care Reform Bills being considered by our National Legislators would effectively give control of our healthcare to one of our President's Czars with these FACTS:

(1) Government ownership of large private banks
(2) Government ownership of large car makers
(3) Presidential Authority over the INTERNET through S.773
(news.cnet.com...)
Author - Jay Rockefeller
(4) A National Civilian Defense Force (can you say "SIEU / Acorn"?)
(5) New Restrictive Gun Laws (SB-2099/HR 45 "Blair Holt" Bill)
(6) Presidential Appointments of numerous Czars operating without
Congressional oversight
(7) American Troops given authority to operate within US Borders

The writing is on the wall folks

I don't really get the ban the bill types or for that matter the ad. I live in Scotland, which is part of the UK and covered by the NHS. When the doctor/actor in the ad says about delays in treatment he says England, which I assume, as he doesn't go into any evidential detail, is refering to the NHS as a whole. Americans often use England when they mean the UK as a whole. What delays in particular? What rationing or even selective treatment could he be referring to? As I like many have had family members with cancer and other unpleasant illnesses I haven't seen anything but prompt and professional treatment. Oh and btw for those who can afford it they can always get private healthcare. Which is quicker, for non life threatening conditions. in an emergency though it's always an NHS hospital.

But then that comment was just a piece of hyperbole designed to add doubt to a paranoid bunch. As someone that has grown up with free healthcare and education maybe I'm biased. And yes when I say free it comes out of taxes and elsewhere but a little from everyone means a lot for someone.

I've heard nothing but interpretive rubbish about the bill. The USA is finally coming into line with the more ahem civilised nations and that is allegedly a bad thing? I hate to be the one who says so but you know that this isn't actually a conspiracy but a paranoid delusional fantasy that only soneone who lives in a geographical,political and sociological bubble would believe.

I'm just amazed at all the horrible things this medical reform will do -- according to all the people who comment on it.

What is more amazing, is nobody pulls out parts of the dang document that actually would support their claims.


>> We need a public option, to compete with the private insurance -- otherwise the provision of the bill to force healthy young folks to get insurance is more or less stealing for the insurers.

But other than that, I think that Big Pharma has spent its money well to misinform everyone.

Originally posted by TSZodiac
Folks, we need to stop looking at each individual issue in a vaccuum - combine the FACT that both the Health Care Reform Bills being considered by our National Legislators would effectively give control of our healthcare to one of our President's Czars with these FACTS:

(1) Government ownership of large private banks
(2) Government ownership of large car makers
(3) Presidential Authority over the INTERNET through S.773
(news.cnet.com...)
Author - Jay Rockefeller
(4) A National Civilian Defense Force (can you say "SIEU / Acorn"?)
(5) New Restrictive Gun Laws (SB-2099/HR 45 "Blair Holt" Bill)
(6) Presidential Appointments of numerous Czars operating without
Congressional oversight
(7) American Troops given authority to operate within US Borders

The writing is on the wall folks

Your point would be valid if the Government wasn't OWNED by the banks. Shelling out money to corporations is NOT the same thing. George Bush already screwed everything with Posse Comitatus -- did you notice THEN? The problem isn't troops -- it's these horrible mercenary groups who owe their allegiance to whomever pays and lead by a Dominionist wack job named Eric Prince.

If you lose your house, but your gun is free -- you JUST MIGHT get some perspective.

>> And why do you guys ALWAYS bring up Acorn? Electronic voting means that someone can flip a switch and change the vote and you won't know. If someone signs up Donald Duck to vote -- he can't vote unless he is registered in that district and he signs up to vote -- NO ELECTIONS are being stolen by voter registration.


>> The GOVERNMENT, just PAYS FOR the procedures -- it doesn't RUN anything. Same model in some European countries where they have better health care for less money and for everyone.

>> Except for all of your points being the complete opposite of reality, very insightful.

Originally posted by Alien Mind

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

What's the difference between this ad and all the campaign/election ads they ran?

In this economy, I am surprised these two stations are by passing the opportunity to make money for their employees/company.

And i'm surprised that so many people on ats are bowing to obama.

WTF does that mean?

We've had 24 threads on "Obama is not an American" and "Obama is an lizard" since the election.

That some people might hold out hope for a person with some intelligence who isn't a freak like Sarah Palin and John "lobby free zone" McCain when all sectors of the American economy flatlined in November of 2008 -- where does BOW DOWN come in?

You idiots keep trying to fan the flames of resentment. I'm either hurling a rock or I'm praying to Obama?

I 65% like Obama and the rest is a healthy distrust. I think most people can balance two notions in their head at one time without going into a coma.

Hi folks, I'm from the UK, and I get more than a little annoyed, when politicians and media men in the USA, like the guy in this video, refer to "Englands" healthcare system, as if it's on it's knees and that "English" people can't get access to good healthcare.

First off, the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (Not just England) is served by the NHS (National Health Service).
The NHS was set up in 1948, and was born out of a long-held ideal that good healthcare should be available to all, regardless of wealth.
This, for the first time, anywhere in the world, meant that ANYONE in the UK, regardless of age, sex, wealth, race, colour, or any other denominational factor, could have FREE access to healthcare provision.

No discrimination, no fees, no medical bills, no preferential treatment for the wealthy etc. Effectively, every taxpayer, was funding NHS services for All.

The only problems that I am aware of within the system, are that the UK Government has, for several years now, under-funded the whole service. In order to give tax-payers "value for money", they have looked very closely at where they can increase "efficiency" and make savings.
This means that NHS healthcare provision in general is now believed to be under-funded. (e.g. to save money, They contracted out the cleaning of hospital wards, and this led to some problems with Hospital Aquired Infections because under-paid, un-motivated contract cleaning staff are never going to try as hard to do a good job, as hospital staff, who are directlly responsible for patient care on their own wards.)

The point I am making is that there is not a problem with the idea of free healthcare, in fact it works very well when properly funded, and the NHS in the UK was the envy of the world for several decades.
But if a government decides that it's financial priorities lie in other areas, then this type of healthcare system can be vulnerable to under-funding.
The system in the UK, even now, works very well for the vast majority of people, the vast majority of the time, and there is ample provision for privately funded healthcare, for those who are in the financial position to be able to purchase that, if that is what they want.

I don't know much about the currently proposed healthcare bill in the USA, but I just thought that a UK perspective might shine some light on how a free national healthcare system can work, if properly funded.
I know that the NHS is regarded very fondly by UK citizens, and that there would be a massive outcry if they ever tried to withdraw it!
G

[edit on 28-8-2009 by Gordi The Drummer]

reply to post by Freenrgy2


You might sing a different tune if you find yourself older and in need of medical care but you can't afford it and the gov't gives you medicare/aid benefits. Or if you find yourselves without enough savings and need your income supplemented by social security.