Home › Blogs › josephcollins's blog ›

Ad Scripts against ObamaCare

Submitted by josephcollins on Sat, 06/06/2009 - 10:31
in

Here are some draft scripts for a two-part series advert I think would work.  We’re following our middle-tier cube dweller, Mike.  Mike and his team represent office-working middle America, who are being told by the Democrats that they’ll “be allowed to keep their private insurance”.

#1 - "The Meeting"

[Cube-farm setting] 

SECRETARY - [leans over Mike’s cubical] - They want you in Meeting Room B to discuss the Johnson account. 

[Mike nervously opens door on meeting in progress.  Executives line a conference table.  Big-shot executive with salt & pepper hair and power suit is giving a PowerPoint presentation.]

BIG-SHOT - Mike! Thanks for coming in.  Have a seat I’m just finishing up something. [Continues presenting] So to summarize, when the government health insurance plan goes through, we’ll be able to pawn off the lower level employees to the government plan and save big-time on the bottom line. 

MIKE - [Interrupting as executives nod gently and agree.] Excuse me, ... uh, my team will still be on the private plan, right? 

BIG-SHOT - [Brief pause] Yeah, sure, Mike!  You guys have nothing to worry about. 

[Executives glance at each other cautiously.] 

MIKE - [Forced smile] Great. [Look of concern] 

--[Cut to voice over]

#2 - "Break Room" 

[Mike walks into the break room, complete with table, water cooler, coffee maker, etc.  A woman is seated, reading a newspaper.  A man is eating a doughnut.  Another man is pouring himself a cup of coffee.] 

COFFEE GUY - Hey, Mike! How did the meeting with the big-shots go?  

MIKE - Uh, fine.  Hey - what do you guys think about the government health insurance plan they’re taking about ?  

DOUGHNUT GUY - Well, they say we’ll be able to keep our existing health insurance, so I guess I’m fine with it. 

MIKE - Yeah, but you don’t think the company would drop our coverage and make us go on the government plan, do you? 

WOMAN - [Looking over newspaper, sarcastically] To save a buck?  So they can take their executive retreat in Tahiti next year?  Nah.

--[Cut to voice over] 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

/Interesting idea

Submitted by tdawg11870 on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 11:34.

All well and good, but the "punch" of these ads is reduced somewhat when viewers hear that private insurers oppose a government option because it's too cheap and thorough.

not the point

Submitted by josephcollins on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 16:38.

But of course, there's a reason it's "cheap", which is that the costs are all shifted and care is rationed.  The important idea here is that people who have plans basically like their coverage.  There's a reason the D's keep repeating the non sequitur that people will be "allowed" to keep their existing plans... people fear being forced on a gov't plan because they know it will be the DMV writ large.

you've never been in an emergency room i take it?

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 16:59.

let alone one in the inner city. it can take a full day to be seen, some places.

I was an Army medic

Submitted by Repack Rider on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 18:11.

The Army hospital where I worked provided the equivalent of socialized medicine for military personnel and their families.  Perhaps you would like to insult me and everyone who ever served in a military medical capacity, by suggesting that we provided substandard care because the facility was run by the government.

Just don't do it in my presence.  You might get hurt and need to go to a hospital.

The United States military has the most advanced trama care in the world.  Not only do military facilities EXPECT large numbers of terribly injured people, they have to retrieve them while under fire themselves.

My wife works in a civilian hospital.  The most striking dfference between that and the Army hospital where I worked is that about 1/3 of the civilian staff has nothing to do with the medical mission.  They handle billing, insurance, purchasing, all the things Army hospitals do not do.  The Army purchases its medical supplies by the TRAINLOAD, putting them in a position to get the best prices.  An Army hospital is run by Army officers who get Army pay, and they have no responsibility to squeeze a profit out for shareholders.  In an Army hospital, EVERYONE is part of the medical mission and there is no dead weight.

 Bottom line, the Army hospital delivers care as good OR BETTER than a civilian hospital, for half the cost.  I have no problem suggesting that this should be the model for all public hospitals. I pay $700/month for medical insurance (including my wife and one daughter, no major illnesses ever), to a company that can cut me off at any time, and actually pays people to find ways to deny claims.  They sell my medical history without my permission, and can use it against me to deny a claim.

I want my Army coverage back, and I would happily trade my current insurance bill for the extra taxes to get it.

That's quite a leap there, to

Submitted by josephcollins on Mon, 06/08/2009 - 22:51.

That's quite a leap there, to insinuate that I would insult the Army, but the analog in this case is Medicare.

High levels of fraud and abuse, "negotiated" quasi-monopsonistic underpayment to providers who then shift the costs on to private payers, and a massive unfunded future liability.

BO-Care will be just like that, except there will be virtually no private payers to shift the costs to, leading to some combination of higher than expected costs and/or rationing.  Also, in the process, incentives to produce newer drugs and medical technologies will be severely diminished.

But I didn't write this post to have a debate about policy, I wrote this to talk about ways to defeat socialized medicine.  Your response is off topic at best.

Fact is that average people who already have coverage are apprehensive about being forced on to a government plan, and the O-bots know it, which is why they always insist that "you'll be allowed to keep your existing plan".

I yearn for a public option

Submitted by Ray in TX on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 00:03.

Let me explain how the "greatest medical system in the world" works for the self-employed.

When I became self-employed, I lost my medical insurance with my previous employer. For some strange reason, our wonderful system ties your health insurance to your employer, which really doesn't make any sense. But that's beside the point.

So, naturally, I go looking for a comparable private health insurance option for my family. Keep in mind that I am not even remotely destitute, coming off of a fairly successful career in the IT industry.

Comparable plans to what I had with my employer cost about $1200/month for me, my wife and my 2 kids. This is not a "premium" plan, but one with $25-50 copays for prescriptions and doctor visits. Plus, you still have to pay a pct of the cost of any hospitalization, up to a deductible.

It was pretty steep, to say the least, but my family definitely needs health insurance. As I was getting ready to bite this very painful bullet, I started going over the existing prescriptions that we were taking, only to find out that none of them were covered. Anti-cholesterol pills for me? Not covered. Allergy prescription for my wife? Not covered. If my wife needs to see a doctor for anything related to her allergies? Not covered. So then I asked, "what if I ever have to go to the hospital for a heart problem?" NOT COVERED.

At that point, I realized that the sole purpose of the insurance company is to extract as much money from the insured, while doing their best to not pay out any medical expenses. Rather than see my life savings being used solely to enrich the wealth of insurance company shareholders, I changed gears.

We now pay approx $300 a month for "catastrophic insurance". This basically means that the insurance company covers nothing medical unless one of us is in a car accident or something. And, even then, I am sure that they will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying claims for that.

They cover nothing. When we get a presciption or make a doctor visit, we go as "uninsured" so that we at least get a 10% discount or so.

That is where our wonderful insurance system is at today. A government-sponsored plan that does NOT run on a profit motive is greatly needed and cannot get here soon enough, as far as I'm concerned.

they did a research study on this...

Submitted by Knackers on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 09:06.

you ALREADY pay $1000 extra a year because of the uninsured. So, sorry, we will actually be able to SAVE MONEY by not sending diabetics to the hospital with necrotic appendages (fingers falling off, toes falling off... you know, like 13th Century living zombies dying from the Black Plague???) -- instead, we can have them get examined by a doctor, learn that they are diabetic, and manage the disease.

trust me, that's a HELL of a lot cheaper than amputating appendages.

That is a point that needs to be made more often

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 15:52.

I'm very suspicious of any enterprise the government intends to run. (And of course the Army is not the government-so that whole post is useless),

But we are paying for a price for uninsured health care. Its absorbed by every bill paid. I'd like to see it quantified.

I think we're all suspicious of any gov't enterprise.

Submitted by Knackers on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 15:55.

but if we can run non-profit health insurance, why not let the gov't do it? (or, better yet, take one of the current nonprofits, and let them expand to be the "gov't option", give them utility-like regulation, that way they can't be a DUMB monopoly).

Since when is the Army not part of the gov't? I pay taxes for the military, at least I hope I do! (if not, where the hell are they getting the money for the uniforms and guns??)

Why not let the government do it?

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 17:01.

Because then our health care becomes a political football.

Example: (and Obama will soon learn this the hard way)

Government Motors and Chrysler. Now the government  has or will have a huge ownership interest in these companies. The companies decide (and Team Obama agrees) that the company needs to slim down and dealerships and plants need to be closed. So they announce that they are closing dealerships and plants. So what happens? From a  Washington Post OpEd piece:

 . . .members of Congress will delve into other aspects of the car companies' business. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Banking Committee, has already prevailed on GM to extend the life of a plant in his district. GM and Chrysler dealers, thousands of whom are set to close in order to streamline the companies' sales efforts, have flocked to Capitol Hill demanding relief. In response, House members of both parties have introduced a bill that would block the closure of GM and Chrysler dealerships.

Ta da! What a mess. So in relation to health care, how will decisions be made in a politics free vacuum? Every decision will have huge financial implications-from which generics make the "approved" list to what procedures will be covered.

I would rather:

1)Have the option of keeping my current program (which is what I think Obama plans to allow)

2) Take the dollars that you are referring to (theat we all pay for the uninsured) and get them into a solid program that already is in business.

And of course, spending money on prevention is key. In the late 70's about 5% of kids were overweight, today its about 20% and its projected to be about 30% by 2020. Now if 1/3rd of kids are overweightby the time the reach the age of 18, there's no hope for any health care system.

And I said "the Army isn't the government". Of course it is part of the government. But it is a highly structured organization with its own needs and budgets. The VA system would be a better comparison for what unversal health care would look like. And you get a variety of opinions on that subject.

hence why I'm recommending a currently operational

Submitted by Knackers on Wed, 06/10/2009 - 09:08.

non-profit (like the one I work for! -- no, I'm not plugging my hospital! no product placement here! ;-) The main problem with using a currently operational system is that they'd have to expand majorly in order to cover everyone. And that may lead to just as much overhead as the gov't plan. At least we can say that the gov't has experience in large projects that span the country!

We may not be able to get away from obesity, but we can work on teaching people how to negotiate with their doctors.

So we don't get this everywhere:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

(Obama's people are really clued in to this problem -- apparently Obama circled the aides to discuss it in the Oval Office. I like fact-oriented governance!).

You are suspicious of police? fire department?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 16:14.

national parks? interstate highways?  air traffic control?

 

you aren't suspicious of the police?

Submitted by Knackers on Tue, 06/09/2009 - 16:22.

dude, do you listen to what you say?