In the advertising war over healthcare reform the antis are winning.

[cali]

Where I live, I see many more anti-healthcare reform ads than pro. The newest one that I'm seeing ad nauseum, is an ad against single payer. It features a canadian woman who talks about how "government run" healthcare almost killed her and how her life was saved in the U.S. Now Canadians overwhelmingly support their healthcare system, but this ad, lie though it is, is effective.

Are the anti-healthcare reform groups dominating the ad wars all over?

[KharmaTrain]

1. They're Betting Millions To Keep Their Billions

Lsat word I heard was the insurance lobby was spending $4 million a ady on lobbyists and astroturfing their talking points anywhere and everywhere they can.

They're losing inside the beltway (any reform to them is a loss) and are taking their "message to the people" doing it the way their money says...lots of teevee. Many remember Harry & Louise and how that helped kill "Hillarycare" and think this trick will work again...distort, scare and confuse...demand either reform be stopped or "slowed down".

Our job is to counter their money with people and netroots power...confront every Congresscritter during their upcoming "Summer vacation" and remind them that our votes mean more to their future than insurance company money.

[Raspberry]

2. "this ad, lie though it is . . ."

How do you know it's a lie? No system is perfect, and there are downsides to any healthcare plan, regardless of what it entails, regardless of where it originates. That is why we must be careful and consider the experiences, good and bad, that others have had.

[cali]

3. the ad states bluntly that this woman would have died if she hadn't

traveled to the healthcare paradise of the U.S. Furthermore it's a boldfaced lie to state that Canadian healthcare is "government run". It is not. It implies that Canadians are opposed to the healthcare system. To the contrary, they overwhelmingly support it.

Have you seen the ad? Well, I have. It's filled with disgusting lies.

Do you support single payer? How about a public option?

[MichellesBFF]

4. About that ad

I wonder if it states how much she now owes the US health care system for saving her?

[cali]

5. no, of course it doesn't

the ad features this woman who says she had a brain tumor and was told she had to wait 6 months to see a specialist. I flat out don't believe it.

[Selatius]

8. The only way she'd wait six months is if she were living out in the Arctic circle with no transit.

In most of the provinces, the provincial government will pay to air transport you to more urban areas where there are more specialists. Wait times are 4 weeks on average, at least that's what I remembered off the top of my head from when Kucinich grilled that libertarian doctor on Canada's system, not a whopping 6 months.

However, it must be said wait times are sort of a product of population density. If you live out in the middle of nowhere, the wait times are necessarily going to be longer given that there are fewer practicing doctors to go around or even hospitals, but in more dense areas, wait times are almost always shorter. Necessary medical procedures are given priority; emergency surgery is done immediately, no waiting lists; and elective surgeries are secondary as a result.

[cali]

9. Thanks for adding that information.

[Raspberry]

6. I haven't seen the ad

I don't watch much TV. I have heard good and bad about the Canadian system. I don't think it's impossible that she needed to go to the US for specialized treatment, or that she would have died without it. Again, that assertion is not necessarily a lie.

Since I haven't seen the ad, I didn't know that she stated that the system is "gov't run," or that she implied that Canadians don't care for their system.

I pretty much have stayed neutral on the issue of single payer/public option, until I get more info.

We have (what I consider to be) very good group insurance through my husband's job. We also pay a lot of $$$$ for it. ($500/month) On the other hand, one of my friends, who has the same coverage as we do, thinks it sucks. I guess that's just proof that no system will please everyone. We could get cheaper insurance through my job, but the coverage probably wouldn't be nearly as good. So far, the benefit of our plan has made the cost worthwhile for my family.

I would like to be able to know precisely what is in any healthcare bills, as well as the costs, before I will commit. Also, I will be willing to listen to all sides of the issue--including (gasp!) the Republicans because this is an important issue, and once it is in place there will be no turning back.

[cali]

7. it's not all about you. Do you care at all about the 40 million in this country

who have NO insurance? How about the millions and millions more who have less than adequate insurance?

Yes, reading and keeping up with proposed legislation is important? Why aren't you doing that now? And sorry, but the republican "proposals" are all, without exception, about kissing insurance company ass and screwing the consumer.

[Raspberry]

10. A bad plan would be worse than no plan, IMHO

Don't you want to know some details about coverage--and costs--before we jump into something? Isn't it possible that there are valid opinions in opposition to taking such a huge step? Isn't it possible that at least some of those valid questions could come from someone with an R after their name?

[cali]

11. When it comes to healthcare reform, I haven't seen or heard one

damned thing from repubs that is worth considering. Not one blasted "idea" that helps the uninsured and the under insured. And no, sorry, I've read enough to know that though no system is perfect, single payer is vastly preferable than the current insurance company/employer based system, which out an out sucks.

And unlike you, I actually read proposed legislation as well as information about proposed legislation.

[Raspberry]

12. Have you read the entire

1000 page bill that IBD reported on just a couple of days ago?

[cali]

13. only bits of it. Don't have the time right now

but I will, at the very least, skim the whole thing.

[Raspberry]

14. Same here

Doesn't seem like there is enough time in the day to fit in everything I need to do. Probably what I will do is read critiques--from both lib and conservative sources--of the legislation, and draw my final opinion from those. The legalese in legislation is very confusing to most of us non-lawyers, and 1000+ pages of it is rather daunting.

[Kalyke]

18. 1000 pages isn't that much.

Read it while you're drying you hair, using the toilet or other things that don't require your attention otherwise.

[Orsino]

16. We long ago jumped into corporate-run, for-profit health insurance.

I don't think that adding a public option to the mix is unreasonable. Your implication that we should stick with the bloated, evil mess we have is, frankly, suspicious.

[Raspberry]

17. We need to be careful

and look at all potential negatives, short-term and long-term, before we take on what could easily be far worse than what we have.

I never said we should stick with our system, which obviously has humongous problems.

So sorry you're suspicious, frankly.

[Orsino]

15. It's corporations vs. us.

Corporations own the media outlets you're looking at, so you see the biased ads they want you to see.

Advertisers, in other words, are statistically anti-reform.