When I saw the ad above, my first assumptions were 1) This is a spoof, or 2) Some insane Republican group who didn’t pay attention to what happened in the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke tiff made it as an attack on Obamacare.
No such luck. It’s real. I would have made the website (DoYouGotInsurance.com) that features this and many other such ads the Unethical Website of the Month (it’s also the ungrammatical website of the month), but it has been down for the last 12 hours or so, and hopefully will never get up again, except in Hell. And there is a lot more alarming about these ads than the website they come from.
For example, the organizations who paid to have the ads developed—ProgressNow Colorado and Colorado Consumer Health—plus the Colorado progressives, Democrats and brain-injured who run them, and the millions of entitled, ethically clueless Americans who perceive nothing wrong with the messages they convey all perfectly illustrate the unethical reasoning and motives driving many of the architects and defenders of the Affordable Care Act. Here…let me show you some more, assuming you have head-explosion insurance:
Like that? How about this…
Or, if drinking, skiing, and plowing face first into a tree so you are paralyzed isn’t your thing, how about letting your kid use a machete to carve a pumkin, secure that if he slices his arm off, no problem! Insurance will handle it!
Of course, there’s nothing like reminding millennials that they should keep being drunk, irresponsible and stupid, as long as they are drunk, irresponsible, insured and stupid…
When you get right down to it, though, the best argument for Obamacare is that it pays for promiscuous sexual activity, don’t you think? Of course, when a conservative talk show host makes that connection, he is called a misogynist and it launches a successful, 2012 presidential campaign-long slur about the GOP’s fictional “war on women.” But when two progressive groups promote Obamacare using the same innuendo, it’s cute…and persuasive! Like this…
I’ve been writing the phrase res ipsa loquitur a lot lately, and since I don’t think my excellent high school Latin teacher’s futile efforts are finally kicking in (Sorry, Miss Rounds—it wasn’t you, it was me), it must be because some pretty stunning unethical conduct is occurring that barely needs explication—its “speaks for itself.” These pro Affordable Care Act ads certainly speak volumes. Just for the edification of any readers who don’t see anything wrong with these deplorable ads, however, let me list the reasons they are unethical:
1. The ads portrays young adults as irresponsible, sex, alcohol and party obsessed jerks.
2. The ads also argue that there is nothing wrong with being an irresponsible, sex, alcohol and party obsessed jerk—in fact, it’s fun!
3. The ads also argue that young adults shouldn’t worry about the consequences of being irresponsible, sex, alcohol and party obsessed jerks, because insurance will pay for it…
4. Which means that the rest of us who are not young, irresponsible, sex, alcohol and party obsessed jerks will pay for the consequences of the stupid choices of those who are..
5….and that’s fair, just, and sensible.
6. The ads are the opposite of preventive health policy, which is supposed to be one of the goals of Obamacare. The ads persuade that one of the benefits of insurance is that it permits risky and unhealthy conduct without fear of expense. Go ahead, ski while bombed; let your child wield sharp objects unsupervised. No worries! We’ve got you covered!
7. The ads encourage behavior and attitudes that lead to the over-use of the health care system, and thus burgeoning costs.
8. They also encourage behavior that gets people killed, and no insurance can fix that.
What kind of nation, society and culture sells a new healthcare law by encouraging its young to engage in irresponsible and dangerous conduct, using the argument that the government will pay for it?
________________________________
Pointer: Instapundit
Sources: Huffington Post, Denver Post
Ethics Alarms 
Wow.
Wow.
I am popping popcorn and waiting for the inevitable stream of defender robots to come on.
By the way, anyone notice the only ethnic diversity comes in the form of a little African American kid wielding a weapon dangerously? What are they trying to say?
What’s the matter with you?!
That kid is a White Hispanic, or I’m a second generation Toltec.
Racist.
I wish I could say that I was surprised, but I’m not. Like much of the so-called Affordable Care Act, these ads are cynical beyond words. One can only hope that the target audience for them sees them the same way.
On that score, I’m cautiously optimistic; something about them rings very hollow to me, and I’d lay good odds that these ads were neither created by nor tested on people in the target demo. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if the so-called “creative team” behind them was a government-favored agency without a good understanding of the task before them – much like the clowns contracted to build the website. In other words, these ads appear to be the product of baby boomers who think they know how to talk to millennials, because they have a few of ’em around the office.
The unspoken truth, of course, is that if the government is unsuccessful in convincing young, healthy adults to buy in, the whole system falls apart. These ads are one more piece of evidence that the ACA, from gleam-in-the-eye to the current daily demonstrations that entropy is real, is the product of a whole bunch of people who wouldn’t know where to START looking for a fucking clue.
Is that not how all insurance works, by trying to get as many low-risk clients to buy in to subsidize the high-risk ones?
No it’s not. It works by charging customers who have the same actuarially- determined risk- level the same premium.
So health insurance and auto insurance work identically.
Any insurance market works similarly to others.
They are all based on the same premise of pooling the risk of costly contingencies that may be unlikely but would be financially catastrophic were they to occur.
Riskier contingencies, either in likelihood of occurrence or in severity of cost inevitably have to cost more in order to cover the possible payouts.
In insurance industries everyone is ultimately assigned to, what we can call a Risk Group.
For simplification, let’s just say there are 3 risk groups:
Low, Medium and High.
If one company offers a system where each risk group is internally calculated to cover only their group’s costs, then you have a scenario where the Low group pays very little and the High group probably pays a lot — which by the way is FAIR (since everyone involved has *chosen* this)
That doesn’t mean however that every company arranges things the same, some companies may have their internal finances arranged to where the Low Group’s prices is elevated compared to their cost to help offset the price of the High Group compared to their cost — which, by the way is FAIR (since everyone involved has *chosen* this)
Comment of the day. Most of these ads indicate an overt bigotry: Aren’t ALL young folks routinely engaged in gratuitous sex, binge drinking, and other reckless behaviors? Don’t they ALL want someone else to pick up the tab? Its not just unethical, its insulting. However, since it mainly shows apparent middle class white kids, that bigotry may fall below the radar of many people.
Picture this: An ad showing an overweight black couple with the caption…
(fill in the blank)
Know what, I had written something here but I don’t want to give those idiots any ideas!!!!
Point of young person order, the shot-ski isn’t a suggestion to drink and go skiiing, it’s a device at college bars where you line up a bunch of shot glasses on a ski, plank, or other long device and a bunch of people do it at once. A novelty drink, not a dangerous hobby. A messy proposition, though, beer bongs give you much less spillage.
But on a more serious note, just remember that all us old responsible folks will be funding lunatic college students going to the ER while broke if they don’t have insurance so… I guess getting them insured is still better?
Well the drinking and skiing is something that has been endemic to Colorado for a long time. I think the young people that do it hardly worry about insurance and the ‘Affordable Care Act’ is unlikely to draw many of them in since skiing has gotten so damn expensive. Same with the sex. Not as expensive, at least in the short time and the performer artists of the ski slopes really don’t need the encouragement of ‘affordable insurance’.
I wonder if anyone can sign up yet?
I live in Oregon. We’ve yet to have a single sign up process through the website because our state website is just as broken as the federal one. Yet they are forging ahead with the $20 million advertising campaign regardless. I stew every time I see or hear ads. It only exemplifies how broken government can make things: you can’t buy it, but we’ll still advertise it.
Eh. Apparently I have lost the ability to be surprised or shocked by these people…
Correct me if I am wrong, but do not insurance companies factor risky and unhealthy conduct when offering insurance?
This is what auto insurance does, so I fail tom see how health insurance would be different.
The expense of injury or disease resulting from intentional and reckless conduct should be as close as possible to the actual costs of treatment, not the costs of coverage, if the conduct is going to be discouraged sufficiently.
Factor in? Of course. I have yet to see an auto insurance company actively encourage their customers to drive like idiots.
ln fact, some at least, give a “good driver” discount.
Auto insurance is allowed to change what they charge based on risk. Drive in a fashion that causes you to have claims and they will raise your rates. Not so with health insurance. There is no coupling between claims and cost.
I’m not arguing that it’s necessarily a good or bad policy, just that auto insurance is a poor comparison to health insurance.
In other, seemingly nonsensical news, the Obama administration is planning on a push to get young women to sign up for healthcare with the new plans. The early data suggests that the main demographic that IS signing up are wealthy, young women. What is the point of advertising (wasting taxpayer money) to the only group that seems to have already gotten the message? Is this suggesting that subsidized social programs like this are supposed to be for women?
Ask Julia.
I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but the last picture, with the woman standing next to a cardboard cut-out of the actor Ryan Gosling, seems to be a tongue-in cheek take off of the Feminist Ryan Gosling meme that was popular a few years back. http://feministryangosling.tumblr.com/page/3
Because rising health care costs and health insurance reform are so hilarious that we should be trivializing it with jokey promotions.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? The advertising campaign is to try to get young people to sign up for insurance. One of the ways they are trying to get young people to sign up for it is to point out that birth control is covered under Obamacare. But to capture attention to this fact in the first place, they use a meme that their target audience is probably very familiar with. It might be cheesy, but at least it makes sense.
It’s not cheesy, it’s irresponsible, and glamorizes irresponsible conduct, as well as saying that it’s OK. That’s not ethical government conduct. It’s not OK. We’re trying to lower health care costs and keep people healthier, not encourage unhealthy lifestyles. And may I add–DUH.
Unbelievable. That’s some poisonous Kool-Aid you’ve been drinking, son.
Using birth control is irresponsible? The vast majority of adults over the age of 18 in the United States have had sex. While most are not promiscuous, the risk of getting pregnant for a woman are pretty much the same if she is having sex with the same guy twice a week for five years, or picking up two different guys for sex twice a week for five years, so that’s irrelevant. Nor do birth control pills, IUD, or Depo-Provera work any differently under those two scenarios. Using birth control actually lowers the cost of healthcare for everyone, because it’s way cheaper in the long run than paying for a baby to be born.
One of the key ways to lower health insurance costs is to get healthy young people to sign up for it. However, they must be shown how signing up for health insurance benefits them. Rather than going with scare tactics, (which tend not to be very effective with that demographic anyway) they went with humor, showing some scenarios that some young people sometimes find themselves in, and showing how insurance would help in that situation. If nothing else, its eye-catching, and encourages people to look at it, and read further about the benefits of Obamacare. So the advertising works on several different levels.
You know how I feel about having words put in my mouth. Promiscuous sexual activity with near strangers is irresponsible, and “birth control” is code for “abortion”—nobody has trouble paying for birth control of one kind or another. Risking pregnancy because one has access to abortion is indeed irresponsible. I presume you understand that. And of course, the more sex you have, the higher the likelihood of a birth control fail.
Woah there, how do you figure that birth control is “code” for abortion? That is the same kind of language that race-baiters use, saying that words they don’t like are code for something heinous. Those who use abortion as birth control are irresponsible, as you say, but college students and young adults are an irresponsible lot. If they’re going to be having sex they should be using protection, and pitching the fact that health insurance covers protection is a good way to make them more likely to use it.
I can’t tell if you are being arch or not. In the war on women convention, the Democrats used birth control and abortion more or less interchangeable—all the better to accuse anti-abortion Romney of wanting to limit birth control. Sorry—I heard that for months. The Democrats are estopped from claiming otherwise today.
Most pro-lifers use birth control and abortion interchangeably, because they truly believe that most hormonal-based methods of birth control (which are by far the most popular) are abortifacients. Even a casual perusing of the literature makes that clear.
Blame it on me being a scientist and being used to direct explicit communication. It’s a huge pet peeve of mine when anyone says that “a” is really code for “b”, especially when “a” is something controversial but arguable and “b” is something much worse. It can be used like a super straw man, because clarifying what was said doesn’t help, it can all just be painted as coded racism, or abortion, or whatever else.
I’ve missed out, somehow, on the interchangable use of “birth control” and “abortion,” by anybody. If I had, I’d have been less likely to jump on your usage there. If people are using them interchangably it’s stupid, but gives weight to your argument. And I’m hoping you’re not calling me a Democrat.
I’m not, and I don’t like the “code” argument much either. I think that is definitely what is going on here, though.
Sometimes birth control is just birth control. Given that both advertisements which allude to birth control both show the woman in the picture holding a pack of what I presume is the Pill, I would have to say that they are talking about just birth control, not abortion. The Pill can be cheap, but depending on the formulation, it can be quite expensive. Not every formulation is appropriate for every woman. More long-term birth control options, like an IUD, can run anywhere between $500-1,000. This can be a daunting upfront expense for a young person. Abortion services are not a requirement under Obamacare. If a state chooses to offer it within its plans, the funds must be segregated from federal money.
And of course, the more sex you have, the higher the likelihood of a birth control fail.
Of course., though it is not really related to promiscuity. I would think that people in relationships are probably having more sex than people who aren’t, if only because of opportunity. Those are the people who also are most likely to eschew condoms and go for more long-tem birth control solutions.
The Pill is about 30 bucks. If you want the more expensive option, you get to go work to get it yourself – I have no obligation to subsidize your preference. None.
And fuck you if you think I do.
The Pill is about 30 bucks.
*********
Apparently, Walmart and Target sell some for $9/mo.
If somebody can’t scrape that up, they have more problems than unwanted pregnancy.
Also, as far as I know, Planned Parenthood still has all of the goodies, at either very low cost or no cost.
My point is, no woman “needs” Obamacare to spare her from her fertility.
So, question, and this isn’t rhetorical, I really want to know your opinion. My vision insurance pays a percentage of blah blah blah, so if I decide to get designer frames and flexible temple arms and scratch proof UV coated lenses the bill out of my pocket is more, but as a function of percentage the insurance company pays more. Do you think that is wrong, that the insurance should pay the same amount whether I get my fancy glasses or some super-basic ones, and anything stemming from additions should be all on me? Does that depend on whether the upgrades are cosmetic (fancy frames,) functional (flexible arms), or medical (UV protection)?
If the contract you have agreed to with the insurance company has them paying a percentage instead of a maximum amount, that is perfectly fair, and I have no problem with it, just like I would be ok with them paying a fixed maximum (say, for standard frames and lenses) and you paying the rest out of pocket.
What I have a problem with is the government saying “the insurance company should be required to cover the cost of your frames and lenses because it isn’t fair that you can’t afford the nicest stuff.”
The idea that you can’t afford something is supposed to be incentive to work harder to be able to afford it, not an excuse to bitch and whine and demand someone else pick up the tab because things aren’t fair, man…
Fair enough. That wasn’t a trap question, I just wasn’t quite sure what you were saying. So you’d have no problem with the concept of insurance covering the pill, or whatever, as long as it’s a business decision and not an edict from above- is that fair to say? Because that’s about how I feel about it.
I hate these kind of arguments. Birth control saves all of us money because it results in fewer pregnancies, fewer unwanted children, fewer unwanted children living in poverty, fewer children that need to see a doctor, fewer kids who become high school dropouts, etc. It’s a no-brainer. And it’s not about preference — it’s about tolerance. The different pills have different hormone levels and some women need to be on a higher or lower dose. This is chemistry — not “I want the pill that comes in the pretty purple case!”
Plus, lots of things are covered by insurance that I will never need — like Viagara or drugs for testicular cancer.
Proper family planning is the cheapest way to lower medical costs and to achieve upward financial mobility. No one debates this point — no one. Every third world country has this as a top priority — at least the ones who are trying not to be third world countries. The only question is whether insurance covers a $30 prescription or a $50 one? Unbelievable. Would you rather save $20/month today (and only have to pay that for a few years!) or pay hundreds of thousands over that unwanted kid’s lifetime to pay for him and his mother’s well-being and life in poverty? Potentially over $1 M if that kid ends up incarcerated. Not to mention that every statistic supports the fact that an unwanted child who grows up in poverty will stay in poverty AND will most likely have children at too young of an age. This cycle just doesn’t perpetuate, it grows and grows.
I agree with you that everyone should exercise personal responsibility. But many people can’t or won’t. I’d rather help them NOT reproduce now rather than pay more for their mistakes down the road.
Killing the old and infirm would save money too, but I dont think it would be a great policy to implement.
The pill is cheap. I’m all for making that free (though if you can’t afford the 9 a month, maybe you should consider not fucking, just a thought), but everything else shouldn’t require me to pony up any extra money unless I’m the one going balls deep…
What does the old and infirm have to do with this? Lots of things would save money — like not having a military at all, but we can all agree that would be bad policy.
As for not f***ing, if you have no money, there’s really not that much else to do. 🙂
Well said Beth. The IUD and Depo-Provera are even cheaper than the Pill when calculated on a daily basis, and are less prone to user error as well. However, their higher upfront costs make many shy away from using them as options. Since they are now covered under Obamacare, in addition to the Pill, I fully expect to see the use of those options to rise as well. It saves everyone in the long run. A simple uncomplicated vaginal birth can cost up to $20,000 or more. And that’s just for one pregnancy. Pretty much all the birth control options presented are cheaper than that.
Of course, everything deery and Beth have said about birth control is only half-true. AHA covers birth control…for women. It does not cover condoms and vasectomies. If this were really about birth control, choice, and cost effectiveness, vasectomies would be covered. They are cheaper and safer (fewer complications) than a tubal and are cheaper than other birth control in the long run. If this were really about the spread if STD’s, then condoms would be covered.
Since this is only a ‘woman thing’, it is not unnatural to think that something else is going on…that this ‘birth control’ clause is really a smokescreen for abortion.
Michael — it is NOT a smokescreen for abortion. I will agree, however, that condoms and vasectomies should be covered as well — I didn’t know that they weren’t. At the end of the day, though, usually it is the woman in the relationship that is responsible for the family planning. As norms change (and hopefully they will), all birth control will be included.
“At the end of the day, though, usually it is the woman in the relationship that is responsible for the family planning.”
Dumb comment of the day.
For someone who can’t stand casting aspersions against other sexes, so far as to find negativity in comments that doesn’t exist, you sure cast a fair share yourself.
Maybe dumb “fact” of the day Tex, but whatever. Look it up — this well known.
Yeah whatever…
Dumb.
Actually, the studies show that increasing the availability of birth control INCREASES pregnancies, as does increasing the availability of abortion. It increases the spread of STDs and sexual assault, too. It’s kind of fascinating to see how this is playing out in Africa right now. The theory is that the removal of risk increases the the occurance rate – so Perhaps only 10% of sexual encounters resulted in unwated pregnancies before birth control, but after birth control, the number of sexual encounters skyrockets. Moving from 1 out of 10 to 1 out of 100 looks good, but doesn’t mean much when the rate of occurance goes up 200%.
Leave it to the government to try promoting a terrible plan with a website that doesn’t work via a series of reprehensible ads targeting the most tech-savvy generation ever with an (at best) subtle reference to a meme that peaked at the end of the year 2011. ><
All of them are a little tongue in cheek. The “Wheeeeee” without even an exclamation point truly made me laugh out loud. And you know, In my college days (and even now) “Hey, don’t get caught without any money to do anything fun just because some random thing happened” can be a viable pitch.
For some reason, after reading about this and pondering the ads, for a while I could not get the whistling and singing of the song (and lyrics) out of my mind, “Ifyouwantarevolu-shun theonlyso-lushune-volve…”
I don’t get it; I don’ t even drink Gatorade.
Jack – the ads are stupid and nothing more. They are all tongue-in-cheek. Nothing in them encourages bad behavior or glamorizes sex. If anything – the advertisers have done their job impeccably. They are marketing a product that everyone has to buy if they aren’t already covered. Lots of shows and blogs are talking about these ads – which means message received.
There is no way not to read those ads as making the argument that its fine to be reckless and irresponsible, because you won’t have to pay for the consequences. That’s the message, and it’s wrong to shrug it off.
Well – after viewing these ads — I can report that they don’t make want to have promiscuous sex or do shots. I am now informed about the health care law though – the desired effect. Given that I am not the target demographic however I will check with some college-aged relatives. I could be wrong.
Sure. You are now informed about the health care law now, if you don’t consider deductibles or co-pays to be an important component of this coverage. These ads clearly imply, if not state outright, that all you need to do is get coverage and all else is good.
With the exception of the guy balancing on the keg, and possibly the birth control ones, the other ads don’t strike me that way at all. To me they scan as “Hey, you like having money for beer and football tickets, right? Well sometimes S**t happens and it can get really expensive, and that beer money will be headed to the medical bills instead. Get health insurance, so you don’t lose all your beer money!”
The TWO about guys balancing on the keg, and the TWO birth control ads.
The only keg ad that realy seems to do what you’re talking about is the guy crouching on it, explicitly saying that “If I fall off this keg my insurance will cover it.” The first one has the vibe I described above, where it’s saying that if you get stung with medical bills you won’t have money to have fun. Similarly, the shots one explicitly draws the line with how you’d rather have money for bar shots than spend it all on flu shots.
The birth control ones are trickier, to me- although the insurance is enabling lots of sex-having (promiscuous or with a steady partner, abstaining carries less risk), but it’s also encouraging minimizing that risk by using birth control. It’s only bad if you assume they are saying “go ahead and get pregnant, insurance covers your abortion” and both pictures show the women holding birth control pills.
In the past year, unlike any time previously in my life, I have gotten well acquainted with a large number of young adults and adolescents – several dozen. From my interactions with them, I can imagine how these ads might “connect” with many of them. But – and maybe this only reflects my appreciation of the sophistication, diversity and subtle distinctions among the young persons as I have come to know them – I feel that these ads will not “close” with most of them. I can’t see how any of the ads shown here would be persuasive enough for most of those in my new, younger network to actually buy in to the new health care system.
1. The ads portrays young adults as irresponsible, sex, alcohol and party obsessed jerks.
2. The ads also argue that there is nothing wrong with being an irresponsible, sex, alcohol and party obsessed jerk—in fact, it’s fun!
***********
Agreed.
Also, the little boy with the pumpkin is too young to be using a knife like that.
Also, the little boy with the pumpkin is too young to be using a knife like that.
If you’re too late to get the free birth control; don’t worry the insurance will also help if you’re a terrible parent.
“Also, the little boy with the pumpkin is too young to be using a knife like that.”
A mother speaks about how her kid carved himself up? Very creepy ad.
Why not just go with an ad depicting one kid using a gun to shoot another kid in the head? Kill two birds with one stone.
Guns are bad. Insurance is good.
I agree wholeheartedly that the ads give tacit approval to risky behavior and imply that access to health insurance will diminish the consequences of the same.
It’s ethically bankrupt advertising.
What also jumped out at me is that they are also, at best, ethically deceptive when it comes to minimizing the cost of medical treatment.
They imply that the consumer will have more money to drink, have sex or carve pumpkins (or any other desired activity) because any injury they sustain will be covered by insurance. Do not the ads say, “I’m covered”? What might the average consumer infer from such verbiage? Is it possible that uninformed, inexperienced young people might believe that, for the cost of premiums, they will get medical care with virtually no cost to them or, dare I say it, free?
After all, it’s hardly a secret that the President is an advocate of the so-called single-payor, government-provided health care format. Looking at those ads, the uninformed consumer (and, oh, how there are so many uninformed consumers when it comes to A.C.A out there) might assume that there would be no medical bills with Obamacare. A great many people have still not grasped the fact that, even after paying the higher A.C.A-related premiums, they will still have to pay out-of-pocket for most medical expenses…even if they are part of the miniscule percentage of our population that will qualify for subsidies sufficient enough to reduce their premiums to zero.
And such injuries probably will be covered…but not without cost to the consumer. Oh, of course, oral contraceptives will be free under A.C.A (unless, of course, one considers the higher cost of premiums for the metallic plans because of this provision), but not treatment for falling off of kegs, skiing accidents or impaling oneself with a pumpkin-carving knife.
Most insurance carriers handle injury as an expense subject to the deductible and then any applicable coinsurance. The cheapest bronze plan would likely have a quadruple-digit deductible that the consumer would be responsible for before the insurance company would pay anything. After meeting a deductible of, at best, two or three thousand dollars, the coinsurance would then kick in. Coinsurance averages between 20-30% of medical costs post-deductible. Yes, I am aware that there are better metallic plans that would have lower deductibles and even no coinsurance, but they would cost more and fly in the face of all this saving money for beer, sex or pumpkin-carving fun the ads are touting.
So, in the end, falling off that keg or car surfing or whatever irresponsible behavior rules the day will not allow anyone more money to do what they want because they’ll be putting out a couple of grand to get their broken arms treated.
Bingo.
Everyone crowed about lower premiums (the few who ended up with them).
I doubt they’ve really analyzed the copays and deductibles.
Plus, the primary way to reduce health costs is to live life healthily and avoiding unnecessary risk. Directly claiming that you can live a riskier life now that you are covered grossly flies against that.
Consequences and compelling people to face them are just one more natural and ethical *incentive* to encourage good living.
One of the first things that struck me about these ads is how deceptive they are with respect to the true costs of the health services net of the component paid by the insurance company.
An actual insurance company that used such deceptive advertising would be censured by the insurance division of the state where they did this type of advertising.
Picking apart the ads and searching for redeeming qualities in them strikes me as sifting a pile of shit looking for corn kernels because corn is good for you.
Yeah, these ads are just a hoot. Free pills and have all the sex you want. OCare needs young folks to foot the entry level of this massive government take over. Young folks are cheap to insure. Give ’em a couple of years and when the doctor (who is required to submit the information back to the government) asks about their sexual history, they can hang on like they are on the rodeo bull ride. When the doctor (if I ever go again) asks me my sexual history I plan to tell them that I f**ked Obama in Africa! That ought to get ’em stirring…..Yeah, these ads….sick and insane marketing by arrogant overpaid narcissistic idiots….and they are using my money to do it….where’s that tequila?
Anyone think this was just a test run to analyze market results for possible mass marketing of this nature nationally?
Following up on Tex’s 3:27 am (hope you’re getting some sleep there, Tex)…
Why aren’t they using ads like these with “seniors” in them, to encourage promiscuity among that group? Those responsive to the ads would ensure “winning” all the way around:
Birth control would not be necessary (no costs there – Viagra costs would be within deductibles);
STDs would run rampant (because no precautions would be taken);
Those STDs alone, even if treated, would speed the dying-off of the old, sponging, otherwise high-maintenance retirees, with their expensive Rolls Royce pensions, and with a 110% estate tax (not passed yet, but sure to come) waiting for them, their estates, and their survivors, a windfall of revenue for the government treasury could be reaped;
One word: Bacchanalia!;
One more word: Saturnalia!;
Think of the ultimate benefits of having so many more senile and drunk, horny drivers on the road – heck, if you’re lucky, you just might lose your pregnancy before you get to the abortion center!;
Doctors would more likely be able to increase their patient load without doing any extra work – which would boost the metrics that show the new system is serving more, faster, and more efficiently than that old, rickety, larcenous, greed-based, capitalist “insurance” system ever did.
All right now, old-timers: Get out there, carve some pumpkins and tip some shotskis! You know what else to do.