Insurance Companies Are Spending Millions on Attack Ads Against Medicare for All

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Healthcare corporations are spending millions of dollars on astroturfed attack ads against Medicare for All. The Partnership for America’s Healthcare Future, for example, a coalition of hospitals and insurance companies, has spent $1 million on a television campaign against changes to the current healthcare system they profit from......

Healthcare is a top issue in American politics. The public consistently cites medical concerns as among the most important problems facing the country. According to the government’s own records, more than 40 million adults have no coverage whatsoever, an extraordinary figure considering all those over 65 are granted full coverage under Medicare.

Millions of Americans have resorted to selling their own blood to pay for medical expenses, a phenomenon MintPress News has covered in detail. Medicare for All is a very popular policy; a 2018 poll from Reuters found that nearly 80 percent of respondents supported it, including a sizeable majority of Republicans. However, after coordinated opposition to the plan from both the business sector and the press, those approval ratings have declined to just 51percent....


The privatized, for-profit healthcare industry is close to panicking over the prospect of a nationalized system along the lines of other advanced countries. Market Watch noted that Sanders’ plan “looms large” over the industry, with Forbes describing it as “unnerving investors.” Bloomberg noted that “snowballing” “fears” over Medicare for All could lead to “crumbling” health stocks. It warns that “there may be more pain to come” for the “vulnerable.” Vulnerable, in this case, it does not mean the tens of millions of uninsured Americans, it means investors who are knee-deep in those stocks. The United States is an outlier in not guaranteeing healthcare as a human right, and Americans spend around twice as much as comparable nations on healthcare, with some of the worst outcomes.

To read more:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/health-insurance-companies-millions-attack-ads-medicare-for-all/263217/

And another view:

https://www.politico.com/news/agenda/2019/11/25/medicare-for-all-lobbying-072110

And another view:

https://www.salon.com/2019/11/03/how-health-insurance-industry-allies-are-going-to-lie-and-attack-warrens-medicare-for-all-plan_partner/

The inescapable fact is that the US literally pays twice per capita as does Canada to provide healthcare. And the industries that profit from this situation will lie to the American people, and spend whatever it takes to maintain their financial position.

[jberryhill]

1. With all the free help they get, it's surprising that they even bother to pay

[guillaumeb]

2. I live in the Chicago area.

I hear advertising on the radio explaining the financial benefits of selling plasma.

And the US media speaks of the booming economy.

[Kaleva]

5. do the ads say the people who sell plasma are doing so to pay medical bills?

[guillaumeb]

8. No, but I also spoke about the so-called booming economy.

The insurance profiteers will lie to Americans to protect their own profits.

[Kaleva]

15. So where is your evidence that people are selling plasma to pay medical bills?

[guillaumeb]

16. I did not make that claim.

I have no evidence in support of a claim I did not make.

[Kaleva]

17. So you do not agree with some of the content of the article you quoted in your OP?

"Millions of Americans have resorted to selling their own blood to pay for medical expenses,"

https://www.mintpressnews.com/health-insurance-companies-millions-attack-ads-medicare-for-all/263217/

Would you agree that the above statement could be an outright lie? Given that there is no evidence presented to support such a claim?

[guillaumeb]

18. I cannot say either way.

And I post many things that I do not agree with 100%.

But as to the substance of the article, what is your opinion?

[Kaleva]

19. I don't watch tv that has ads so I haven't seen a single one that's talked about.

I would have to spend time researching to see if the substance of the article is factual or not and I don't have that anywhere's on my priority list but I do thank you for posting the OP. It's interesting but I just don't have much time to really look into it.

[guillaumeb]

20. Given the obvious power of television to mold opinions.

with the most obvious being the election of Trump and the campaign to demonize Medicare, ignoring this might be a bad move on the part of Democratic activists.

A friend of mine says he watches 1 hour of Fox every day just to see what the current "reality" is for the right wing voters.

[frazzled]

3. This is a rather suspect website

It reprints articles from RT and pro-Assad pieces. Plus:

On August 29, 2013, an unverified MintPress article attributed to Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh said that Syrian rebels and local residents in Ghouta, Syria alleged that rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack on August 21.[4] The story alleged that Saudi Arabia had supplied the rebels with chemical weapons, which the rebels then accidentally set off; Foreign Policy magazine described it as one of the craziest conspiracy attacks about chemical weapons attacks in Syria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News

The story was the biggest scoop Mint Press had landed in its short existence, gaining international attention and a public citation by Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov. Syrian and Iranian state media cited it. It landed at the height of international outrage over an Aug. 21 chemical attack that killed more than 1,400 people in a Damascus suburb and of efforts by the Obama administration to win support for a punishing strike.

The problem: Its explosive allegations — that the rebels, and not the regime of Bashar al-Assad, had used chemical weapons — were unverified, and its authorship was unclear. As the story went viral, the journalist whom Muhawesh presented in her email as the story's author demanded that her byline be pulled — first privately, and then publicly, taking her complaint to the well-regarded Brown Moses blog of Syria researcher Eliot Higgins. Muhawesh refused.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosiegray/the-inside-story-of-one-websites-defense-of-assad

There's more at the last article on the suspect nature of this "news" venture.

[guillaumeb]

6. I linked to 3 articles.

And regarding the substance of the allegation, why do you think these insurance companies are spending this money?

To help American citizens, or to help their own profits?

[Hoyt]

4. Mandated MFA wasn't polling well very. It'll just get worse as November approaches if

candidates supporting the mandate are nominated.

[guillaumeb]

7. And these articles explain why it went from 80% approval down to 51%.

The ACA suffered the same drop, until people learned that while it did not solve the problem, it helped.

[Hoyt]

9. It never had 80% approval. Maybe a question like, "If you had the same health care you have now,

and it cost you absolutely nothing, would you dance" had 80% approval.

But, I'm positive, "Mandated MFA, no private insurance even if you like it, no option even if it isn't implemented well, run by Bernie Sanders" never polled 80%, 70%, 60%.

I'd be glad to eat crow dung if you have a credible citation to contrary.

[guillaumeb]

10. Americans, most Americans, only know one system.

And fear of the unknown can be a factor.

Having experienced both single payer and the US system, the US system is a poor second.

[Hoyt]

11. Agree with that. Also, agree MFA is best system long-term. What don't agree with is forcing it down

throats of people who don't believe it, don't want it, etc.

A Public Option is the only way to get enough people familiar with other systems without having to force it on people. I bet within 5 years of a Public Option with enhanced subsidies, 70 to 80% of population will be signed up, assuming it is as good as we think.

But, that is very different than telling people who "only know one system" that they have to take Medicare, whether they want it or not, would like to try it out or see it in operation first, etc.

Another factor, I think whatever we do, a lot of people are going to gripe. If it is forced upon them -- take it or leave it style -- they'll gripe even more and blame government, maybe even vote for another trump to repeal it.

[guillaumeb]

13. Well explained. As usual.

Change can be scary. It was for many in Canada. But no one in Canada suggests a return to the old system.

[Ron Green]

12. A Single Risk Pool Is a Health Care System. Multiple Risk Pools Is an Investment Scheme.

We have plenty of investment schemes in this country. We need a health care system.

[guillaumeb]

14. Another way to describe it.

And this particular investment scheme offers guaranteed returns.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

21. We would have better ads if we would only pay more for bad health care.

[guillaumeb]

22. Brilliant.

I needed that laugh, Hermit.