|
New ad: “Polly”
Friday, Sep 28, 2012 * Democrat congressional candidate David Gill has a new TV ad about how an insurance company refused to pay for his late wife’s helicopter med-evac to St. Louis. Rate it…
- Posted by Rich Miller
|
LIVE session coverage...
 |
|
|
- BehindTheScenes - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 12:31 pm:
I understand the average tauma medevac (as from an accident scene) is now around $26,000. That’s why I cover everyone in my household for $60 a year with a subscription membership (also covers transfers like the one mentioned). I really don’t see what message this spot is trying to get across… Does he mean the ‘Obamacare’ plan he favors covers helicopter medevacs? If so, I would be very surprised.
- Commonsense in Illinois - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 12:34 pm:
This is a tough one to rate because I sure it’s an emotional issue for Dr. Gill and most likely wasn’t exactly his idea. To the degree that it’s effective because it draws on a first-person experience I think it is very effective. However I also really have to wonder about the wisdom of dragging one’s deceased wife into a political equation. We have no idea why the insurance company turned down the claim…or if it paid a portion of the actual cost of the flight. To that end, demonizing insurance companies with such a wide swath is really disingenuous. On the snark side, what’s next? David Gill rescues abandoned puppies?
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 12:42 pm:
There is no way to critique this ad without coming off as a barbarian since his wife is the topic.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 12:52 pm:
It’s a tear-jerker, but I’m not sure what it’s supposed to communicate except that his insurance adjusters were bums.
People can relate, but I don’t know how that gets someone to vote for Gill.
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 1:05 pm:
==We have no idea why the insurance company turned down the claim==
The point is that they turned down the claim at all. There is no good reason. People should not have to be burdened with healthcare costs like this. That is why we need a national healthcare system where all of us pay in.
I like the ad. It highlights the absurdity of insurance in general. Insurance companies are out to make a profit off of people and will do what they can to ensure they do make a profit. Healthcare should not be a for-profit business. It’s immoral and disgusting.
It’s not disingenuous to demonize insurance companies when that is exactly what should be done. There is never an excuse to deny somebody coverage and force somebody into a bad financial situation or bankruptcy.
Go ahead and defend insurance companies if you want. That just makes you as immoral as they are.
- Gregor - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 1:12 pm:
There wasn’t enough time in the ad to explain the conflict with the insurance company, so, not as strong a spot as they’d like.
- Coach - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 1:46 pm:
=== However I also really have to wonder about the wisdom of dragging one’s deceased wife into a political equation. ===
Agreed. I understand everything in one’s life or experience is potential fodder for politics - military service, kids, parents, religion, you name it - but this particular ad turned my stomach. Not because the insurance company denied the claim, but because this candidate dragged his dead wife into his TV ad. I’m guessing many others will have the same reaction.
- Ahoy! - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 1:46 pm:
It’s good in that it connects him to the voter in a way Davis will never be able to do. At first I thought it would be ineffective since it doesn’t tie him to a vote or his opponent. But I think that’s what might make it effective to a lot of the voters out there, in particularly women and those who have suffered some sort of financial complications due to the loss of a loved one.
It also serves of the purpose of having an ad out there that your opponent can not counter without looking like John Cornyn.
- commonsense in illinois - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 1:50 pm:
I guess I should have asked the rhetorical question whether Dr. Gill’s policy included aero-evacuation. If not he has no legitimate complaint. If his policy did have that coverage, then he does. But as it stands we don’t know.
- bmcosti - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 1:54 pm:
Demoralized, You clearly don’t understand the concept of profit. Profit motive works both ways. Yes, insurance companies are trying to make a $$$ profit, but so are customers. They are trying to profit off of health insurance companies to gain peace of mind and source of money for health care when they get sick.
Not knowing the circumstances of this case, I don’t think we should rush to judgement and say that health care companies also have to pay ambulance and helicopter fees on top of the dozens of other mandates government places on them.
The more mandates we force on insurance policies the more unaffordable they become. Which is one of the reasons why millions of people are currently uninsured.
No one is forcing you to buy insurance from the evil insurance companies. Err…except Obama and Federal-level Democrats
- Demoralized - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 2:49 pm:
@bmcosti:
You don’t get it. I understand profit perfectly well. And I thought I pointed out that I thought the idea of profit-making businesses in healthcare was immoral. There should not be any profit here. Period.
The point is the insurance companies - or in my preferred case a national healthcare service - should have to cover EVERYTHING. I for the life of me will never understand how people can even believe that it’s acceptable for anybody to not have health insurance coverage. We should all have access to everything. Period.
Not everything should be subjected to the whims of capitalism. A person’s health should especially not fit into that equation.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 2:54 pm:
These medivacs are getting popular at car wrecks. Most auto policies have a $5000 max limit, is the candidate suggesting that auto insurance must be changed also. Is he proposing to force more IL citizens to become uninsured drivers or is Obamacare going to cover auto policies also?
- dupage dan - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 3:05 pm:
Demoralized, even in the countries where the best gov’t healthcare exists ALL costs paid for EVERYTHING simply doesn’t exist. You are either naive or obtuse.
- bmcosti - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 3:06 pm:
@Demoralized
“The point is the insurance companies - or in my preferred case a national healthcare service - should have to cover EVERYTHING.”
“cover EVERYTHING” costs a lot. If you had your way insurance premiums would skyrocket, as they have with the increased mandates by State and Federal government.
I suppose you also yell at health insurance companies for the high premiums they charge, but you don’t understand basic economics to see that if you truly had a policy that covered “EVERYTHING” almost NOBODY would be able to afford it.
Also, the danger of having a universial health care system is that if “EVERYTHING” is paid for no one will have an economic incentive of taking care of themselves. Forcing taxpayers to pay for the bad behavior of drug addicts, alcoholics, voluntarily overweight people, stunt car drivers and rock climbers is a really bad idea. You’re actually encouraging people to engage in risky behaviors that endanger their health by providing HC for “free”.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 3:19 pm:
OK, time to chill out, folks.
- Midstate Indy - Friday, Sep 28, 12 @ 4:57 pm:
Personally I agree with Ahoy!, I think this is a great piece strictly because it isn’t a political issue, and it doesn’t draw a Davis comparison. I think art this stage in the campaign, this is exactly the message Gill needs to push, it raises his publicity, and gives him a direct connect to voters that are probably quite tired of the he said, she said typical campaign commercial. Davis comes off like an overgrown boy scout, so Gill could really profit from the ability to show a human side.