By The Tribune-Review
Published: Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Young concertgoers in Washington state may soon find a greeting in a most unexpected place when nature calls: a pitch for ObamaCare in portable toilets.
That's right. In the mad dash to sign up young people, who are either blissfully ignorant or reluctant to shell out for ObamaCare, some states are pulling out all the stops — from using flying banners via airplanes to reach beachgoers to promos at baby-changing stations.
One media company estimates that by 2015, both sides in the ObamaCare debate will have spent $1 billion to get their messages across, The Washington Post reports.
Add this to the cost of health care, courtesy of a centrally planned nightmare that bows this fall.
One of the more inane ad markets reportedly will be bourbon festivals across Kentucky. This, when alcohol abuse costs federal, state and local governments more than $94 billion annually, according to a 2011 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study.
But here's the rub: While Kentucky's “rolling out the barrel” to entice young people, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has proposed using ObamaCare grant money to “reduce alcohol retail outlet density and illegal alcohol,” according to a New York Post report cited by The Heritage Foundation.
Obviously in ObamaCare's fevered pitch for young health-exchange participants, one hand knows not what the other is doing.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The secret ballot: Protect it
- Junk nutrition
- The big sting: To what end?
- Sunday pops
- Liquor privatization: Now’s the time
- Lever A-1: Pot-infused brownies
- THE BOX
- Keystone caper: Pipeline politics
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances