 The Chamber of Commerce might be regarded as a conservative organization, traditionally supporting low corporate taxes and a reduction in environmental regulations. Charleston’s Chamber took a more progressive stance on healthcare, however, in a press release it issued yesterday. The Chamber’s Board of Directors decided unanimously to support Medicaid expansion included in the Affordable Care Act, it says. “The position is consistent with our Chamber’s Guiding Principles and Legislative Agenda, which work to reduce healthcare costs for business and support legislation that will help the region attract and expand business, industry and jobs.” The Chamber will have to present its argument to Gov. Nikki Haley, however, who has regularly stated she would refuse the program. Under the Affordable Care Act, the state would not be responsible for any additional funding needed for Medicare expansion through 2016. For the three following years, South Carolina would only assume five percent of Medicare costs, and beginning in 2020 the state would pay 10 percent. Haley objects to that future cost, however, and recently told the Independent Mail “there (is) no way to make the dollars and cents work to give the health care to South Carolinians the way they need it.” This small amount would be less than the expenses faced without the expansion, though, the state legislative director of AARP told The State. “Expanding Medicaid will give people without insurance access to preventive care that can reduce the need for expensive emergency room care,” said Teresa Arnold. While Haley is not mentioned in its press release, the Chamber addresses the impact of her expansion rejection. “There are two options,” said Bryan Derreberry, president and CEO of the local Chamber. “South Carolina can accept the Medicaid expansion and receive 90 percent of costs from the federal government, or reject the plan and absorb 100 percent of the costs and lose revenue from Washington, D.C.” South Carolinians most pertinent to general medical care seem to agree with the Chamber, too. A recent AARP survey found that 54 percent of registered voters in the state who are of ages 45 and older support Medicaid expansion in South Carolina, which 88 percent find to be important. Over 300,000 in the state who currently have no type of medical insurance would become eligible for coverage with this expansion. Local medical facilities also welcome the Chamber’s support. The CEOs of Roper St. Francis, Trident Health and East Cooper Medical Center all issued statements in the Chamber’s press release agreeing with the organization’s backing of Medicaid expansion. It will “serve as a lifeline for the poor and uninsured in our state,” said Roper’s David Dunlap, and helps satisfy a “responsibility to care for the entire community,” Trident’s Todd Gallati said. It also substantially benefits businesses in the area, too, says Jason Alexander of East Cooper. “Without the expansion of Medicaid eligibility, South Carolinians and their employers will continue to bear the entire cost of caring for those citizens between 100 percent and 138 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.” The Affordable Care Act has already provided significant savings to small businesses. This year, companies with less than 25 full-time (or part-time equivalent) employees can claim as much as 35 percent of their insurance costs as a tax credit. Beginning next year, the amount increases to 50 percent of insurance premium costs. The program could be a terrific asset to the state economy, too, a recent study reports, challenging Haley’s claim of unaffordable costs. Done on behalf of the South Carolina Hospital Association, the study found that Medicare expansion would create 44,000 jobs, $1.5 billion in income and $3.3 billion in economic activity in the state by 2020. The Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce has over 1,875 members.
 It’s not just the first day of August, says Bobbie Rose, but a first day in American history, too. “Today is a day women should mark on their calendar as one for yearly celebration,” Rose says. “Our health needs and our reproductive rights and concerns have, for the first time, been moved to the forefront.” Rose, the Democratic candidate for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, refers to the latest phase of development in the Affordable Care Act. Beginning today, preventive services relevant to women’s health must be covered by insurance companies without copayment, coinsurance or deductible fees. “This expansion of the federal health care legislation is good health and good public policy,” Rose finds. “We have long known that preventative health care is a far less expensive way to head off more costly and time-consuming treatment later on. “I applaud the ACA for enabling us to save on health care costs, while receiving more timely and improved care.” According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, the medical services that insured women will now be able to receive annually at no cost are: - “Well-woman” visits, or checkups with preventive care such as cervical cancer screening and mammograms;
- Gestational diabetes screening for pregnant women;
- Breastfeeding supplies, support and counseling;
- Counseling and screening for domestic and interpersonal violence;
- Testing for HPV (human papilloma virus);
- Counseling and screening for HIV;
- Counseling and screening for sexually-transmitted infections; and
- FDA-approved contraception methods and counseling.
These benefits will impact approximately 650,000 South Carolina women between the ages of 15 and 64, according to HHS. The positive results come about despite efforts of the 1st District’s incumbent, however. In February 2011, Rep. Tim Scott attempted to repeal the ACA with his very first sponsored bill. Since then, he’s voted another 32 times to repeal or defund the Act, and has also signed pledges for its repeal. Rose’s stand on the ACA is reassured, however, with today’s latest stage in its development. “It is comforting that women can get their basic preventative needs addressed without a prohibitive co-pay holding them back. Prevention is the key to being healthy and staying healthy, which then allows us to continue to work (in many cases as the head of household), care for our families, and remain productive citizens of our country.”
At least it will quite possibly cost the job of someone from CNN, the network that made the mistake of claiming the Supreme Court had overturned the Affordable Care Act.
"According to producer Bill Mears, the individual mandate is not a valid ...of...not a valid exercise of the commerce clause."
Here's a great take on that circumstance, complete with CNN's report: (posted on youtube by TheSecondCityNetwork) Like the video points out, at least Mears can still get healthcare coverage even if he's unemployed, thanks to Obamacare.
 There’s no doubt that Bobbie Rose was glad to hear the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act this morning. All one had to do is hear the first word out of her mouth after learning of it. “Amen!” Rose says in response to the 5-4 ruling that upholds the Act, which she calls “one of the most important decisions the Supreme Court will make in our lifetimes.” It’s a fantastic decision for three key reasons, says Rose, the Democratic candidate for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District: “First, we have an overwhelming number of citizens in our state who lack adequate healthcare. Second, that high number of uninsured is affecting others; the uninsured were adding to the coverage costs and medical expenses of those with insurance. Lastly,” she concludes, “our current representative's effort to overturn this needed law has just been stopped.” Offering details of those three points, Rose offers “ One of out of every five citizens in South Carolina is without health insurance because they can’t afford it. This Act provides them with a needed avenue to receive the care they need at a cost they can afford. "Their lack of insurance has had fatal results, too," Rose notes. “Every year, about 300 uninsured South Carolinians die from treatable causes, but are unable to afford treatments. Lack of insurance alone is their cause of death.” Rose also notes the benefits of the Act to those who already have insurance. “No more ceiling on coverage, no more pre-existing exclusions,” she offers as examples. She also points out another key benefit of ACA: without it, those with health coverage have been paying the medical bills of the uninsured directly through their own insurance premiums. The amount uncollected by medical providers from uninsured patients is traditionally added to the bills of those with insurance, for a total annual increase of over $1,000 in individual insurance policy costs to families and employers. The Act helps us with insurance save quite a lot more in a quite a few other ways, says Rose.
 “Just so far in its implementation, it’s already saved senior citizens in our state over $60 million. And over a quarter-million South Carolinians already with private insurance will be getting rebates from their insurance companies this year, totaling almost $20 million back in their pockets.” Had the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Act, the costs of insurance premiums were projected by experts to increase shortly after the decision. Even hospitals and medical offices would have a tax increase if the Act had been repealed, according to recent reports. “While my third reason for supporting today’s decision is nowhere near as important as the first two,” Rose says, “I have to say I’m mighty glad to know that Representative Scott’s efforts to remove our right to affordable health care have just been stopped. “He’s been trying to do this for quite a while, after all, even before the Act passed into law.” While still a state representative in November 2009, Scott was the primary sponsor of two bills ( H 4171 and H 4181) to block the use of the Act in South Carolina, and while it was still under debate in U.S. Congress. After the Patient Protection & Affordable Health Care Acts passed in March 2010, Scott tried to block it again with a new bill ( H 4825). “He’s continued this fight against our rights to affordable health care since moving on to D.C., too,” says Rose. Scott’s first bill to U.S. Congress was H.R. 698, which would “deauthorize and rescind funding” for the healthcare act. “Maybe he forgot he’s no longer in the insurance business, and is supposed to be representing his constituents instead of his lobbyist donors,” Rose says. Allstate Insurance Company, which Scott represented until winning the 2010 election, sells supplemental health insurance, which is supposed to help with medical costs that ordinary health insurance doesn’t cover. The Affordable Care Act can substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the need for this secondary format of insurance because of its removals of many policy limitations. “Those insurance lobbyists are his biggest donors, too,” Rose quickly points out. Over the last two election cycles, Scott’s received $164,125 in campaign donations from the insurance industry; over $100,000 was donated in this 2012 election cycle alone, making that industry Scott’s top current donor. “Hopefully,” Roses adds, “Scott will stop spreading that ‘17,000 IRS agents’ falsehood, which was proven false long ago, but which he’s still telling his constituents.” At a recent Town Hall meeting on May 23, Scott told attendees that the Affordable Care Act requires the IRS to hire 17,000 agents to enforce its law. He made this claim in his last campaign, too. During a radio interview of August 2010, for example, he criticized the Act by stating it will "create 17,000 new bureaucrats in the IRS(.)" However, that premise had been proven false five months before the 2010 interview. In March 2010, a Republican report from the House Ways and Means Committee claimed that the Act would require the IRS to hire 16,500 “agents.” Less than two weeks later, the non-partisan FactCheck described the claim to be “wildly inaccurate” and “partisan.” The Pulitzer Prize-winning Politifact continues to label this claim to be of “pants on fire” invalidity, too. “Now that this is a closed subject for him,” Rose says, “maybe he’ll start paying attention to this upcoming election!” In conclusion, Rose adds, "Obamacare – fair, affordable healthcare for all Americans. Oh, happy day!"
 Us folks way down yonder in the Lowcountry never could understand the claims about "liberal media" that get tossed around every election year. You only have to hear 10 seconds of local broadcast or read two pages of local print to see that it's just the opposite. I mean, sometimes the local rags and dishes blare out pieces that are so false and one-sided that, if you squeezed those news stories tight enough, your fingers would wind up stained from offshore bank deposit slips instead of newspaper ink. Consider the editorial staff at Charleston's Post & Courier, for example. Media Matters for America, a national watchdog group that keeps tabs on the news circulating around, just cited P&C for issuing multiple editorials chock full o' garbage on one particular topic. That topic is the Affordable Care Act, which just went through three days of argument and review before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the last two years, the Post & Courier printed 27 complete and utter falsehoods about the Act, Media Matters said this week, with the last incidents appearing just two weeks ago on March 17. Titled "Obamacare's fiscal malady," the recent editorial claims the White House "granted more than 1,700 waivers to businesses, unions and other organizations on the practical grounds that they simply can't afford to comply with the so-called Affordable Care Act." P&C editorials have made this same claim many times -- reporting a different number of waivers on each occasion -- since December 2010, each time stating that the waivers came about because the Act was too expensive to the point that it was causing layoffs. The truth of the matter, though, is that the waivers are included to protect employers from insurance company tricks. Since the Act is not set to enter full-swing application until 2014, it was anticipated that some insurers would try to jack-up rates and limit coverage in order to make as much money as possible until then. These waivers -- a "stop-gap" safeguard -- only protect companies and their workers, and are not because Act compliance is unaffordable. In that same March 17 editorial, Post & Courier editors claim the original cost estimates of the Affordable Care Act ($940 billion in its first 10 years) practically doubled, escalating to $1.76 trillion. What those editors didn't reveal, though, is that the $940 billion estimate, issued in 2010, was a net cost; the $1.76 trillion figure which P&C editors snagged from another document was a gross cost. Moreover, they failed to tell readers that these estimates are not attributable to new expenses; they are modifications to current ones, including Medicare and Medicaid, and are actually projected to reduce budget deficits by $210 billion in that 10-year period. Don't forget -- these are just two examples of the 27 lies from P&C editorials on this one topic.
 And when you review the other 25, please note one very interesting finding: the ones that reek most in blatant falsehood -- claiming the Act would "ration" healthcare, would constitute "government takeover" and cut Medicare funding -- are no longer available on P&C's website. It's apparently not because they were tucked away in archives, either; for example, included in the ones I found to be no longer available on postandcourier.com were stories from January 2011, May 2011 and August 2011. Older ones cited in this same Media Matters probe, however (and that don't smell as bad as these particular ones do), are still found on the newspaper's website. See for yourself; click here to read a December 2010 editorial that Media Matters includes in its listing of 27 erroneous editorials, and right from www.postandcourier.com. Just for the record, know that I'm not complaining about everyone working for, affiliated with or even just subscribing to the Post & Courier, and neither is this Media Matters report, either. I've met some P&C staff and reporters quite a few times, and know that many are good, honest, fair and truth-telling professionals. It's the folks who write these editorials (whose actual names are never shown in those writings) that I, Media Matters, and many more I know are complaining about. I first confirmed P&C's policy of deliberate misinformation back in 2007, maybe early '08. The Associated Press had released a story addressing a rumor about then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton; the article cleared Clinton's name, too, declaring it found factual evidence that proved her responding claims to be true. I read that story early that morning from the website of another newspaper ( New York Times, I recall). But when I picked up the morning paper from my lawn later that morning, I saw that P&C had deliberately maligned that same story. An entirely different opening paragraph (which I can only assume was added by a P&C editor) claimed that the investigation proved Clinton was wrong. (The rest of the printed story was the same as I'd read online, but if you studied journalism, you know that most readers don't get past the first paragraph on stories; I assume the P&C editor who added that new intro was banking on that adage.) I was shocked. I don't claim to be journalist (even though I get to relive my college newspaper days by contributing to the cheesy Examiner), but I know that this added intro, which changed the entire scope of the article, was a cardinal sin in news rooms. That's what I was taught in class, during internships, at national conventions, and straight from career reporters, too. I went so far as to telephone Associated Press' corporate office in New York to tell them of my finding. I was told that its client newspapers can add other information to AP articles to localize the stories for their readers, but that at no time can the actual data used in those articles be changed. Those are the contractual terms AP has with its affiliated newspapers, I was told. I then read to them the opening paragraph that P&C added, and asked if it wasn't a violation of those same terms. The Associated Press then did a one-eighty, completely reversing from its role as a news-reporting agency: "I can't issue any comment," I was told. I didn't renew my subscription to Post & Courier when it ended a couple of months later. Why should I pay money for news that is deliberately altered from the truth? If a company assumes its customers are dumb and easily influenced by openly false information, then I don't want to be one of those customers. This write-up from Media Matters solidly confirms the basis of my complaint against P&C, too. These are 27 instances of complete garbage, and all on this one single subject. And that subject of the Affordable Care Act is very important right now. As I mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court spent three days of this week reviewing it, and while many predict the Act will be protected, many of us -- very many right here in South Carolina, in particular -- need to know the truth on this subject. Right now. Since its 2009 passage: - 30,376 young adults in South Carolina were able to gain health insurance
- 54,683 South Carolinians received Medicare rebates
- 53,081 in the state are now each saving $615 on prescription medication
- 1.458 million South Carolinians had lifetime caps on maximum insurance coverage lifted
- 948 from the state were able to resume insurance coverage after having it previously removed due to pre-existing conditions
- 602,760 Medicare recipients in South Carolina got free preventive services or a free annual doctor visit
- 755,000 South Carolinians with private insurance now have coverage for preventive service without any cost-sharing
Does the Post & Courier want us to lose it all?
 Making lots of news lately is the House Republican’s overriding of a new law pertaining to the nutritional content of lunches served at public schools. In a nutshell (and this isn’t a joke), they’ll have the frozen pizza served in public schools to be classified as a vegetable, thus categorizing it as "healthy," in a way. And under this new category, pizza would remain qualified for frequent servings, with most paid for by the federal government, under new nutritional guidelines, too. And not only does this concept stink, but its odor is reminiscent. Think back to 1981, when the USDA attempted to reclassify as a vegetable the ketchup served in public schools. But even though the circumstances are remarkably similar (each consisting of the GOP trying to magically modify the nutritional class of processed tomato-based products), they still have notable differences. Last time, it was just a scheme to cut funding from the school lunch program for budgetary reasons. This time, though, it’s a scam, and to directly benefit companies whose lobbyists have littered the capitol in efforts to promote their own profits. Under the Gramm-Latta Bill of 1981, $1 billion was slashed from the budget of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. That left USDA with 90 days to accommodate that cut while still maintaining nutritional requirements in foods served at public schools. Pressed for a quick, low-budget response, the USDA proposed reclassifying the ketchup condiment as a vegetable in order to reduce serving costs. It was supported by Pres. Reagan and his appointed USDA Sec. John Block (who came up with the proposal), but after catching lots of flak nationwide, this reclassification program was dropped, shuffling ketchup back into the condiment corner. Now flash forward to late 2010. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which essentially is a modified reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966, was passed while Democrats still had a majority in both houses of Congress, then signed into law in December. This modification requires public school lunches to follow new nutritional guidelines, and with goal of addressing the ever-increasing circumstances that affect today’s youth. Hoping to counter the trend of increased obesity and poor health in kids, the Act called for reductions to fat and salt content in school meals, along with more servings of fruits, vegetables and grains. The Act is much needed here in South Carolina, too, it seems. We’ve been one of the top-ranked states in obesity since 1985, and today between 25 and 29.9 percent of our population is obese. Approximately 58 percent of public school students in the state receive free or reduced-cost lunches covered by the Act. And South Carolina could use all the help it can get for these lunch programs, as those students have recently been stuck with nothing more than peanut butter sandwiches at times. Making the need much more apparent, this trend in poor nutrition even affects our national security. According to Mission:Readiness, an organization of retired military officers, 27 percent of American youth aged 17 to 24 (about 9 million) are “too fat to fight,” and would be excluded from service due to obesity. So who could complain about this new Act? It not only protects the health of today’s kids, and it doesn’t just serve a need for us here in South Carolina; it also protects our nation and its security as a whole, too. Yesterday, though, the Republican Party (which took a majority in the U.S. House beginning this January) modified the Act. That’s right – pizza is back on the list for frequent school servings, only now it’s been reclassified as a healthy, nutritious vegetable. And how is this different from the 1981 “ketchup is a vegetable” debacle? Well, this time it’s not to accommodate any budget cuts. Instead, it seems the GOP is heavily promoting this fallacy to benefit their own campaign budgets. Clamoring for exclusions to the Act’s recommendations is none other than the American Frozen Food Institute, a contributor to the $5.6 million spent so far this year in lobbying efforts to change the Act to its liking. And 81 percent of the campaign donations this same AFFI tossed out over the last two decades went to (you guessed it) Republicans. Members of AFFI include the manufacturers of frozen pizzas, too; in fact, AFFI is the parent organization of the National Frozen Pizza Association. (It also represents frozen French fry companies; under the Act, kids would only receive one serving of fries per week from their school cafeterias to reduce saturated fat and sodium intake. Republicans took that restriction out, too, of course.) So, instead of protecting the future of our country, House Republicans protected the sales of fat and cholesterol items for their campaign contributors instead. And don’t even try to reply with a “you say tomato sauce, I say tomato” counterargument. An average slice of frozen pizza contains a mere two teaspoons of tomato sauce originating from paste (about 20 grams), as TPM recently calculated using information from Corey Henry, vice-president of communications for AFFI. Using the nutrition label from a nearby can of Hunt’s tomato sauce as reference, those two teaspoons amount to 0.645 percent of the recommended daily allowance for Vitamins A and C. Aside from one-quarter of a gram of fiber (one percent of the RDA), no other nutrients are included. As a result, then, the microscopic contents of two vitamins completely nullify GOP/AFFA claims that frozen pizza served in public schools can in any way provide any nutritional value whatsoever, let alone constitute a vegetable. In addition (using the RDA label of a simple DiGiornio’s pepperoni pizza for comparative calculation), tomato sauce is only one-seventh (14.3 percent) of the total content of a one-slice serving. And what’s the nutritional content of the remaining 86 percent? Well, there’s a little calcium from the cheese, some iron from the dough (and for some reason this sample doesn’t even have any Vitamin C), but … that one slice also contains 35 percent of the RDA for saturated fat (seven grams) and 42 percent of recommended sodium intake (1,010 milligrams). And remind yourself, now – what exactly are the health problems that this Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act intends to address? Obesity, which is primarily caused by high intake of saturated fat, and health, which is directly influenced by both fat and high sodium intake. We’ve always known the GOP to be representative of nothing other than its donors, and which is all the more apparent in this case, too. But did they have to resort to a “let them eat pizza” tactic? Especially on an issue that pertains not just to our children, but to the future of our country, too?
Alright - all the deficit and default garbage is done and dealt with (...for now, at least). Now it's time for congress to address other important topics, like unemployment, Afghanistan and ... breast feeding? Oh, yeah! That's one point Rep. Steve King uses in his argument against recent actions of the Dept. of Health and Human Services (with FAUX News batting clean-up). Beginning next year, medical services such as prescription birth control, breast-feeding aids, gestational diabetes and domestic violence screenings are to be fully covered by insurance companies with no deductible. The goal, says HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, is to "ensure women get...preventive health benefits(.)" The program can reduce long-term costs of both women's and children's healthcare, analysts say. But it'll do much more harm than good, King says. According to the Iowa Republican, if we apply preventive medicine, "what you end up with is, you prevented a generation." And Stephen Colbert was completely supportive of King's premises, too, as well as FOX's arguments against this women's health benefit. In recent edition of his Colbert Report, he offered "a woman's health decisions are private matter between her priest and her husband!" Add the dinosaur extinction to your argument, and you've got it down pat.
It was bad enough that just over a year ago we were forced to listen to blatant lies being spread about the national healthcare acts.
It worsened when insurance companies tried to pull off as many tricks as possible before the enactment of those laws, too.
It got even worse recently when the GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives attempted to toss those laws out of the window, only to appease their insurance company campaign donors.
But now one small, sarcastic ad could be the straw that broke this camel’s back.
Appearing in this week’s print edition of Charleston City Paper:
Now, before I say anything else, answer this question: how many times did you have to read it before you knew it was a joke? For me, it took three readings. That might sound stupid on my part, but I kept pausing after the “you could save more than $6,000” line, as if the ad actually recommended a do-it-yourself treatment instead of professional medical care, and was next noticing the Blue Cross/Blue Shield name. And I guess I stopped at that point because that’s pretty much what I’ve come to expect to hear from a health insurance company. “You don’t need medical attention” and “we won’t cover it” became par-for-the-course responses that not just me, but millions across the country, have come to expect. Of course, this is an ad to sell medical insurance to the uninsured, not to describe a limitation. But we’re all too familiar with that impersonal “let’s save dollars instead of lives” response from insurance companies. And the ad itself is offensive because it’s trying to make a joke of something so many already take to be fact. If it’s received to be description of the exact same type of misrepresentation we accept to be the norm, then where’s the punch line? I’m sure everyone has tales of their own insurance sarcasm, too, myself included. For example, I once had a prescription renewal not just denied, but rewrote, even. I couldn’t have Brand A because there was a new generic. Forget that my doctor argued with them that the generic was created for use with a completely different medical circumstance and was only of secondary applicability to my illness – somebody with no medical training decided I could only have the generic. Which the insurance company also refused to cover, I learned only after the fact, because … (ta da!) it was a new prescription. I got blindly steered out of coverage by some strange policy regarding prescription refills in successive calendar years. The true goal of the insurance company was to work their way out of the cost. On more than one occasion, an insurance company referred me to physicians within an approved network. Yet, those claims were later denied coverage because (go on – guess!) those doctors were suddenly no longer in the network of that insurance company. And these personal experiences are just goldfish in a pool of sharks. Click here to see a few cases that can drop your jaw to your shoelaces, even if you’re well-experienced in insurance shenanigans. A woman rejected by health insurance companies because of the “pre-existing condition” of a rape years before. A teenager dying after an insurance company thought her much-needed liver transplant to be “too experimental.” A four-month-old infant deemed “obese” by an insurance company, which made up that diagnosis to prevent the child from being included on his parents' policy. With fatal sarcasm practiced by medical insurance companies so frequently that we practically expect it, why did Blue Cross/Blue Shield think we were going to laugh at this new ad? And historical analysis of advertising says that, instead of gathering interest or amusing anyone, this could only drive potential consumers away. From a study on this particular advertising method: “(I)rony and sarcasm may impede a proper understanding of the advertisements’ informative intention. This has a negative impact on the assessment by an audience of the importance of the societal issues emphasized in sarcastic announcements.” (Lagerwerf, L (2007). Irony and sarcasm in advertisements: Effects of relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics, 39 (10), 1702-1721.) In other words, BlueCross/Blue Shield of South Carolina, not only does your ad suck, but it’s making folks think your company sucks even more, too.
|
RSS Feed
