Toni Lavis,

"I don't like advertising either, but it can be effective at generating profits so it isn't necessarily a waste of money."

Firstly the Australian Government initiated the Private Health Insurance Rebate, and the following comes from Private Healthcare Australia.

"The Australian Government Rebate on private health insurance provides a reduction in the premium cost of private healthcare. It is recognition by the Australian Government that Australians with private healthcare are making a substantial financial contribution not only to their own healthcare but also to Australia’s healthcare system."

http://www.privatehealthcareaustralia.org.au/have-you-got-private-healthcare/private-health-insurance-rebate/

So why should these people (Australians - including those who are in same sex relationships, but say maybe or maybe not in private healthcare) be making questionable contributions, to advertisements, like the ones I mentioned?

After all costs are costs.

Finally to Yuyutsu - if people live in far out parts of the Australian countryside, they may not see advertising from Medibank Private. Considering a lot of people do shop in high density shopping malls or shopping centres - Medibank Private is out there (in a public environment) with an aim to get as many in as possible - with questionable advertising, I have mentioned. On the other side of advertising, we face Labor party scare campaigns or "advertising" over having to pay a GP tax.

Which one rationally do I go with?

Dear Nathan,

Despite visiting shopping centres when I need to purchase something there, I don't know whether they have ads in general or Medibank-Private ads in particular. This is because if there is an ad somewhere then I automatically avert my eyes from that filth. I no longer even consciously record it as it became a second-nature for me, but obviously it must add to making going to shopping centres an overall unpleasant experience, so I go there only when I really need to and do not linger longer than I need.

O sung wu, look at yesterday's posts on this topic. Is that you?
The writing seemed different to your usual style.
Is there two o sung wu's?

//So why should these people (Australians - including those who are in same sex relationships, but say maybe or maybe not in private healthcare) be making questionable contributions, to advertisements//

Because if the cost of advertisements is less than the amount of extra money the ads generate, then they are profitable. Companies making profits is the basis of the capitalist system. If nobody makes any profit, our economy will go pear-shaped. A lot of people don't like capitalism, and I personally regard it the same way Churchill viewed democracy: it is the worst system, except for all the others that have been tried so far.

//After all costs are costs.//

And profits are profits. You have to spend money to make money.

//like the ones I mentioned?//

This is what I find most interesting: Medibank are a big company who have run a lot of advertisements over the years. But it's only when they run ads depicting gay people that you suddenly get so worked up about them advertising. Funny how you never cared before.

It looks to me like you're more concerned about seeing gay people depicted on television than you are about Medibank's business decisions. In which case, you should drop the bullshyt pretence and say what you really think, instead of trying to invent progressively sillier reasons as to why Medibank shouldn't advertise when other private health insurers do.

Post script:

If you are offended by the content of any advertising you see, then you should lodge a complaint with the Advertising Standards Bureau: that's what they're for. If enough people complain about the same ad, then it will almost certainly be pulled.

https://adstandards.com.au/

What practical benefit do you hope to achieve by whinging about the ad on a forum like this? Tell somebody who cares - and who has the power to do something about it.

Toni Lavis,

"It looks to me like you're more concerned about seeing gay people depicted on television than you are about Medibank's business decisions. In which case, you should drop the bullshyt pretence and say what you really think, instead of trying to invent progressively sillier reasons as to why Medibank shouldn't advertise when other private health insurers do."

The question for me is "why" do Medibank Private as an Insurer need to do this? Other insurers clearly have not, and they do need to feel the need to go out and spend large amount of money on recent advertising, which produced the link that I found?

Currently the private health sector is subsidized (by the Federal Government.

"The private health insurance rebate which, despite being significantly curbed by the previous government, will still cost taxpayers over $6 billion this year" and "That funding would be far more effectively directed into health services rather than the pockets of people with private health insurance."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/09/29/private-health-insurance-rebate-a-huge-waste/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

Although this website is questioned by some, it at least here showed the costs.

So advertising like the one I mentioned, does nothing in terms of improving healthcare for any person, it is simply a disgusting waste of money (particularly when they are assisted by the government). Furthermore, the grant given by Medibank Private, I would argue fits into the same element.

Finally former Prime Minister Tony Abbott descridescribed the private health insurance rebate as “an article of faith.”

People, companies, groups, religions and others.... shouldn't need to stoop to low levels to sell their argument. It should be naturally within them, and able to be put out naturally, without expensive advertising or poor language, and the Medibank Private advertisement goes for a long time, compared to a lot of others. Why?