Harry And Louise Back On TV, Supporting Health Care Reform (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON — Harry and Louise are coming back to television screens across the country to talk about overhauling health care. This time, they've switched sides.

TV ads featuring the fictional couple played a big role in derailing President Bill Clinton's effort to revamp the medical system in the 1990s. Back then, actors Louise Caire Clark and Harry Johnson played a middle-class couple worrying about the changes, and the ads were sponsored by the insurance industry, which was fighting Clinton's plan.

Now, they will appear in a $4 million TV campaign supporting a reshaping of health care, sponsored by Families USA, which champions affordable health care for families, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The two groups, often at odds, have joined forces this year to support some general principles behind revamping health care, such as making it more affordable for low-income people.

The ads begin airing this weekend and will run at least three weeks on national cable and network news shows.

In 1993 and 1994, the Harry and Louise ad campaign cost an estimated $14 million to $20 million. Fourteen spots were produced, compared to one this time.

In the new commercial, the characters discuss a need for affordable health coverage that people can keep if they change or lose their jobs. They don't mention some of the issues dividing lawmakers, such as whether there should be optional government-run insurance or requirements that employers cover their workers, or how to pay for it.

"It sounds simple enough," Harry tells Louise as they enjoy coffee at a kitchen table, just as they did in the earlier ads.

"A little more cooperation, a little less politics and we can get the job done this time," Louise says.

Story continues below

advertisement

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said ads showing Harry and Louise's support for remaking health care "shows how different this health reform debate is."

In an interview, Clark, 59, and Johnson, 66, said they are Democrats who supported Clinton and back President Barack Obama.

They said that though they supported the idea of changing the health system in the 1990s, they felt Clinton's effort lacked sufficient cooperation among affected groups. They said those ads raised legitimate questions about the impact of Clinton's proposal.

"The part was written for me by the producer and director, but I never said anything I didn't believe," said Clark.

Now, Clark said she thinks it is time to overhaul the medical system and believes Obama can do it. She said she thinks their latest ad, shot in a home in Potomac, Md., outside Washington, D.C., will be their last.

"Harry and Louise are like the Energizer bunny"; they don't go away, but I don't think they're going to need us anymore," she said. "I hope not."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[nana4g]

Sorry, Harry and Louise. You are 16 years too late. You are part of the reason we are in the shape we are in now. But you still look fine. Fatter, but I hope your health and your "choice" of health plan will be there for you when you get sick. That's when they drop you, you know, when you get too sick and they need to pay up. United Health Plans posted a billion dollar gross profit today. Health care Insurances are the only industry not in need of bail outs. They continue to make obscene profits off the misery of the American people who purchase their insurances and then go bankrupt with an illness. It is the most amoral, unethical industry around and the only one that is thriving. They have so much money they can purchase politicians.

[alice09]

Think of all the suffering and death that occurred as a result of the defeat of the health care initiative at that time. They played a major role. I don't want to hear from them.

[lauram]

Sing it!

[sarabono]

Here is an example of a Public Option Single Payer System as it is implemented in Canada. What makes this very interesting is the comments of average citizens trying to use the Canadian Health Service.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

[fairness4all]

This is just more B. S. from ignorant wingnuts.

Why is it Republicans just can't grasp the concept of sources?

[sarabono]

What is wrong with interviews of Canadian citizens and opinions of Canadian citizens?

This is certainly more interesting than what I have seen on the TV regarding how this system actually works. Now I understand why my friends in Vancouver go to Seattle for much of there health care for there two young children.

[LeftCoastLarry]

I'm not sure this is needed.
The majority of the general public was for health care reform when Hillary worked for it in the '90's.
Corporate influences won the day because the so-called "Liberal Media" didn't report the story honestly and the populist message wasn't given due exposure.
Things are different now. We are not held hostage by the Corporate MainStream Media and the right-wingers are having a fit.
I want straightforward facts and data unfiltered by the talking heads at FOX, ABC (FOX lite), and other corporatists with their ulterior motives.

[jsgaetano]

Bingo.

The only difference between then and now is the internet. People don't have to be enslaved to the corporate media's information control.

[fairtaxplease]

socialized medecine is going to be awesome! watch this video and see for your own eyes....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

[fairness4all]

You are sooooo misinformed.

[jsgaetano]

I'm going to feel so sad that insurance company execs won't make billions of dollars for doing nothing more than denying health care to people.

[lazercat2008]

Ha, funny story, no really, last time we totally, screwed the country for a paycheck. We're almost traitors. Really, we'll do anything for money.

[LDnearthesea]

I hope the public option becomes part of the bill. And I hope it's not some stupid limit, like you have to make under say $20K a year to qualify. Repugs will try to get some sort of qualification with as low a yearly salary as possible. We need to make it clear: public option for EVERYONE, no financial limitations.

[LDnearthesea]

This is called PAYBACK!

[jbrantow]

Here is a link to the Frank Luntz talking points including the influence they are having.....you can see where the pro private health insurance tr0lls and (GOP leaders) on this site get their phony talking points from...

Tracking the influence of Frank Luntz’ obstructionist health care memo.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/16/luntz-memo-capitol-words/

[LDnearthesea]

Frank Luntz needs to get his a** k******!

[steppenwolfsayshi]

The American Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufactuers made this ad. Interesting. Maybe they intend on doing research on cures for diseases people get in their young adulthood or that kill otherwise healthy people. That would be quaint.

[AtomIzed]

Cute. Now...have the guts to show the interviews with Wendell Potter, who once served as the head of corporate communications at CIGNA: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/16/former_insurance_exec_wendell_porter, or www.pbs.org/moyers.

[yakmeat]

I just watched this interview, and it was very powerful. If there are any individuals or organizations with deep pockets who want to see real change in American health care, now is their chance to put their money where their mouth is.

Take a pile of cash, buy a bunch of air time, and run this interview (and vast amounts of commercials promoting it) on every major network you can find. Move this from PBS (which tends to attract well informed viewers who already know how screwed up things are) to "Joe Six Pack's living room. It's the clearest explanation I've seen on how the insurance industry works, and who it works for.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

The American people are the biggest obstacle to public universal healthcare in the United States.


Yes, the lobby groups and private health insurance companies fearmonger

But the American people are ignorant and gullible enough to be fooled by it.

There are keywords I look for when I read the statements of public universal healthcare opponents.

When I hear those words, I know I am hearing someone who has successfully fearmongered or is a fearmongerer themselves.

Those words include: socialist, communism, Stalinism, gulag, bureaucrat, rationing...among others.

[Firbolg]

Unfortunately they also include public option, single payer, universal, robust, mandate, reform, health insurance and healthcare and a lot more.
At this stage all of these words and phrases have so many meanings to different people that without elaborate qualification they have become virtually meaningless to use in a debate.
For example compare “public option” in the House bill with, say, Dr. Dean’s definition and, if you like, your own interpretation.

[Sean Tisdall]

All systems with distribution of scarce goods are rationing. The question is if we're rationing along utilitarian lines (what we commonly refer to as rationed care) or along lines of willingness and ability to pay (a price system) For my money a utilitarian health system with very generous palliative care is cheaper, more effective, and brings ruin to far fewer people. Complex systems will always fail people. We have a housing system that leaves people homeless, an agricultural sector that leaves people mal-nourished, and a transportation system that makes it next to impossible for some people to get to the job they would prefer. Why would we assume that the health system would be any different?

[Firbolg]

If you are not already quoting from this book you should read it.
Systemantics: How Systems Work and Especially How They Fail (Paperback)
by John gall.

[Katiebar]

I tend to agree. Once government takes control of healthcare, the relationship between the government and citizens changes forever. Then, every politician can pander to one of the most sensitive areas of life, with complete control over the individual's well being in the end. Scary thought.
Once costs begin to increase out of orginal predictions, as always happens, then taxes are raised yet more. When tax increases meet reisitance, which they will, then rationing begins. This is ocurring in Canada and the UK, for example. No problem when you get a cold, but when you get cancer, and dollars are going to get large, restrictions of available care, tests, treatment, drugs, are all weighed against the projected outcome (chance of survival) and age (relative value to society).
In essense, we will be blowing up the house to fix a leak in the roof. Overwhelmingly, Americans in surveys say "no" when asked if they are in favor of universal HC IF it will effect their personal medical insurance. Which is to say, most are satisfied with the freedom of immediate medical care they now enjoy.
But yes, most people want to help cover those who can not afford coverage now. That could be solved in a simpler way, such as expanding the role of VA hospitals, funded so that the needy could access medical care under a tax paid-for program. This would keep government out of the medical lives of 85%-90% of the populace, and cost far, far less.

[nana4g]

People in the USA have often said "We have the best health care money can buy" and then they proceed to do just that, "buy" and use up every available treatment option just because it is available, never mind if it has potential for good outcome, makes sense, if it's an intervention, "buy" it. And, of course, there are always too many physicians too willing to continue to provide because it prolongs their earnings, etc. We have essentially "bought" ourselves out of the market; we can no longer afford it, most of us. Now, we still have "the best money can buy" but fewer people who can buy it. If we did nothing else except begin using these health care resources more responsibly, measuring potential outcome and benefit vs risks and costs, we would save millions and millions of dollars; if we mandated that everyone have insurance, then we would not have to pick up the tab for those who think they will never need it; and if we regulated the insurance industry, we would have improved access. It is already a corrupt system and one that is not working for the majority of Americans.

[LDnearthesea]

I think those who you address might be done to about 25% now. So no worries. At least one national poll shows that 70% want a PUBLIC OPTION!

[NKR]

They should have apologized for being tools of right-wing propaganda back then. I guess there's nothing they won't do for a fat paycheck.

[LDnearthesea]

Luntz will say ANYTHING for money!

[aspertame2]

If the issue of health accessibility means anything to these actors - anything at all - they should be filmed on camera talking about doing the "Harry & Louise" ad, and what has changed for them - in their minds, if anything, beyond cashing a paycheck.

For me, too, there is just a really bad vibe to this vapid revival of the fictional "Harry & Louise" characters. Also a really bad vibe to the current top secret (you'd think) legislation being worked on -- I don't care a damned about bipartisanship when bipartisanship means that the healthcare companies get an equal say in it with the American people. And probably get to preview what gets proposed first. Pay attention, voters. No one works for us.

[Gmoney1]

they want to stay under that rock - let um - we're moving on -