Health-Care Fight Brings Back Ad from Clinton Years

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

SAN FRANCISCO – Harry and Louise, the couple whose television ads derailed the Clinton health care plan, are alive and well and living in California.


Last week, opponents of a health care-related ballot measure here rolled out a TV ad that is strikingly similar to the commercials that insurance companies used to great effect a decade ago.


“It is indeed the reincarnation of Harry and Louise, only older and fatter,” said a columnist for Ad week, Bob Garfield.


The spot shows a graying couple at their dining table discussing a referendum on the November ballot. The measure, known as Proposition 72, would require many California businesses to subsidize health insurance for their employees.


The man, who is standing, plays the wide-eyed innocent. The woman, seated in front of a laptop, sets him straight.


“So, a ballot measure to cover the uninsured,” the man asks, clutching a newspaper.


“Prop. 72 is not just about the uninsured,” she replies. “Could force us into a new state-run health plan.”


“But we have good coverage,” the man protests.


“Government bureaucrats decide what’s covered by the state plan and how much workers and businesses pay,” the woman adds, as ominous music plays softly in the background.


The 30-second ad closes by suggesting that the proposal could drive health care costs even higher.


The legislation at issue was signed last year by the then-governor of California, Gray Davis, two days before voters moved to replace Mr. Davis with the current governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Business groups, which say the measure could cost thousands of jobs and force as many as a quarter of all restaurants in the state to close, gathered more than 600,000 signatures to place the proposition on this fall’s ballot.


Mr. Schwarzenegger is opposing the measure. He says it will hurt California’s business environment at a time when he is trying to win back companies that have left.


The ads have infuriated proponents of the legislation, including labor unions and health care workers.


“It’s real disturbing to our members that there are folks out there that are willing to just blatantly use actors to mislead the public,” said a lobbyist for the California Nurses Association, Donna Gerber. “It really is an insult to our political process.”


Ms. Gerber said that making big employers cover their employees will help relieve cost pressures that have been increasing premiums for those who already have insurance.


“It is truly a lie to say that having Wal-Mart cover their employees for health insurance is somehow going to negatively impact this current healthcare system,” she said.


One of the creators of the new ad campaign, Francis Schubert, defended its accuracy. He also denied the new ads are based on the Harry and Louise model.


“I don’t think it is evocative. It’s only evocative in the context of a man and a woman talking about health care,” said Mr. Schubert. “Health care is one of those issue that you talk about at home with your spouse.”


Mr. Schubert, who was a partner in Goddard Claussen, the firm that created the 1993 campaign, said focus groups picked the current ad as one that “resonated very well.” He said opponents of the proposition plan to spend about $15 million to defeat the measure.


A professor at the University of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, said the initial Harry and Louise spots, which were run by the Health Insurance Association of America, only had an effect once politicians and the press started debating them.


“They sucked the press into thinking they were having an effect because Clinton attacked them,” said Ms. Jamieson, who studies political communication.


The sight of an anxious suburban couple expressing concern that their tranquil life could be disturbed by a new government program seemed to work, whether directly or indirectly. “These are powerful themes. If they’re unrebutted, they’re likely to be believed,” Ms. Jamieson said.


The initial Harry and Louise ads have spawned both imitators and litigation. In 2002, a group favoring stem cell research, CuresNow, worked with Goddard Claussen to produce an ad urging Congress to vote down a bill aimed at restricting human cloning. The ad agency used the same actors, Harry Johnson and Louise Clark.


The Health Insurance Association of America sued CuresNow and the ad agency in federal court, alleging that the Harry and Louise motif was the insurance lobby’s intellectual property.


The actors later sued the insurance industry group, saying that it was continuing to use their images without permission. Both lawsuits were settled before trial.


A group favoring the cloning ban produced a radio ad featuring a couple named Harriet and Louis fretting about the dangers of human cloning.


The couple in the latest ads seems fairly well-to-do. The computer on their table is a sleek Apple Powerbook. However, Mr. Schubert said the new ads are supposed to depict an average California family. “We were looking for Fresno,” he said.


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use