Sad Ads in Health Care Reform

I’m not going to go on and on about why health care reform is needed. If you’re an American, you know it was a major issue in the 2008 presidential election. Reform bills are fluttering around congress as we speak. Everyone has a right to comprehensive health care coverage so that they can choose to do what is best for their health regardless of their financial means. The health care reform needs to protect this right to choose – and this time, I’m not just talking about reproductive health care.

But, being me, I’m mostly going to talk about reproductive health care in particular. One of the huge issues on the table is whether this new health care plan would cover abortion services. Some don’t even want it to cover family planning services. Obviously, the pro-choice stance (and I stand behind it, 100%) is that all reproductive health care should be available, and women should be able to choose to have a pelvic exam or STD testing or an abortion if they deem it necessary. It’s a women’s right to her own body, and the government should be protecting the privacy of her decisions. If the reform will cover some medical care, women’s reproductive care should in no way be excluded.

What I really wanted to talk about is how stupidly both sides are going about their campaigns. Both are fixating on youtube and national television to advertise nearly identical ads for and against the health care reform. I’m an advocate of the “mute” button, and I can’t tell the two ads apart without the sound on. Both involve an older husband & wife pair milling around their kitchen, sitting at the table for breakfast, looking nervous and upset. They talk about why health care reform is necessary or the end of civilization as they know it (respectively) and then they agree with each other and assure each other that the public won’t let the opportunity for reform to pass or be defeated (respectively).

First of all – they just generally aren’t good ads. Anyone who’s so shallow-minded as to be convinced by one would be as easily convinced by the other. I would suggest to the agencies running the ads that they attempt to always have their ad shown last, so the impressionable viewers are left believing the last thing they hear.

Secondly, I’d like to talk a bit about the anti-health care reform youtube clip specifically (which you can see here.) This ad is being run by the Family Research Council, which describes itself on its website as a defender of “Faith, Family, and Freedom,” and absolutely they defend them in that order. The FRC’s defends Faith by promoting government funding for religious organizations, decriminalization of hate crimes, and the more rational and laudable promotion of “religious liberty for people of all faiths and no faith.” Family is defended by the rigid definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman and, of course, by criminalizing abortion. Freedom is defended by…hm…well, by the freedom to express these indescribably conservative beliefs. They’ll defend their freedom – just not ours.

Anyway, they obviously have an enormous bias. Who doesn’t, nowadays? But let’s look at their ad more closely: as has been pointed out on The Rachel Maddow Show, the ad indicates that health care reform will take funding directly away from old people needing crucial surgery to provide abortions. We, the reform advocates, are trying to kill old people and prevent new life. While the only 100% effective way to prevent health problems is to die, health care reform isn’t working towards death for anyone. It’s working towards the improved quality of life, and that includes the elderly and the women who come to the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. In no situation would the government take money from that sad old man and wantonly hand it off to every woman with an unwanted pregnancy. The idea is that both people – both in equally dire situations – would be able to access care. The info on the youtube clip gives this gem:

“Congress will soon vote on President Obamas healthcare bill a bill limiting our choices to preserve life and expanding the choice to end one.”

The bill should expand choices to preserve life in every extent – including the lives of the unlucky pregnant women who just can’t have a baby right now (not to mention products of rape, incest, and fetuses with major anomalies. That’s a whole ‘nother ball game.)

Now, onto the pro-health care video. The video’s message “A little more cooperation, a little less politics, and we can get the job done,” is fine, if sounding (for good reason) like a cliche tagline. The problem was their tactic in choosing the actors. Most importantly, the actors aren’t very good actors. They’re clearly scripted and simply regurgitating the lines they were given that morning in hair & makeup. Only slightly less importantly, the actors are flip-floppers, and therefore their nonconvincing performance depends on which rendition you happen to be watching. In 1993, “Harry and Louise” appeared in this ad, that was just a little less desperate and absurd than the FRC’s current ad. They were clearly against health care reform. Then, in 2008, “Harry and Louise” appeared again in this ad, which advocated for health care reform through a soulless story of a friend being diagnosed with cancer (the husband’s response was not “that’s terrible!” or “oh, my god.” It was “but he’s covered?” as if insurance is the automatic cure for cancer.) Suddenly, the government could save them. Most recently, they returned for a third time in this ad, but I don’t even care anymore. These people can’t make up their minds. Why should I listen to them to help me decide?

Do your research, protect your rights. Don’t let a 30-second television spot make up your mind one way or another. Harry and Louise aren’t real, and neither are the defenses of Faith, Family, and Freedom which the FRC is claiming to throw up. Health care reform is necessary – learn it from the people around you, the stories you hear from your friends and family and relatives – and spread the word of mouth, which is much more important than the word of money in media.

Have a thoroughly satisfying day.