The Key Point: Harry and Louise destroyed the Clinton Plan in 1993. Their ads effectively stopped the Clinton Plan and turned the public against it. Harry and Louis could also do the same to Ryan Medicare Plan.
More beneath the fold
The fact is that the Ryan plan basically eliminates Medicare, turning it into a voucher system where participants would then secure coverage through private insurance companies. It basically puts seniors at the mercy of the insurance companies, who will most likely charge the amount of the voucher or even more for coverage.
But I'm not here to focus on the policy, but rather the messaging aspect. Both proponents and opponents of the Ryan plan will be creating messages to convince the public of their point of view. As most people here, including myself, are opposed to Ryan's plans, Harry and Louise come to mind.
Harry and Louise were that famous couple whose appeared in ads that destroyed the Clinton healthcare plan in 1993. Their ads focused on uncertainty, bureaucracy, and confusion. Their ads showed a middle-class couple in their suburban home. One ad showed them sitting at their kitchen table talking about the "loss of choice" and "coverage". The second ad showed the husband playing basketball outside their home where Louise explained how "community rating" made coverage too expensive.
Both ads were effective because they focused on several elements:
1) The loss of choice
2) Higher Cost
3) Loss of coverage
The ads came from the health insurance industry. But the ads used slick marketing to make it look like the "Coalition for Health Insurance Choices" represented the views of ordinary Americans, even though the Health Insurance Association of American was paying for it. Anyhow the ads raised doubt with enough people to derail the plan.
So, with the Ryan plan up for consideration, Harry and Louise provide the perfect couple to raise questions about it. What a Harry and Louise ad might show:
Sometime in the future:
Harry and Louise are back in their house sitting at the kitchen table.
Harry: My mother is now 80 years old and her medical costs keep rising. I looked at what Medicare used to cover and what her new plan doesn't.
Louise: The costs keep rising. Her savings continue to dwindle.
Voiceover: Congress is now considering eliminating Medicare, forcing seniors to deal with the insurance companies. Privatizing Medicare would leave them at the mercy of predatory insurance companies.
Louise: This was supposed to give Mom more choices. Now she's paying more for less.
That's one attempt at an ad. Here is another:
Harry and Louise are having their friend Mark over for dinner.
Louise: Mark's mother is getting older now and facing more medical problems.
Mark: Yes she's been battling arthritis and can barely walk. Taking care of her medical care is so hard. Now Congress is trying to make it harder by getting rid of her Medicare and making her get insurance.
Harry: What do you mean?
Mark: They want my mom to deal with health insurance companies. They want to give her vouchers that won't come close to covering the premiums.
Louise: Really? Making her spend hours on the phone trying to get claims paid, using loopholes to avoid paying for claims, making her spend valuable time trying to get care?
Mark: Yes. I'm worried about her a lot because she shouldn't spend her golden years dealing with these bureaucrats.
Harry: This just seems more confusing--and more expensive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both ads are just an initial attempt at framing the debate. What they do is at least is raise doubt, especially about cost. It also raises the issue of insurance companies taking advantage old people. A lot of middle aged people have older parents with health problems. So having to worry about a parent's healthcare is a major issue to them.
The messaging battle is extremely important. While proponents of the Ryan plan will try to make it look reasonable, it is the task of those opposed to make it look confusing, bureaucratic, burdensome, and predatory. It's great to talk about the "social contract", but the key is to make it look unworkable and burdensome for old people.
What do you all think?