Hollywood does healthcare
Proponents pushing for an overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system have gone Hollywood, calling in some All-Star acting talent to help push for a government-run insurance plan. The two-minute video (see below) features Will Ferrell in a mock public service announcement in which the actor sarcastically calls insurance companies the real victims of the current healthcare system. Ferrell is joined in the black-and-white footage by television actors from such series as House, Scrubs, ER, Reno 911, and Mad Men.
The video does include misleading numbers, such as the suggestion that 80 percent of the public supports a government-run insurance plan. As the Senate Finance Committee continues its very routine and very boring markup of a key healthcare bill, proponents hope the glitz and glamour of Hollywood will sway the public toward a public insurance option.
More than 2 million people watched the video within its first 48 hours of release. Hollywood often descends on Washington to testify before congressional committees, lending their “expertise” on an amazingly diverse range of subjects. Congressional staffers are often puzzled at how these action heroes and comedians know so much about arcane pieces of legislation. Of course, the real reason they come to Washington is to help shine the spotlight on a particular issue—while also conveniently shining a spotlight on an actor’s own upcoming projects. With this current healthcare video, one wonders how many of these well-paid actors would depend on a public insurance option?














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top44 Comments to “Hollywood does healthcare”
This is just a question. A couple years ago, Will Ferrell was on the news making some extremely bitter or hateful sarcastic and uncivil comment or something about President Bush but I did not take him seriously and did not take careful mental note of it. Does anyone recall what that was or remember it?
Report comment to moderator
Its always amazing the number of Hollywood celebs who volunteer an opinion or expertise about so much beyond acting, singing. Most of them barely got out of high school; few went on to college. The only thing most might be experts at is waiting tables which so many did prior to their “big break”.
James Woods (MIT) and Sigourney Weaver (Yale) are the only college educated folks in filmdom I can name right now. After the disastrous “Land of the Lost” does anyone give Ferrell any credibility?
Report comment to moderator
Joel, I think Bush was to Ferrell what Sarah Palin is to Tina Fey: a real moneymaker.
Report comment to moderator
But it’s Hollywood people….land of the believable. So when Hollywood says 80% of Americans prefer the public option, we have to believe it right? Wrong as usual but people will use this little spoof as a means to get Obamacare passed, the public option firmly in its place, illegal aliens able to get free health insurance with tax payer money and tax payer money going to pay for millions more abortions every year.
After all Hollywood says 80% of us prefer this option.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a well-done, effective spot. The truth is, Hollywood writers and actors are more effective communicators than most politicians and media analysts.
Report comment to moderator
I just did a quick search and, actually, there are quite a few college graduates in filmdom. Just to name a few:
Kris Kristofferson (Rhodes Scholar)
Tommy Lee Jones (cum laude Harvard)
Eva Longoria
Will Ferrell
Maggie Gyllenhall
Kevin Costner
Ashley Judd
Natalie Portman
Denzel Washington
Tim Allen
David Duchovny (m.a./began Ph.D.)
Susan Sarandon
Jennifer Garner
Lucy Liu
Paul Simon
Jodie Foster (magna cum laude Yale)
Forest Whitaker
Alan Alda
Edward Burns
Chevy Chase
Report comment to moderator
Anybody who is convinced on a position because an actor endorses it should have their right to vote stripped.
Unfortunately, there are many voters who know more about the contestants on SYTYCD and DWTS than there are voters who have read any part of the proposal for health care reform that are being floated.
Maybe we can have the Republicans trot out Gary Sinese, Chuck Norris, Patricia Heaton and Kirk Cameron to balance the debate.
Report comment to moderator
Gary Sinese-honorary degree from Amherst
Chuck Norris-10th degree black belt in Tang Soo Do, 8th degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do
Patricia Heaton-B.A. drama
Kirk Cameron-graduated from high school with honors
Granted, being a film star doesn’t give someone intellectual credibility (Rep or Dem). However, as American citizens, the film community has every right to express their view. And, I don’t think a college education is required in order to have an opinion as a Democrat/Republican/Libertarian or none of the preceding. If that were the case, the majority of citizens would have to remain silent.
Report comment to moderator
Sinese, Norris, Heaton, and Cameron. Hmmm, the conservative list is kinda short, and lacks a certain je ne sais quoi, doesn’t it?
Of course, Chuck Norris can beat up Jodie Foster and Forest Whitaker — at the same time — so maybe it’s not quite as lopsided as it first appears.
Report comment to moderator
This clip is typical and THAT is sad.
1. It’s repetative style presumes the ignorance of the audience.
2. It’s stragy is simply to demonize others through tongue-in-cheek disingenuous emotional appeal.
3. It is mockary, rather than respectful or intelligent.
4. It is rooted in distortions of the opposing side and total disrespect for those who advocate the other position (very typical of the left).
5. The last line drips with disdain for conservatives base on a distorted straw0man presumption about them.
For anyone to think it is “well done” says a lot about the low level of standards we have for effective communication these days.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, there are bright folks out there. In all stages of film production. There are also idiots. They go to Havana and kibbutz with a brutal dictator. They come back to the USA and opine about climate change and global warming. There are folks meanwhile who’ve studied climatology and meteorology extensively who insist the data we now have is at best inconclusive.
As Laura Ingraham titled her book “Shut up and Sing” (referring I believe to Barbra Streisand and others who venture well beyond their expertise lane).
Report comment to moderator
I am unable to view the clip due to my system. However, I honestly think that many of the above criticisms could be leveled at the opposing party as well. I don’t think that liberals have a monopoly on repetition, demonizing, mockery, distortion, disrespect, disdain and presumption. People are people.
Report comment to moderator
My #12 post was referring to #10.
Report comment to moderator
#10 – “It’s stragy is simply to demonize others through tongue-in-cheek disingenuous emotional appeal.”
Joel, I believe the word you are looking for is ’strategery’.
Report comment to moderator
#12 – “…many of the above criticisms could be leveled at the opposing party as well.”
That’s easy to say, especially if you have not even seen the clip. Which ones? Your comment is too vague a generality. Why the need to make sure all blame is shared equally? Sometimes an equal share of the blame is just not appropriate. Do you have some specific examples, HopeSprings?
Demonizing the opposition is indeed a tactic common to all sides and anecdotal examples can be found by all. But I do not believe that this type of advocacy is as typical on the right as it is on the left–especially the Hollywood left. This is just too cynical agaisnt the opposition for those who support the Party that is in full power. The right can be blamed (and is) for some things, but it is best to take such matters on a case by case basis for the sake of fair-mindedness.
What I have noticed is that the demonizing of the opposition is something you find all too common on ELECTED Democrat and liberal leaders and among the liberal masses too. From the right, you have to find such examples among the masses or among private pundits because elected Republican and conservative leaders tend not to make as many blatant hate-based statements about their opposition.
Disagreeing with the opposition with respect and honor is more missing on the left than on the right in my view. This was obvious when Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas were nominated. The right has NEVER been so vicious and deceiving to and about a liberal nominee. Conservatives regularly get falsely accused of being racist and heartless on purely political ground, even by past Demcorat President, no less. This would never happen the other way around. The polarizing comes more from the left in my view.
That’s my observation and I could supply more examples if requested, but not now. I have to get busy on other things.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I have not seen the clip, but “disagreeing with respect and honor” is quite frankly, all too often MISSING. I’m sorry, but there is no high ground to be claimed. You are entitled to your view, of course.
Report comment to moderator
Joel: Good summary (#10) and response (#15). Unfortunately, blindness reigns in our culture.
Report comment to moderator
“As Laura Ingraham titled her book “Shut up and Sing” (referring I believe to Barbra Streisand and others who venture well beyond their expertise lane).”
But wouldn’t this apply to everyone?
Shut up and grade papers.
Shut up and body build.
Shut up and build houses.
Shut up and plow fields.
Shut up and take the kids to the park.
Shut up and whatever.
So, who are the “experts” that get to have a say?
Report comment to moderator
What, Chuck Norris, gets brought up and this hasnt turned into a Chuck Norris blog yet? Man, I’m impressed.
Norris’ tears cure cancer. Too bad he’s never cried.
Report comment to moderator
#19 Uh-oh, here come all the “Chuck Norris facts”!!
#18 I’m inclined to think some matters which call upon a higher expertise should be left to those with that expertise. They can advise and educate the rest of us. But truly, issues of war and peace are too important to leave with diplomats and generals.
Report comment to moderator
As I said a few days ago:
Shallow celebrity idols influence the the worshipful voting public. Absolutely nothing makes most of these “beautiful people” qualified to discuss much of anything except the script in front of their faces, but that has never kept them from opining on all matters political, nor has it kept the vapid masses from lapping it up and following their lead. Tools to be used by the powerful elite as a bully pulpit using the easily led tools to get them where they want to go.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner – Glenn Close went to William and Mary.
Report comment to moderator
You can reject the ad because the lines were spoken by actors instead of actuaries. But then, you should perhaps listen to Wendell, a former insurance executive and lobbyist:
http://www.prwatch.org/blog/35267
Report comment to moderator
And Jon Stuart also went to W&M.
Report comment to moderator
Survey USA says its 77% favored a public option in mid-August. That was one point higher than the Wsj-MSNBC result for the same question a month earlier.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693
Interestingly, that’s about the same result as for doctors, according to a very recent poll of 2,130 doctors by Mt. Sinai Medical School
http://www.californiahealthline.org/Articles/2009/9/15/Poll-Finds-Majority-of-Physicians-Back-Public-Option-in-Health-Reform.aspx
Report comment to moderator
Ad Hominem Circumstantial
Tu Quoque
===
The video is propaganda, not an argument. As propaganda, it is effective because it is clever, smart, uses likable people, and appeals to the prevailing cynicism of American discourse.
Will Ferrell (whose website Funny or Die was responsible for the project, I believe) was not responsible for the crude message about conservatives at the end of the video. Whoever reposted it to Youtube added that.
I don’t know where they got the 80% number. The highest I’ve ever heard before is 75%. The polling data depends on when the question was asked and how the question was phrased.
The most recent from the NY Times, is that 65% of Americans would favor “the government offering everyone a government-administered health insurance plan like Medicaid that would compete with private insurance plans.”
I also think it significant that 73% of doctors favor a public option. This strongly gives the lie to the claim I’ve seen repeated by posters on WMB that doctors are against the public option because they fear it would so underpay them that they’d be forced out of business.
Report comment to moderator
See Scroop Moth #25. I missed her post while I was typing mine.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko: ” As I said a few days ago:
Shallow celebrity idols influence the the worshipful voting public. Absolutely nothing makes most of these “beautiful people” qualified to discuss much of anything except the script in front of their faces, but that has never kept them from opining on all matters political, nor has it kept the vapid masses from lapping it up and following their lead. Tools to be used by the powerful elite as a bully pulpit using the easily led tools to get them where they want to go.”
I’m assuming you are also referring to former senator George Murphy (song and dance man), President Ronald Reagan (actor), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (body builder/actor), former U.S. ambassador Shirley Temple Black (singer/dancer/actor), former congressman Sonny Bono (singer), former governor Jesse Ventura (wrestler), former mayor Clint Eastwood (actor/director), and many others.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone else find it ironic when millionaire actors complain about others making too much money compared to their contribution to society?
Report comment to moderator
The difference seems to be that millionaire actors aren’t afraid of paying more taxes in order to provide health care to people who need it.
Report comment to moderator
“The difference seems to be that millionaire actors aren’t afraid of paying more taxes in order to provide health care to people who need it. ”
If they really cared about paying for other’s healthcare it would be more effective to do it directly. Otherwise I can only assume what they actually want is for other people to pay for healthcare.
Report comment to moderator
Other people? They know that they are in the bracket for which Obama said he would raise taxes — those who make more than $250,000. They know they will be paying for it.
And yet they seem not to mind.
No it wouldn’t. That’s like saying “if you really cared about paying for national defense, it would be more effective to do it directly.” There are some jobs that require a system-wide approach. And while it’s a nice red herring to talk about how people should individually be generous, private generosity is clearly not sufficient to address America’s health care problems.
I do not think you are seriously suggesting that our system could best be fixed by having every wealthy actor buy health insurance for five lower-middle class families.
Report comment to moderator
I’m suggesting it as seriously as you’re suggesting millionaire actors care more about people’s health insurance than other rich people.
Report comment to moderator
They obviously care enough to make advocacy videos about it.
Report comment to moderator
Well I guess that settles it then. If you make an advocacy video, you care more about something than someone who’s been involved with it their whole life.
Report comment to moderator
#16, HOPESPRINGSETERNAL wrote; “I’m sorry, but there is no high ground to be claimed.”
This is a patently untrue statement. I think it is morally lazy thinking too, with all due respect. Today, moral neutrality actually sounds popular but it is not a healthy mindset, in my view. There IS such a thing as higher ground in all these debates but to see it, we must practice critical thinking without necessarily being critical people.
This thinking is similar to that which gives rise to giving up. Let’s just give all the kids in the class the same grade, stop keeping score in sports and stop all comptetion in society. People actually think this way.
Higher ground goes to those who tell the truth and we must seek that ground in earnest and reward it whenever we see that higher ground rightfully inhabited. Don’t put all morality or all politicans in a moral blender!
Report comment to moderator
HOPESPRINGSETERNAL, I think that my response to you above was a bit strongly worded for the points you are making. So it is not personal. I was using your comments to react to a larger trend I see these days that you may or may not advocate. I just think we need to be careful about equalizing the oral significance of all parties, ideas, politicians, movements, messages, and people. There are important differences but reasonable and decent people can disagree on what those differences are.
Report comment to moderator
I meant “moral” not “oral.”
Report comment to moderator
Sone insurance companies may deserve criticism, but this form of it is snide, cynical and distorted. The most destructively greedy group in this process may well be the trial lawyers who offer nothing in terms of health care but take out a ginormous abount of the pie (I learned the word “ginormous” from a junior high girl at my church)–like $250,000,000,000. That Obama’s plan refuses to deal with tort reform is the number one reason not to take it seriously–because it is not offered seriously. Why won’t Hollywood do a clip like this TRUTHFULLY unmasking the greed of the trial lawyers?
Report comment to moderator
JOEL — Defensive medicine costs 2 percent of healthcare spending. Insurance companies take out 20% of premiums for their share, and that doesn’t include the bureaucratic costs they force on doctors and hospitals.
If we eliminate the greed of trial lawyers, which is often equal to the greed of the insurance company’s defense lawyers, that doesn’t eliminate the costs that are at the root of malpractice. Those costs are the injury caused by malpractice itself.
Are you morally certain that without the right to sue, medical error will decline?
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark, I appreciate your answers. We are both believers and should be able to discuss these things reasonably.
Originally, on this thread it was implied that actors are uneducated, therefore, apparently they should not be listened to. Obviously, that was not completely true. Then a book called “Shut Up and Sing” was cited implying that entertainers should, well, entertain, not get involved in politics. Apparently, this did not apply to President Reagon or Governor Schwarzenegger et al.
Granted, celebrity does not always equal intelligence, but it does not necessarily equal ignorance either. I’m trying to find a balance here. I wonder if Republican actors had made a video, would it be so roundly criticized?
Quite honestly, I’ve found many of the comments on these blogs (from Christian Republican conservatives) to be disdainful and, actually, quite rude. However, I realize that there is a need to sift through and find truth, even if the tone isn’t to one’s liking.
I also think there is a danger for believers in too closely identifying themselves with a particular party. We really have one association, with the King of Kings.
Report comment to moderator
Hope Springs – Republicans are not generally in the habit (there are exceptions) of using the celebrity bully pulpit the way the Dems are in the habit of using it. Some celebrities turned politician are more successful than others. But a large number of them are opining on things they know nothing about.
One time Julia Roberts opened her mouth with an opinion that reflected her ignorance and shallowness. Time magazine thought this was a newsworthy event in quoting her. I wrote a letter to the editor saying that if I cared what Julia Roberts had to say about anything, I’d read People magazine. One week later she was on the cover of Time as being at the top of her field. Again, why that’s newsworthy, I don’t know. It belongs in the entertainment magazines. But more and more, news is turning into infotainment.
I will (for your benefit, Hopesprings,) revise my statement: Actors should be more concerned with the script in front of their facees, unless they intend to run for some elected office. In which case, they are free to open their mouths and remove all doubt as to whether or not they are fools. But, foolish or not, there are still the idol worshipping public who will worship celebrity idols and the cult of celebrity because they can’t think for themselves. That’s what many who use their celebrity to make a point are counting on.
Report comment to moderator
You make some reasonable points, Klasko. Yes, I agree, attaching validity/truth to statements solely based on the fact that the person making them is a celebrity is silly. Now…a celebrity as an American citizen is entitled to their view, just as a farmer, teacher, butcher, baker, candlestick maker is entitled. And…being in films doesn’t make a person politically ignorant either. But, I have to agree, there exists a cult of celebrity. And that’s why politicians, I imagine, like the Sean Penns, Chuck Norrises, Gary Sineses and Will Farrells to sign up for their team.
Report comment to moderator
In the last sentence of #43, change “like” to “want” for clarity.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!