I am clearly missing the context.
I take some comfort in the fact that so did Mary Katharine Ham – but this is not the first time that a strange ad that neglects to explain what it’s all about has surfaced in Oregon. I suspect that there’s a message there somewhere; it’d be spiffy if the people making the ads made that message clearer. Or even mentioned it in the first place.
PS: I am perfectly willing to believe that this is actually a brilliant move on the ad company’s part, assuming of course that there’s compelling evidence that supports that theory. I just don’t see how this convinces a 26 year old to spend $2,000 a year on largely-unnecessary healthcare when the alternative is for him or her to get $200 less in tax refunds.