In Sicko "fact check," CNN's Gupta falsely claimed his source's "only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University"
SUMMARY: After Sicko director Michael Moore said that CNN's Sicko fact-check "healthcare expert" Paul Keckley is "a person from a think tank group who is a big Republican contributor," CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta asserted that Keckley's "only affiliation" is with Vanderbilt University. Gupta continued, "We checked it, Michael. We checked his conflict of interest. We do ask those questions." In fact, as a caption accompanying Gupta's original report stated, Keckley is a "Deloitte Healthcare Expert."
On the July 10 edition of CNN's Larry King Live, CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta falsely asserted that the "only affiliation" of Paul Keckley, whom Gupta had quoted criticizing the national health care systems of France, Canada, and Cuba during a July 9 "fact check" of filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary Sicko, was "with Vanderbilt University." Gupta was responding to Moore's claim that Keckley was "a person from a think tank group who is a big Republican contributor." Moore also said that Keckley "has done business with [health insurance provider] Blue Cross, with [pharmaceutical firm] Aventis, with these other groups," and claimed that Keckley was affiliated "with a think tank that's connected to [presidential candidate and former Wisconsin Gov.] Tommy Thompson [R]." In denying Moore's allegations, Gupta asserted: "We checked it, Michael. We checked his conflict of interest. We do ask those questions." In fact, in Gupta's original report -- which King excerpted during his show -- the caption identified Keckley not as affiliated "with Vanderbilt University," but rather as a "Deloitte Healthcare Expert." Indeed, in addition to serving on the faculty of Vanderbilt University, Keckley is the executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions.
During the July 9 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Gupta presented a segment billed as a "fact check" of Moore's film, describing how Moore "fudged the facts." During the segment, he played two clips of Keckley, identified in the caption as a "Deloitte Healthcare Expert." During the first clip, following Gupta's statement that "[a] survey of six industrialized nations found that only Canada was worse than the United States when it came to waiting for a doctor's appointment for a medical problem," Keckley asserted: "That's the reality of those systems. There are quotas. There are planned wait times. The concept that care is free in France, in Canada and Cuba, and it's not." Keckley continued: "Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. And as a proportion of their household income, it's a significant number." During the second clip, which followed Gupta's statement that while citizens of countries with universal health care are subject to higher taxes than in the United States, "even higher taxes don't give all the coverage everyone wants," Keckley said: "Fifteen to 20 percent of the population will purchase services outside the system of care run by the government."
Gupta and Moore then appeared on the July 10 edition of Larry King Live to discuss Gupta's "fact check." After appearing on Larry King Live, Moore put several links on his website to back up his assertions to Gupta.
Contrary to Gupta's assertion on Larry King Live that Keckley's "only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University," Keckley is affiliated with Deloitte & Touche USA LLP, part of a global audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services group of firms. Keckley is the executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. The Deloitte Center for Health Solutions states on its website that "it delivers research on and develops solutions to some of our nation's most pressing health care and public health related challenges." As Moore noted on Larry King Live, the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions is also "connected" to Tommy Thompson. The center's website lists Thompson as the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions' independent chairman.
Keckley is also a Republican contributor, as Moore claimed. According OpenSecrets.org, Keckley has donated $8,500 to Republican candidates or party committees since 1990, including $1,000 to Sen. Bob Corker (TN), $2,000 to the Republican Party of Tennessee, $2,000 to Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN), and $500 to Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN). During that period, he has made no donations to Democratic candidates or party committees that have been reported to the Federal Election Commission.
Moore's assertion that Keckley "has done business with Blue Cross, with Aventis, with these other groups," is also accurate. According to Keckley's curriculum vitae, posted on Vanderbilt's website, from 1998 to 2002 Keckley served as chief executive officer of EBM Solutions Inc., which licensed software applications to "32 healthcare organizations in 2002 including Health Net of California, Blue Cross of Tennessee, Aventis and others." Keckley's curriculum vitae also lists him as a member of the Aventis Health Outcomes Measurement Committee. Further, Keckley's biography on the website of the Vanderbilt Center for Evidence-Based Medicine notes that he is "a frequent keynote speaker for national healthcare organizations including the AMA House of Delegates, National Quality Forum, The Medical Group Management Association, Disease Management Association, Blue Cross Association, American Association of Health Plans and others."
From the July 9 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
GUPTA: A survey of six industrialized nations found that only Canada was worse than the United States when it came to waiting for a doctor's appointment for a medical problem.
KECKLEY: That's the reality of those systems. There are quotas. There are planned wait times. The concept that care is free in France, in Canada and Cuba, and it's not. Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. And as a proportion of their household income, it's a significant number.
GUPTA: It's true that the French pay higher taxes -- and so does nearly every country ahead of the United States on that list. But even higher taxes don't give all the coverage everyone wants.
KECKLEY: Fifteen to 20 percent of the population will purchase services outside the system of care run by the government.
GUPTA: So there's no perfect system anywhere. But no matter how much Moore fudged the facts -- and he did fudge some facts -- there's one everyone agrees on: The system here should be far better.
From the July 10 edition of CNN's Larry King Live:
KING: Dr. Gupta, we have less than a minute, and we should clear up -- have you ever had an effect by the fact of who the sponsor is on what you report?
GUPTA: No. I, I -- have no -- no contact at all with the sponsors. They've never affected my judgment. We did the story, the Sicko fact check piece -- it was completely just -- just our own editorial pursuits on this.
MOORE: Except --
GUPTA: And --
MOORE: Except -- except, let me say this, the one expert that you had in the piece is a person from a think tank group who is a big Republican contributor. He's done business with Blue Cross, with Aventis, with these other groups.
I mean don't you have a right as a journalist -- or a responsibility, actually, to tell the public when you're using an expert, this person is a Republican, he's with a think tank that's connected to [presidential candidate and former Governor] Tommy Thompson [R-WI] --
KING: OK, we're --
[crosstalk]
KING: Sanjay, we have 20 seconds.
MOORE: He's with a think tank --
GUPTA: You know, his only affiliation --
KING: Hold it, Michael.
GUPTA: His only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University. We checked it, Michael. We checked his conflict of interest. We do ask those questions.
MOORE: I'll --
GUPTA: Whether or not we disclose it to you on the [inaudible] --
MOORE: I'll put that all up on the site, too.
[crosstalk]
KING: I'll tell you what, guys --
GUPTA: Please do. You can talk to me directly.
Moore "....he's a big Republican contributor" $8500 over 17 years are big contributions? Jeez, I contribute more to United Way than that and I thought I was small potatoes in their eyes. Guess I need to ask for a bright brass plaque.
That aside, and Gupta's mis-information aside, is there mis-information in what Keckley said?
Check the links. Moore debunks Keckley's spin here:
[link to www.michaelmoore.com]
Wow, the master filmmaker/editor defending his points!!! Am I ever surprised to find he was able to debunk his critic (at least in his eyes).
Then please point out where he is wrong.
Using your link, there are only two references to Keckley. According to Keckly "Health Care isn't free." Moore agrees with that point (never said it was free, but his literary liberty could lead a viewer to believe it was) . According to Keckly "15 to 20% of purchase services outside the system." Moore 11.5% of the British do so and a "substantial" amount of French buy complimentary insurance. How close do 11.5% and "substantial" come to 15-20%? I don't know, but I don't see in the information provided by your link where Keckley was incorrect in what he stated. Moore appears to be doing some creative "editing" with his responses by saying (to the effect) "because Keckley's statements don't agree with mine word for word, he in lying." Moore's arguments with CNN and Gupta may have more traction than the arguments with Keckley, but I don't see where Keckley has been debunked in the material offered.
"According to Keckly "Health Care isn't free." Moore agrees with that point (never said it was free, but his literary liberty could lead a viewer to believe it was) ."--oscar
So it looks like from your description that Keckly was indeed using a strawman fallacy. That is a debunking (of at least that point) if I ever saw it.
"Using your link, there are only two references to Keckley."
Nobody claimed that Keckley was wrong about everything. That's a strawman of huge proportions. You asked if Keckley gave any misinformation, and he did.
Actually, I take that back. Keckley was wrong about everything. There were only two items on Moore's site because the CNN segment only aired two points by Keckley. Which makes your rebuttal about there being "only two" items debunked all the more bizarre.
The point is that Gupta and CNN have an obligation to provide their viewers with context, and that context includes letting viewers know if their "experts" have an ulterior motive for their statements.
Gupta nit-picked Moore to death in his "reality check" piece, and actually had to retract a claim he made in it (Moore says in "Sicko!" that Cubans spend $251 per person on health care; Gupta claimed Moore said $25. He didn't, and Gupta admitted later he erred.).
I'd like to know if Gupta applied the same level of scrutiny with his own expert's two claims. Of course, the "claim" that Moore is hiding the fact that other countries pay for their health care through taxes by calling it "free" is just idiotic on its face.
But this "Fifteen to 20 percent of the population will purchase services outside the system of care run by the government" claim is truly nebulous. What does he mean by this? If someone buys a bottle of aspirin at the local pharmacy in Paris, or gets cosmetic surgery, is that purchasing a service?
You'd think, by the way he attacked Moore, Gupta would care about being this scrupulous with Keckley. Alas, no.
And Moore makes an excellent point - CNN challenged him extremely vigorously about what can only be described as minor disagreements about facts (Gupta says as much).
Where was this level of scrutiny leading up to the war?
Perhaps what he meant was that 15 to 20 percent of the population (who can afford it and would rather not go through the public health system) will go to private doctors.
Perhaps - but that's the point. How do we know what he meant? Why didn't Gupta hold him to the same level of scrutiny as Moore, and demand an explanation for an ambiguous statement?
One of the great points that Moore made in a letter (email) he sent to CNN was that Gupta is not an appropriate person to have been charged with doing the fact-checking. He's a great resource for medical news, but he's not a very good fact-checker.
Why did they give him that job?
Trying to say that the film says Health Care is free...for starters.
Haven't heard anyone talk about the money savings for companies who do NOT have to offer health care to their employees. I think that companies would be required to pitch-in to the government coffers. Does anyone know the set-up of the "Free Health Care" in other countries? Do the companies contribute?
Michael Moore is really prepared to battle the liars who have come out to dismiss the truths in this movie. Go get 'em Mike.
I do know this GM a few years ago said the cost added to a single car based only on the difference between what they have to pay for their workers healthcare in thier US plants as opposed to their Canadian plants was 500$
Businesses, like people, pay for health care out of their taxes. It's all built in to the tax system, so all they have to do is pay their taxes and their employees ALL have health care whenever they need it. Just like every other citizen in those countries.
And as somebody already pointed out, many companies have openly stated they would rather pay the taxes because it is significanlty cheaper for them that way, and their employees are completely cared for. I believe a list was signed not long ago and many manufacturers and companies like Walmart backed it. Plus companies like it because taxes are just part of doing business. They pay them and then don't have to worry about sick employees hurting their bottom line.
They've got the whole Michael Moore Larry King appearance on youtube if you want to watch it.
Here's a right wing response to sicko which has some decent points imo.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Nzk1NzNjZDVjYzQ5MzU0YTZjYzNjZmVkMzcyMjJmOTQ=
LEATHERHELMET:
Thanks for the link. Aside from making the point that national health care is "not free", because it will be paid for by taxes (something nobody really disputes), the biggest argument made by this National Review author should send chills through everyone's spine. Here's the excerpt:
"America has just one federal government. Sometimes the sensitive, caring, weepy Democrats run things; Sometimes the cold, racist, iron-hearted Republicans rule. Universal health care would mean that American medicine — from the Left’s perspective — now would be in the scheming hands of those who “lied us into war” and gleefully drowned poor blacks in New Orleans’ attics after Katrina.
If Hillary Clinton had nationalized health care in 1993, American hospitals and clinics would be controlled today by Dr. Dick “Double-Barrel” Cheney and his boss, Chimpy McHitler, M.D.If that doesn’t shiver the timbers of government-medicine supporters, they should visualize Dr. Rudy Giuliani with a scalpel in one hand and the universal health-care budget in the other."
-------
So, the point here is that we should NOT have any government program which seeks to ease the suffering of American citizens, because when the GOP is in power, the programs will be turned into another exercise in TORTURE CHAMBERS.
Thanks again, Leatherhelmet. The best argument put forward is that the GOP cannot be trusted to protect American's lives or health, cannot be trusted to properly administrate any program whose goals they do not agree with, and cannot be trusted to follow THE LAW (as any national system will be spelled out by statute).
You have described YOUR PEOPLE here. Is it an accurate argument? Do you agree, since you posted the link? Is America's greatest threat to life an limb the GOP in charge?
Torture chambers? Funny!
Looks like you are becoming a conservative my friend. ;-)
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
I take it you AGREE with the assessment in Tommy's link that the GOP, when in charge by virtue of holding majority, will show the same competence they showed with Katrina, and therefore any programs the government might have to address national calamities or to ease suffering would be useless.
I personally agree with this assessment ... it is right on the mark ... but how you might think this would make me now a "conservative", I cannot fathom. What is your reasoning here? Or is this another case of "kidding", being "sarcastic", or being "absurd" just for the hell of it?
If you were trying for "humor", I would remind you that humor requires something being FUNNY ... and there was no hint of anything funny in your comment.
Tex,
Your selective memory is fading, fast. If you think the goverment's incompetence and inefficiency started with the GOP majority you are sadly mistaken. Let me remind that until very recently Congress was in the grip of Democrats for decades - they are in charge of appropriating money. So their hands are equally as soiled as any Republican in the government's mismanagement and incredible wasteful and bloated historical bungling of nearly every program they administer.
To have them, any of them, in charge of health care is a scary thought indeed. Any and all other options need to be explored way before our government takes control of anymore than they already do.
Well, as Michael Moore argued, there are things the government CAN do competently, such as dispensing Social Security checks on time to the people who need it. So I wouldn't automatically conclude that any function the government takes over will be mismanaged.
Also, making health care into a national system makes oversight and control of the system much more possible. Just like any government department, if they do not do their job, the government calls them to answer for their failures, and explain what steps they are taking to address them. If funds are not spent appropriately, the government officials have to explain themselves. It makes legislating solutions or possible solutions to issues much easier.
It's not like this has never been done on a large scale by a modern government. We have examples of how it can be set up all over the world. If those countries can make it work, so can the USA.
Our current system is not working. Our choices are to either let that system continue to fail our citizens (including the 49 million people with no coverage at all), or to find a way to improve it. In my personal opinion, as long as there is PROFIT involved, you're going to have a system which does not serve the people. You'll continue to see premiums rise, and more claims denied for bogus reasons. You have a system only built to maximize profits, not help sick people. We'll continue to have the most expensive health care while being ranked a pathetic 37th in the world.
If the goverment doesn't do their job, the government calls on them for answers to their failures? Are you serious? Like the fox guarding the hen house?
Forgive me if I don't share your satisfaction with the tight and efficient government in this country. I see waste, fraud, abuse and lazy mismanagement every day from our government, both on the local level and the national. Just because they manage to get SS checks out on time is hardly reason enough for me to trust them further.
Just go to the DMV if you want to see ineptitude at work. Or any agency, you can see for yourself.
We disagree.
Here in Saskatchewan, auto insurance is government controlled. There is only way place to get your insurance and it is through SGI. However, that insurance is administered through private companies. So you go to your average insurance company, and if they are SGI acredited, you can get your car insurance renewed for the year. NOt only do we have some of the cheapest auto insurance, BY FAR, compared to other provinces, but I just got a check in the mail this year as well as a reduced rate, because SGI made too much profit last year.
So when people say to me government is so terrible compared to private I simply don't see it...and I live with it on a daily basis. we also have government phones and power. Again, it is significantly cheaper than the private alternative. Alberta privatized many of their utilities and car insurance and the prices doubled or more.
privatizing automatically means a profit for shareholders.
As someone recently pointed out, "DMV ineptitude" is a ridiculous cliche that simply doesn't hold water. The DMV works extremely well. As does the Postal Service.
Maybe where you live, that is true. I don't think you can make a universal claim to that.
The system here in Georgia was a complete train wreck. A lot of the problems were caused by a huge influx of residents from out of state like myself combined with an idiotic system and a small staff composed of the slowest moving people I have ever seen in my life.
I will spare you the details, but overall, it took me three trips to the branch and about 20 hours (19 3/4 hours were spent waiting in line or in the lobby) to get my license. Needless to say, my license picture, which was taken near the end is not at all flattering. I'd better wrap it up. I'm starting to get flashbacks.
As an aside, I actually have to compliment the Republican governor Sonny Perdue for doing a decent job of reforming the system since then.
Of course metropolitan areas have had major problems with both the DMV and Postal Service, but considering the task at hand, I'd say that the cliche about waiting in line for hours at the DMV (which I've never had to do anywhere I've ever lived) is a relatively minor complaint. Personally, I've had some problems with the Post Office, but considering the job that they have to do, I don't consider those problems to be a condemnation of the entire system. That was really my point.
Although I should add that waiting 20 hours in line is definitely not a minor complaint! People who lived in Chicago in the '70s and '80s can tell you nightmare stories about postal workers filling their basements with undelivered mail and mountains of letters and packages set alight under an overpass, but I still think these systems work amazingly well overall.
Tex,
Did Mayor Nagin have ANY part in the "suffering" from Katrina?
Have Democrats done ANYTHING to fix our S.S. system or Medicare/Medicaid, which Moore holds up as examples; ignoring universal agreement that they are both going to FAIL very soon?
Do you deny that Moore's repeated claim that universal health care would be "free" is a LIE?
In claiming that others "misrepresent" statistics, Moore MISREPRESENTS statistics. Under every socialized system wait times to see a "specialist" ARE long. He claims this to be a lie by citing wait times to see your G.P; and THAT is dishonest. Do you have any problems with HIS deceit? Do you want an honest and considered discussion? Or do you just want to get your way and will belittle and disregard all that does not agree?
The "Oregon Plan" worked fine, but liberals wouldn't accept the of the limits on coverage; they will bitch about any other working/workable system on the planet for the very same reason. They just won't "think" about that part until it's too late to think about it.
RESPONSES TO BWAHLER:
B asks, “Did Mayor Nagin have ANY part in the "suffering" from Katrina?”
RESPONSE: The town was hit with a catastrophic act of God. When the Federal Government has to declare a National Emergency, it is because what has befallen is beyond “the locals” to handle … or to be EXPECTED to handle. However, if you want to ignore Bush’s incompetence and focus instead on the local guy … or how about the Supervisor of Water Works? Somebody, ANYBODY, to take the blame off where it belongs: The Bush White House. Good luck in your blame game.
B asks: “Have Democrats done ANYTHING to fix our S.S. system or Medicare/Medicaid, which Moore holds up as examples; ignoring universal agreement that they are both going to FAIL very soon?”
RESPONSE: Democrats have kept both systems going, despite great obstructionism from the GOP. Both systems SHOULD be “about to fail” at all times … this way they are not extravagantly OVER funded, and adjustments can be incremental and small by comparison. Both systems have done great good, but both are in need of constant adjustment, which people of good faith can tend to. Bob Dole in fact reworked Social Security in the 80's to fix it to be strong for decades to come (at the time, it was "failing").
Doing the chores our government is asked to do is no different from any other job … plumbing, lawn care, auto maintenance. NONE of these is “fixed for good” never to have another problem … that is horribly unrealistic to expect, and only Rightwingers bring up problems as if government alone should be free of them, while the rest of reality is a continuing chain of dealing with problems.
That’s called a “STRAW MAN” argument … setting up an impossible standard that nobody expects or advocates, and then saying the program has fallen short of that made-up standard. It’s ridiculous.
B asks: “Do you deny that Moore's repeated claim that universal health care would be "free" is a LIE?”
RESPONSE: I certainly deny Moore has ever said universal health care would be FREE, except to a covered individual upon a hospital visit (it would be paid for, but not by the patient in cash at the time of the visit).
In Denver, Colorado on the Capital steps, Moore said, “After financing the Iraq war, politicians cannot say there is not enough money to fund a health care system similar to those in Canada and England. Clearly we have the money," Moore said above a roar from the crowd. That doesn’t say it’s “FREE”, does it? No, only those who claim Moore SAID universal health care would be “FREE” are the liars.
B asks, “In claiming that others "misrepresent" statistics, Moore MISREPRESENTS statistics. Under every socialized system wait times to see a "specialist" ARE long. He claims this to be a lie by citing wait times to see your G.P; and THAT is dishonest.”
RESPONSE: Why? One wait is bad, the other good?
B asks, “Do you have any problems with HIS deceit? Do you want an honest and considered discussion? Or do you just want to get your way and will belittle and disregard all that does not agree?”
RESPONSE: I stand ready to hear the arguments. Do you have one, any?
B asks, “The "Oregon Plan" worked fine, but liberals wouldn't accept the of the limits (sic) on coverage; they will bitch about any other working/workable system on the planet for the very same reason. They just won't "think" about that part until it's too late to think about it.”
RESPONSE: I stand ready to hear the arguments. Do you have one? Other than namecalling, speculation and mind reading? Oh, and the outright DISMISSAL of any other argument (such as certain limits on coverage being unacceptable)?
You're confused. Tex made a good point about the article you linked to. Your response makes no sense.
I have to laugh at your use of extremist language. Yeah right, Conservatives want to torture people through health care. That is laughable on the surface. Go see Al Queda in Iraq for the true definition of torture chambers.
My comment about you being a conservative is that you are against expanding a government program. You are in agreement with a lot of us. So my friend, you've gained lots of street cred. Your reasoning is atypical but welcome to the fold anyway.
;-)
You're still confused. You clearly have no clue what Tex's point was. Just call it a day and move on.
You are absolutely right; except for:
Actually, Moore REPEATEDLY disputed the FACT that health care is "not free"; and you sure think HE'S "somebody".
And, that while it was a bad decision, "lied us into war" is, well, a LIE.
And that Mayor Nagin had FAR more responsibility for DROWNING those poor blacks. (saying that ANYONE was "gleeful" makes you a pathetically miserable human being)
And Hillary's committee was ILLEGAL; it didn't "follow THE LAW (as ... spelled out by statute)".
And how THEY, not Republicans, "controlled" our failing "nationalized health care" (medicaid/medicare) for 8 years. If they couldn't even improve a LIMITED nationalized health care system, what moron is going to believe they could INVENT a UNIVERSAL one.
And how the Democrats can not be trusted to protect lives or health of babies who are only 3/4 born.
And how the Democrats can not be trusted to properly administrate any CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT and MEANING they do not agree with, such as;-the real TEXT of the 1st amendment -the written TEXT of the 2nd amendment-the PRINCIPLE of JUSTICE, NOT their personal "opinion" of fairness -the PRINCIPLE of genuine EQUALITY which also prohibits their remedial "DISCRIMINATION -the LACK of a single WRITTEN word to support an absolute, limitless right to abortion until the placenta is expelled-the freedom of "speech" to say things they don't "approve" of
Of course, Moore's "praise" of our S.S. system as a model, ignores the FACT that it is failing and is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. Add to that his invoking Medicaid as a "working" example of socialized medicine, and only a Vegas marquee could make it clearer that Moore is a JACKASS.
But other than these omissions, I somewhat agree with you.
Man, why are you guys having such trouble comprehending Tex's post? The part of his post that you're attacking him for is a quote from an article by a conservative columnist.
Could you redo that post? I find it easier to undertand when the author writs in complete sentences.
Grouch this, Oscar. When you gave the United Way contributions, you didn't do it with the expectation that they would vote your special interest agenda and make it the law of the land. You didn't do it with the knowledge that they would give your more access to legislators' time and attention than they would have to a non-contributing constituent.
Vanderbilt has a rep for promulgating industry spin as supposed legitimate "research." It's total bullcrap. I point you toward a "Vanderbilt" "study" done by to of its professors for the Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of America that supposedly showed that the mere presence of for-profit prisons promoted the reduction of costs in STATE prisons. There was never any causal factor established, only inferred by these academic tools. The truth is that after 9/11, 48 of 50 state governments were in serious deficit so they cut back on anti-recidivism programs in state prisons, thereby reducing costs. The researchers might well have found a supposed "correlation" between cost reduction and the color of state birds or the number of syllables in the respective Governors' names. They never established any causalty because it is extremely unlikely that there was one.
So was this study presented as industry flack? Not hardly. The dangerous for-profit thieving prison corporations repeatedly presented it in state legislative hearings as a "Vanderbilt" study when it was not.
Vanderbilt has no more credibility than does another whoring "academic" enterprise, the billionaire Charles and David Koch-supported George Mason University, which churns out similar crap to order.
Lastly, you attempt to make the point, Oscar, that the amount contributed was trivial. I had an argument a few years ago with a fellow researcher, with me contending that Democrats are more honest than Republicans. "The difference," she told me, "...is that Democrats sell out for chump change." Sure enough, two weeks later a bunch of Democrats from NYC were busted taking pissant bribes from CSC, now owned by mega-multinational prison corporation GEO Group (formerly Wackenhut).
It's not the amount that buys people off. It's the prospects of future "business."
By the way, if you're giving $500 a year, your hardly peanuts.
Yeh, my bad, I forgot that $500 was about what Gore contributed to charity a few years back.
Gore's office said that the vice president had given "more than $85,000 over the last five years to charity" and that the Republicans were in no position to criticize after they "had tried to slash money for education, health care and the environment" during the same period.
-from the Washington Post
Those are some good points, Bing. Republicans simply do not know how to govern in a democracy.
In other words, democracy is not an individual act it is a collective endeavor. This notion of rugged individualism, this every man for himself ideal, is at odds with democratic principles of cooperation, participation and empathy. Seldom is responsibility a burden to be carried alone. Responsibility is a need to be fulfilled, on behalf of society, by the most highly adapted person or persons.
For example, Martin Luther King didn't decide one day that he alone should be the vocal leader of the civil rights movement. No, his was a voice that resonated with people and he was elevated to leadership by people who desperately needed him.
It's an error of attribution that decrees self-discipline is the sole determining factor of fulfillment or ruin. Situational factors such as illness, accidents or plain bad luck also guide outcomes and that is why offering a hand up is the American way.
Yep, down playing natioal health systems in other countries as costing more and not giving good servce. 15 to 20% needing to seek medical services outside the system, is a good bit. Some info on the types of proceedures this includes probably wouldn't scan as well.
Gupta also made false claims about how Social Security was broke, in response to Moore's claim that SS is a prime example of good government.
Worse, he consistently cited "per capita" expenditures as a slam against foreign health programs, while failing to note that other countries' expenditures stretch much farther due to their lower costs-- exactly Moore's point in Sicko!
Gupta is blatantly using his medical authority as a cover for political criticisms of national health care. His repeated comments about "high taxes" as a rationale to deny universal health care is proof. It's extra-medical, and he's shameless.
The logical question, of course, is why Gupta would do this, and why CNN would allow it.
MMFA, here's an idea: track how many ads Big Pharm and Big HMO's buy on CNN in a typical week.
I would be willing to pay more for healthcare in the form of taxes, if it could be demonstrated I was getting a good return on my investment. I think many Americans would. To me, the bottom line is that healthcare cannot, must not, be run as a for-profit endeavor. What is the price of each live saved or lost? You KNOW the insurance industry Ferengis have got it figured out to the penny.
I think some sanity would come back into the system if they limit monetary damages and make it a direct pay system. In other words have the insurance companies send the money to the individuals and let them pay for medical services.
Why on earth anyone needs to pay $1,500 to over $3,000 for an emergency room visit as one relative of mine did recently is beyond reasonable.
Okey Dokey, now what about the unisured? How will they get care?
Here in Atlanta, Grady Memorial is on the verge of closing. It services largely poor areas and is no longer funded by the two metro counties adequately and is simply too expensive to run. It is only a matter of time until it is just gone.
I suppose the conservative answer is that it is survival of the fittest. Good ridance. Knowing this won't happen in their neighborhoods.
"Why on earth anyone needs to pay $1,500 to over $3,000 for an emergency room visit..." -AA
You kiddin me? You just skirted by the problem... YES... that is the problem that MICHEAL MOORE is alluding too in his film.... HELLO AA?? Is there any activity in that pea brain of yours???
You think your relative charged himself that amount of money for an emergency room visit?? Man, you can't be that stupid... can you?
I will take Gupta any day over Michael Moore.
Sue likes liars.... she doesn't like truth tellers... Sue likes it when people lie- it makes her feel good...
If i liked liars I would like Michael Moore and George Bush.
No you wouldnt apparantly you dont know the difference.
Sue,
Dr. Gupta is a respected and even handed medical correspondent. His pieces on CNN are very well done and his reputation is stellar.
On the other hand, Michael Moore is a whining arrogant agenda driven filmmaker/liberal activist whose defensive nature regarding his selective and clever use of "facts" in this film is just one reason to question it's complete contextual truthfulness.
I want to see this film from Moore's point of view, and then judge it after non partisan experts weigh in.
Then please point out where Gupta was right and Moore was wrong.
i see tommy never answered you, typical
I will answer you, with an example. Moore lauds Cuba's system without mentioning the WHO ranks them below the US in health care. Just one example.
Read the entire transcript of this program and you will see other errors pointed out by Gupta.
Wrong Tommy. The graphic in Sicko shows America at 37 and Cuba at 39. So - is that all you got? Pretty weak.
...and the fact that the greatest nation on earth only ranks two slots above a third world communist country in facilitating access to health care for it’s citizens doesn't give you pause? Let me tell you, the financial management of health care services in the USA is chaotic and bizarre. America has the best, I mean the very best health care that money can buy, but if you can't buy it you can die an early death. Uninsured people will prolong seeking medical care until they are extremely and sometimes gravely ill. These people often end up receiving inpatient medical care via entry through the emergency room. If said uninsured people have no money or assets to go after to pay their hospital bills these costs will be passed along to the insured and paying population, This drives up the costs of health services and consequently the costs of insurance premiums. These costs will be passed on to YOU TOMMY. YOU will pay for this. The uninsured suffer greatly because of lack of insurance. Often minor conditions are allowed to turn into something painful and/or deadly; and like I said the financial supplementation of this suffering is imposed on insured people or by people who can afford to pay for health services out of pocket. How do you feel about that? Now even those conservatives who don’t give a flying you know what about the suffering of strangers have to be concerned about their money supporting this very very expensive, stupid, and stingy system of health care provision. You should be as concerned as I am even if for different reasons. I can't imagine anyone being happy with the status quo.
Lynn, This has less to do with the costs that we pay or don't pay, or would or would not pay under universal health - but it has everything to do with the fact that I don't trust the government one iota to run health care for everyone in this country. They have not demonstrated that they are up to the task, they waste too much money, the bureacratic nightmares in every thing they touch is enormous, among other things.
You trust the govt. to do a better job than is being done now, that is your choice. I do not. Our health care system needs addressing and problems solved, but I am not of the mindset that govt. is the answer, sorry.
Your position is that government cannot do anything efficiently? Might I remind you that under Clinton, FEMA was reformed. James Lee Witt turned it into an efficient operation which perfomed very well. When Bush came in, he appointed cronies who returned it to its former incompetence and then some.
Whether it is a government operation or a private corporation (and BushCo is trying to meld the two), its efficiency depends upon who is in charge.
Mary,
I am not naive enough to either give all the credit or all the blame to the vast federal, state and local government to "who's in charge", if you are referring to the POTUS.
Both Republicans and Democrats have demonstrated their inefficiency and incapacity to run anything with much success. Until they do, my skepticism and cynicism remain firmly intact.........they can start with managing other people's money with far more care than they do now. If you're satisfied with that, more power to you and you are a bureacrat's dream.
I guess you answered my post.?..But repeated your talking point...you wanted examples of the government running a program efficiently. I gave you the example of FEMA under the Clinton administration, with James Lee Witt as its director.
Look, there is no point in arguing with a committed liberal about the effectiveness of government, or the worthiness of high taxation, for that matter - for they hold them both as near religious beliefs in their defensiveness.
If you think government inefficiency is a "talking point", then there is no point in furthering any discussion.
We disagree.
I am not a "committed liberal" as you assume. I am a thinking person willing to look at the situation without blinders on. You asked for an example, and I gave you one. Ideology is a hard thing to defend so my overall approach is to look at what works and what doesn't.
For the record, I don't believe I asked you for an example of govt. efficiency, my point was the overwhelming inefficiency and waste in govt. Does that mean every single entity is inefficient?, well, obviously not - any reasonable person knows that.
However, my point remains - until the government demonstrates a far better batting average than they currently have with our money and our resources, as far as I'm concerned, then my opinion is unchanged.
No you did not specifically ask for an example in THIS thread. But you did say "the bureacratic nightmares in every thing they touch is enormous" Notice the "everything"
I think we should be ready to recast our opinions and examine different health care proposals on their merits, as the current system is not working for many, many Americans.
Mary, you posted an example. Well, here are a couple of more. 1) The USDA (Dept of Agriculture) has more employees than there are farmers in the USA. 2) The Dept of Energy has more vehicles under its control than it has employees. If I had the time, I could dig up other examples of Government ineptitude and we could go around in circles all night. Government does some things relatively well (Roads, Mail, Defense (including police & fire)) and it does other things relatively clumsily (Katrina was fumbled from the National thru the State to the Local level as an example). Border Security is a farce and has been going back decades.Which side of the fence would National Health Care fall on. We hear reports of Medicare fraud now, would that not expand as the program expands?
It might. But this is where we need grouches like you to holler and push for more efficient operations. I don't think you can assume it won't work well. We do hear of fraud and abuse from time to time. On the other hand, many other countries have systems that work successfully. I'd love to see us try to get universal health care accomplished.
My Senators and Representative (State and Federal) are well aware of my real name.
Tommy, Medicaid and Medicare are highly efficient with no stockholders requireing profits, and just over 3% administration costs. The average health insurance company spends 30% on administration, to say nothing of profits that go into the pockets of those wealthy enough to own their stocks.
Maybe you don't agree, but I find it immoral that one out of every 6 US citizens have no insurance. It's immoral that some profit from the poor health of others.
Health care should be first on the list of burdons our entire society should bare in order to benefit our entire society. And in this case, it's clear that government can certainly do a much better job than any company.
Tommy - Who do you think runs Medicare? That was a pretty efficient system with only 1% administrative costs until bush gave away his Plan D program to the pharmaceutical companies.
And, the govt also doesn't do too badly with getting senior citizens their checks on the 1st of each month. I don't hear any uproar of those checks not arriving on time.
Tommy,
What do you think the answer is? And don't say work hard, some of the hardest working people in the world populate the classes of the working poor who have no insurance You've poo pooed what I think is a viable remedy. What's your suggestion?
Lynn,
It's always curious to me when I get accused of black and white thinking all the time when it comes to good vs. evil, not taking all the gray areas into consideration......however, when it comes to other issues many conservatives get labeled unfairly....
It's either/or - either you support universal health care or you hate poor sick people....either you support affirmative action, or you're a racist....either you support taxing the wealthy for poverty programs, or you just hate poor people again....either you blindly support all government handout programs, or it just shows how mean conservatives are and nothing but greedy corporatists. Talk about black and white thinking?
The point is there is no easy answer to any of these issues, particularly health care - but there are other options besides govt. takeovers. All parties should be involved - doctors, nurses, insurers, drug companies, people interested......but the solution is not automatically government, for everything and anything.
Tommy,
Now you're mad at me. I'm simply asking if you have considered any solution. BTW I never said I supported a government single payor system. Each government that has created universal access to health-care system has customized it to the needs of their particular country. We can do like wise. I wish people particularly Conservatives would investigate these various systems before dismissing universal access out of hand. Study the history of each of these systems, you'll find some suprizes. I am an advocate of universal access to health care. That can be achieved through cooperations between government and private industry. Moreover, wellness promotion should be the focus of any health care system and this can be done using what is called in my field as physician extendors.Nurse Practioners, Physician Assistants, Pharmacists can treat an ear infection or the flu as well as any MD,but you know what Tommy AMA curses and screams at the mention of this. Medication is overpriced and any attempt to have some cooperative purchasing agreemenet brings the rath of PHARMA. There are too many people attemtping seeking a financial winfall off of healthcare services. I'm sorry I don't think health care should be treated like you're selling a car, it's not just any commodity.
...Tommy juding by some of the loudest voices coming from the right there is a big segment of your bros that don't like poor people, you need to talk to them.
"but the solution is not automatically government, for everything and anything"
Except when its conservatives who want big government (local, state and federal) to regulate what we do in the bedroom, dictate what people can marry (Bill Clinton signed the act into law.. yes I know), impose theocratic legislation, eliminate contraception all together, restrict certain individual choices for straight women, gay men and gay women, the list could go on forever.
When it comes to commonwealth problems such as health care and social security, education, conservatives either want to cut it out completely or allow big private companies to tackle these problems while reaping a profit...
God I love relevant ad hominem attacks...
"...but the solution is not automatically government, for everything and anything."--Tommy
True. But, there are times when government IS the best solution. I think this is one of those times.
"All parties should be involved - doctors, nurses, insurers, drug companies, people interested......but the solution is not automatically government, for everything and anything."--tommy
I agree, but the problem is that each of those groups has a huge stake in the outcome and will fight to the end for a larger control or piece of the pie than what they really deserve. That is the nature of this negotiation.
A real solution can only be made by people with a systems engineering attitude and no stake at all in the outcome. Of course, politicians would never choose someone completely independent, they need their own preferences and worldview to be supported.
I can understand your skepticism and only hope that we can choose a leader wise enough to let non-partisan experts take a stark look at the system and see what we need to do to get us to where we need to be.
Excellent points, Lynne. The fact that some people are "refuting" Michael Moore by noting that we are ranked all of two slots above Cuba is amazing. Shouldn't we, who are so much richer and spend so much more, be just a tad higher than that???
And to those who say they don't trust the government to run health care, how do you explain the fact that so many government-run health care programs are ranked so much more highly than ours? The idea that government will do things badly and the market well is just NOT empirically true in all cases. (One case in point I would note is how much better most programs are on PBS than the networks, for example.) Moreover, it is, as Lynne said, a question of humanity and fairness - why should money determine who gets to stay healthy and alive?
Good points. And as a related example of how the private, for profit sector very efficiently and dispassionately screws the public at large, just take a look at the financial rape perpetrated by the student loan industry.
Who's bailing who out on that one? That's right, the government of, by and for the people. That's who.
I just love Republican economics; privatized profits, socialized costs.
If that is the case why do people from all over the world come to the United States for their healthcare? I mean, if it's so inferior to government run health care of other countries?
What a ridiculously ambiguous statement. Who comes here? Are they affluent, are they poor? For what services; elective, cosmetic, to get prescriptions filled? What?
We do have a fantastic health system in many ways. It's state of the art, it's administered by top-flight health-care professionals. But the distribution and access of care is in the grip of an infectious disease called profit first.
Exactly! And if we're going to talk about people coming here for treatment, we should also mention how many Americans are running to Canada for prescription drugs.
Or flying to India for elective surgery because it's cheaper to leave the U.S. for an operation than stay here to get it.
The overriding point here is the mindset of conservatives vs. liberals. Liberals inherently believe that government is the answer and the solution to most of our ills, healthcare included. Get the govt. more involved and in charge and that will fix it.
Whereas conservatives view excessive government as ripe for waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency. The smaller, the better.
We will never agree on who is better to fix our healthcare problems, but I cannot jump on the universal healthcare bandwagon.
I think if you look at the list of 36 countries that do better than us, most if not all have something in common. They have more involvement from government in their healthcare. They also by and large spend much less a portion of their GDP on healthcare than we do. Oddly enough, it seems that including the government has reduced costs/waste in their systems, which I would think good conservatives might get behind.
That liberals depend on government to solve societal ills is merely a Republican fabrication that polls well with the victory at all costs wing of the GOP.
It is predicated in any contract, in this case the social contract between we the people and the government we own, that both sides fulfill their responsibilities to the guarantee. Liberal policy flows from the broader context of participation, cooperation and empathy. The success of programs that promote the general welfare hinge upon the earnest effort of people to help themselves.
The very idea of dependency is a slap in the face to every salt of the earth, hard-working laborer who toils to make ends meet. Go ahead, maul the tenets of effective government, but it's shameful, and frankly unpatriotic, to hold fellow working Americans in such low esteem.
TOMMY:
WHO comes to the US for their health care? The masses, the indigent, the poor of other nations? Nope. Can't afford to come. Only the very wealthiest can afford to come to the USA and "beat the lines" in their own system by applying cash in our capitalist system.
When the airplanes start filling up with health-care seekers from the streets of Bangladesh or the tribes of Somalia, let me know. Until then, your "others come here" is a game for only the very wealthy, and proves nothing except the advantages of being wealthy.
Tommy,No one is contesting that the US has the best health care system. We have the best trained health practitioners and state of the art technology, so those outside our country can afford our care certainly come here and purchase health services. BUT a large segment of our own population cannot access this fantastic care because of lack of resources. As I said earlier, it's the best care that money can buy. You don’t trust the government to manage the delivery of health care or facilitate financing for the delivery of care, well I’ve worked in the health care industry for over 25 years and big business is doing a lousy awful job. Just imagine that a carton of milk would cost between $2 and $25 depending on where you live, or that highly trained professionals are conspiring to keep the milk from you altogether. It’s a system that is ripe for abuse. Health care providers negotiate payment with insurance carriers. They may charge $300 dollars for a test but will accept $175 from the insurance company as payment in full, now sweetie if you have that test and no insurance you will be charged the $300 bucks. Judging by your past post you either don’t believe there is such thing as the common good or you believe it equates to socialism. It doesn’t in my opinion. I think that we can pool our funds to secure the common good which allows us to reach the maximum of what our own hard work and capacity permits. Maintaining a healthy population is a part of maintaining and securing that. A healthy population is more productive. For instance let’s say that one of your uninsured minimum wage workers is ill. That minimum wage salary and lack of insurance keeps him from seeking medical attention, so he comes to work (if he doesn’t he doesn’t get paid) with what is now infectious pneumonia and he passes it on to ten of your other non-insured minimum wage workers and they all end up in the hospital. Productivity is almost halted and now you along with all of the insured and paying population will be forced to incur the expense of these 11 hospital bills. Wow Tommy, you’re going to get hit from all sides Mr. Businessman.
I have friends who live in the U.S. but have received state of the art care in Thailand. Do we really have the best?
Mary,
I've worked in health care for over 25 years and my daughter is a health care provider and it's damned good, althoug it's variable from hospital to hospital and health care practioner to health care practioner. People line up to come train in the US. We have the latest techniques and equpment, but if you can't afford to access it you're going to get defaulted to second tier care make no mistake about that.
Lynn,
bless you and your daughter. Nurses & other health care providers are some of the most caring people there are.
Thanks a lot, but FYI I'm not a provider my field of expertise is health services administration which gives me a front row seat to see just how messed up the health care finance system is. It's just a big bowl of mess.
I can't speak for Tommy, but maybe he thinks that those governments are more competent than the US.
Tommy: "I will answer you, with an example. Moore lauds Cuba's system without mentioning the WHO ranks them below the US in health care. Just one example."
Just one example of you not knowing what you're talking about. As you've already pointed out, you haven't seen the movie. If you had, you would know that Moore clearly shows Cuba's WHO ranking right below the US ranking. Why you think this is a good argument to make in favor of our health care system is a complete mystery.
I won't hold my breath for those other examples of Moore getting it wrong and Gupta getting it right.
You make a good point. The conservatives seem to want to attack Moore no matter what he does. If Moore hadn't shown Cuba on the list, then I would agree with them, but they really don't have anything since Moore did apparently provide that information to the viewer.
I will grant them that a third-world communist dictatorship without much modern equipment or even electricity is just about equal in health services to the greatest superpower the world has ever known. For what that is worth.
Moore's Sicko website put it well when they wrote this: "The fact that the healthcare system in an impoverished nation crippled by our decades-old blockade (including medical supplies and drugs) ranks so closely to ours is more an indictment of the American system than the Cuban system."
It's also interesting to note that it was CNN and not Moore who obscured the graphic to hide the Cuba rating on that WHO poll. Check out this link for the screenshot comparison:
[link to www.michaelmoore.com]
Sue,
I will prefer the truth to misinformation any day. I couldn't care less about the vessel that delivers it. In this occasion it turned out to be Moore.
Even though Gupta has been thoroughly debunked. I bet you probably hadn't eeven heard of Gupta prior to this.
So answer honestly: Is Moore wrong in this instance?
Moore may not be completely wrong but he uses the 47 milliion stat disingeniously. Out of that 47 million it has been shown that 10 to 14 million of that number are eligible for medicaid but failt to register. Approx. 17 million make over 75K and simply don't purchase insurance. The 47 million number also fails to recognize people who are without insurance for a short period of time due to job changes. Undoubtedly, there are people who work hard who are without insurance in this country and it is a viable issue. But, they are givning their arguments on false stats.
THe above figures are interesting. Do you have backup for your data?
SUE:
For WHAT? A date?
If "for accuracy", you simply show bad judgment.
That's OK ... the GOP today is MARKED by bad judgment, making one catastrophic decision after another, each with demonstrable harm done to America.
I'm betting you "take" a GOPer over a Dem any day, as well. All this means is that you are partisan to a self-destructive level. Sad to see.
It's shocking that a right-winger would favor a Republican shill for the health in$urance industry. Really shocking.
Man, Moore really does know how to make people look so silly. He really does go all the way and isn't afraid to stand up to anyone who says he is wrong and is a liar. That is unlike the silly liars on the far right who spew lies. Ask Bill O why he hasn't had David Brock on... or why the hate spewers dare not go up against the likes of Al Franken, Michael Moore and Media Matters... if you ask, you best cue up the crickets.
perhaps if we did not have the insurance companies siphoning off so much of the money that should be going to health care. and how about getting the bills from doctors that walked in for two minutes and then you see it on your bill for a hundred and fifty dollars?
Absolutely. I had an MRI done a few years back...the test took 10 minutes and cost $6000.
I'm not optimistic about our system changing. Too many people are making too much money on the status quo. They will bribe as many lawmakers as they need to...they have the bucks. Do you think it an accident that Hillary's plan was DOA, and then the paid attack dogs mercilessly hounded Clinton and manufactured his impeachment? Any future President who tries to reform healthcare will get the same treatment...hide and watch.
I'm not for socialized medicine but I will grant your point as I spent 5 minutes with a doc last month and 15 minutes with another -- just consultations -- $500 apiece. The system is a mess but I don't want socialized medicine as it can take away choices. I would like to see some new ideas in the arena of thought.
The best idea I've heard is the single-payer plan. As I understand it, the government becomes an insurance company. If you're part of the plan, you're guaranteed coverage, and you pay premiums if you can afford it. You still choose your doctors, etc., but the government pays for it instead of private insurance. The key is that you can't be refused coverage for a pre-existing condition. Anyone who wishes can still buy private insurance and totally opt out. Sure, it would take some tax money to subsidize, but it would cost less than killing Iraqis.
But, it won't happen, because it would put several big insurance companies out of business, and they won't allow that.
Is it mutually exclusive to have socialized medicine and the same degree of choice? Why or why not?
Open,Don't wait for an answer, it isn't coming. This we will lose choice if we have universal access to health care has been propagated by insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, the AMA and conservative ideologues who seem accepting of disparity in general. Those who work hard should have insurance/healthcare and those who don’t shouldn’t and the case is closed for them. Furthermore, some conservatives seem to only care if it affects their pocket books directly. Now Leather had to spend $500 bucks and now he concedes that there is a problem since it cost him his $500 bucks (it’s all about the Benjamin’s baby)
Man, even Leather is a victim of the capitalist Repub system he so adores. I-RON-NEEEEE!
Have you tried to get an appointment with a U.S. specialist lately? Typically, the ones I am calling in my small-to-medium sized Southern MSA are scheduling 8 weeks out right now. It's probably worse in the big cities. And people are saying socialized medicine brings long wait times, as if I'm supposed to be scared off by that? That's just too funny.
Just made an appointment with my Eye Doctor in mid-October. That's 3 months I have to wait for 15 minutes of her time.
The UK NHS is not perfect but we do not have huge medical bills for things like this. It is free at the point of service.
Speaking as a Canadian, I have just as many choices as you do. Nobody tells me what to do or where to go when I get sick. So I don't see where you get this "no choices" thing from.
I saw Sicko today and left the theatre nearly sobbing at both the injustice of the system and the tenderness of individuals. During a mid-day, mid-week showing in a suburban theatre in the reddest county in California, the house was nearly full, and definitely skewed toward the elderly set. I'm 51 and was clearly the youngest person there. I guess this shows you how younger people think they're invincible.
I've been ridiculously healthy all my life, and surrounded by healthcare professional relatives (two RNs, a Pharmacist, Dentist, Microbiologist), and the film confirmed what they tell me and will give me more empathy for their rotten mood days having to deal with this immorality, but now I'm terrified of the consequences if/when I get sick or become disabled as I age.
I usually cringe when Michael Moore pulls his grandstanding stunts, like when he tried to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in Fahrenheit 911, but to watch the faces of the disabled WTC workers when they were taken to Cuba just left me in little pieces on the floor, even reminding myself that it was set up for cinematic effect. At the end of the film, when Moore rhetorically asks us what kind of society we can be when we allow these things to happen, I was just dumbfounded.
This might be a little off topic, but I've rarely been so affected by a film. I can't think of an adequate punishment for anyone who would lie or try to varnish the truths of this film.
What a wonderful comment. I agree with you , I am a 60is retired healthy women who has those same fears as you. It breaks my heart how as a nation we do not take healthcare seriously. Well done by Michael Moore and CNN should be ashamed of themselves. I do however believe that this issue will never be corrected by either party as long as the Drug Companies, HMOs are as powerful as they are now.
Or maybe young people have, like, jobs or during the mid-day, mid-week have other stuff going on besides sitting through a movie? It is summer you know.
Re. Moore putting Congresspeople on the spot about why their kids weren't going to Iraq: you call that a stunt, but you also know that a deep truth underlies it.
Conservatives can't stand it when liberals with backbones prove their stupid stereotypes wrong.
I saw SICKO twice. This film exposes the health insurance industry as a criminal enterprise, looking to deny treatment to make more profit. Only a sadistic, sociopath could see this film without demanding the death of health insurance killers.
I don't like Moore. I don't like the way he debates, I don't like his movies. I don't like his TV shows.
But I generally agree with his politics.
What I can't understand is why CNN feels like it's THEIR mission to make a counterpoint to the things mentioned in "Sicko". Their normal way of doing things when something "controversial" is a hot topic (as if it was controversial to point out that the US health care insurance system is crap) is to invite someone with an opposite viewpoint, and have them argue their side's facts and opinions.
I don't think I can even remember the last time I saw ANY journalist on CNN actually take issue with what someone presents as facts. I would love if they did - I feel like it's a journalists responsibility to call out the BS that is said by those in power, those who make the decisions, those who rule.
But that doesn't happen. When did a journalist working at CNN last do a piece on the lies and inconsistencies presented by the current administration in the White House regarding, oh, pretty much everything they say and do? Has that EVER happened? At best, what I've seen is that a host/journalist invites some Democratic politician to refute the lies, with more or less success. The host/journalist stands to the side and pretends to be "objective", while lies, lies and more lies are presented by whomever happen to be the guests.
But THIS was apparently too much. No longer could CNN stand on the sidelines and let invited guests speak for themelves. No, NOW it was time for action! Refute some minor, rather inconsequential points in "Sicko", and paint Moore as a liar without credibility. The US spends $6k or $7k on each American's health care, while Cuba spends $251 or $229. WOW, Moore's numbers might have been off (well, he wasn't really, but he might have been) so it must be all lies! Nevermind that the larger point he was making (with numbers that if they were wrong, which they apparently weren't, did not significantly change anything) still stands.
Wow, he didn't point out that Cuba was #39 on that world health care list, while the US was #37. Nevermind that he DID show the list, but apparently he didn't point out strongly enough that Cuba was #39. WHO CARES! Are we supposed to cheer that the US is two spots ahead of Cuba, the country that apparently spends around 1/20 or less of what the US spends on health care? But true to form, he right thing to do in ANY US debate about anything is to compare ourselves to a third world country and point out that we're better than them. Hooray! We're ranked higher than Cuba! Well whoopde-fricking-doo. Never mind that we're ranked below 36 other countries. To NOT point out that we're 2 spots above Cuba is apparently REALLY bad.
And so on. CNN pulled out its "investigative journalism" for THIS - to show that some minor stuff in the movie might be seen as incorrect. Where is CNN when it comes to talking to the people that ACTUALLY MAKE THE DECISIONS? Do they do the same kind of journalism regarding the "facts "given by the White House about anything? Do they ever invite the CEOs and other executives from the health care industry and the health care insurance industry and ask them about the rising costs, and DON'T take their BS reasons for facts ("litigation drives up the costs", "the research drives uo the costs" and all the other standard responses, blah blah blah), but instead confront them about their lies and half truths?
Maybe they do. But if they do, I've never seen it. I can not remember the last time I saw, on CNN or elsewhere on TV outside of maybe "60 minutes", a journalist doing any kind of real questioning of where data presented comes from, or not accepting obvious lies for an answer.
For starters, how about having the balls to push for an interview with the President, where the journalist wouldn't be afraid to ask tough questions just because his White House press corps privilege might be revoked?
How about CNN do some real investigative reporting on the causes of our current health care insurance crisis instead of scrutinizing some numbers in "Sicko"?Fawltylogic: CNN was obviously looking to up it's ratings by trying to find fault with "lightning rod" Micheal' Moore's latest film- "Sicko".
Pathetic and transparent to anyone who follows journalism. Micheal Moore held his own though the doc was given the "edge" by the ever bland Larry King, as far as response went.
King did say he'd like to have them both back to discuss this important issue.. uh huh. We'll see.
I actually do like Moore's style. And have been following him for years. He's the kind of "rabble rouser" who will get attention, though to his credit he's fine tuned his approach and cut down on the stunts.
The thing is with "sicko" he barely scraped the surface of our horrible excuse for a health care system. The arguments that all the other western industrialized countries "pay" more in taxes is foolish. As Moore responded- all their citizens are covered, no one has to die due to lack of health insurance- medical care as thousands do in this country each year, no one has to go bankrupt because they can't afford their medical bills, no senior has to make the decision between food or meds, millions including children are fully taken care of, millions here, yes millions including children have NO health insurance.
And the premiums we pay for health insurance? I pay thousands a year, and have to pay more out of pocket expenses in all the tests and care my insurance does not cover.
It's crap.
Wake-up America. And CNN stop insulting our intelligence... again.
When Moore was on the Daily Show, he said King bumped him that day (scheduled for a full show) in order to cover Paris Hilton. That pretty much says it all for King's interest in covering import issues like this fairly. It's all about ratings and profit. Where have all the journalists gone?
This is interesting that we are speaking about this this. I just came back from a trip to Austria, where I fell down a mountain and went to the emergency room, with four x-rays and 2 hours and 400 euros later I was out. Add that up in American dollars about $650. They treated me very well and they new English. WOW!
If anyone is interested in learning what the candidates have to say about health care go to there websites. The best I've read is JOHN EDWARDS hands down.
I agree with you that Edward's health plan is the best solution because it is the most realistic. It could actually pass the Congress and be signed into law (with a Democratic president, that is) because it would allow for everyone to use Medicare but that would be a choice, so people could keep their private plans if they so choose.
It's very smart because with Medicare's low overhead, the private companies would eventually go away...but gradually, so their employees wouldn't be thrown out of work.
http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care/
It is the best plan for all the reasons you guys state and it has the advantage of telling the private sector to put-up or shut-up. He puts government sponsored health care in direct competition with privatized care. It's true market competition.
Come on wingers, let the market sort it out. Uh-huh, thought so.
I am outraged that CNN is NOW, all of a sudden, deciding to start "fact checking" stuff. They have no problem savaging Michael Moore over some irrelevant minutiae in Sicko, but just couldn't find the time to fact check the bullpuckey from the Bush Crime Family leading to war in Iraq. CNN is just one click above Fox in my book---and slipping fast.
You said What I can't understand is why CNN feels like it's THEIR mission to make a counterpoint to the things mentioned in "Sicko".
I can think of a few reasons ...
1. CNN was taken from its original (so-called) "liberal" owner and creator, Ted Turner, and handed over to the stockholders, who fired him in the late 90s.
2. CNN is a "news" channel ... and what's bigger news than a war? Covering a war means big ratings/bucks ... and if the Govt. detains your reporters, keeping them from covering the biggest story of the century, how do you get ratings?
3. Building on #2, the reporters were embedded ... which meant they covered exactly what the military wanted them to see, and were quite limited in what they were allowed to show during the link-ups ...
Wow. Gupta has managed to single-handedly display every single problem afflicting the dying media.
1) He feels he can comment and criticize a movie he clearly didn't watch. If he did, he wouldn't have been so likely to point out errors in fact that didn't exist. Clearly, Gupta was TOLD these error by someone else, just like with every Moore movie, some partisan fanboy continuously claims to have watched but they all point out the same right-wing "errors" that were debunked long ago.
2) If Gupta didn't see the movie then he is dong what the rest of the MSM is so guilty of...simply reading whatever comes in off the fax machine. Or, in other words, parroting PR without doing nay research on whether or not it's true. ANy intelligent person, or self-respecting journalist, would have taken this list of "errors", and then watched the movie to see if they were correct or not. Clearly Gupta did ZERO research and instead just assumed that his source was right. Why?
3) The only reason why one would do this would be the same reason the MSM constantly acts as if right-wing pundits and talking-heads are truth tellers despite a clearl record to the contrary. Clearly this "source" was someone Gupta knew and considers himself close to. Obviously not close enough to know the guy's full story, but close enough to trust whatever the guy says without bothering to fact check. Just like the rest of the media cozying up to politicians and pundits and PR people. Why don't they ever fact-check these people? The answer is always the same. I know him...he's a really good guy, good husband and father...he wouldn't mislead us. Then when the person turns out to be a shill or a liar the media defends him because he's such a good guy he shouldn't have to deal with media blowback.
4) And the final point is the media's lack of self-awareness. Moore hit the nail on the head. Time and time again the media FAILS totally and completely to do their job of speaking truth to power, educating the public of FACTS, and ensuring democracyworks by keeping an informed public. INstead they fall into all the traps above because it is cheap and saves money. Easier to be wrong than to spend money fact checking. Plus nobody likes a nosy know-it-all. Just shut up, say what you're told and cash the checks.
If the media was at all responsible, they would be able to point out one simple fact. How can the US have the best health care in the world when they are very low on every single possible indicator. You'd think the best health system in the world would at least rank in the top ten for SOMETHING good! Instead the media routinely parrots the line that it's the best despite the fact it's nowhere near the cheapest, wait times are nowhere near the shortest, people don't live longer, infants have a lower chance of survival AND people are denied care when they most need it. If someone told you they had the best car in the world and yet it was the worst on gas, most expensive, slowest acceleration, fewest features and occasionally doesn't start you would call them insane!
Meanwhile NOBDOY in either the media OR Dr. Gupta himself has realized the idiocy behind their defense or lack of proper journalism. They would have us all ignore the stories of real people who have lost loved ones or gone bankrupt because in other countries...GASP...you may have to wait longer! WHAT? How can anyone with even half a brain say that waiting is worse than being told "tough ****, we're not paying for your life-saving procedure." How can anyone say that people would rather die than wait? Would rather go bankrupt than have a slight increase in taxes. This coming from the same media who sees no problems with a war started on lies, that they enabled and cheered, and costs more money per MONTH (much of which disappears) than anyone can even comprehend.
Gupta, Blitzer, King, CNN and everyone else should be ashamed of themselves. Absolutely ashamed at their lack of intelligence AND morals. It's sickening.
Did anyone else notice in the movie Sicko that when Moore showed that UN list of healthcare quality to show that the US ranks "just above Slovenia" in healthcare quality, Cuba ranked slightly BELOW the US--yet later on in the movie, Moore glorifies the Cuban system, or at the very least, shows that it is currently better than the US system. Any thoughts?
No. Nobody on earth noticed this. You are the only person to have noticed and pointed it out.
Why shouldn't Moore praise the Cuban system. They actually did their jobs...they gave people affordable medical care. They worried about getting them better FIRST instead of getting paid. And when people are sick, all they care about is getting better.
Maybe, instead of trying to play "gotcha" with Moore, people like yourself and the media and corporate apologists should be speaking with the people. Why aren't these people's stories in the news? Why isn't the media asking why 9/11 heroes and rescue workers are dying and not being looked after by the very people using them as props for photo ops?
And considering the whole point of Sicko is how the for-profit motive corrupts health care and does more harm than good, I see no problem with Moore's depiction.
If you'd bothered to read Moore's rebuttal of Gupta's hit-piece, you'd know that this has already been addressed.
Yeah, I noticed and I also noticed that the difference per capita between what the US pays and Cuba pays is over $6000. So how is it Cuba can offer only slightly lower quality care, than the US, to ALL their people for so much less? That's the point Moore made in the movie and has subsequently mentioned.
A couple of potential reasons come to mind. Malpractice insurance costs in Cuba are probably miniscule compared to US. Office Staffs are probably less than 1/2 the size of Office Staffs in the US. Drs are probably not driving the newest "hottest" SUV or living in Lawyer sized houses (Just using Edwards as an example). People live a less sedintary (sp?) life style in Cuba and may have regular exercise and a more healthy diet (are Twinkies and related stocked on Cuban grocery shelves). The number of Drs per capita may be substantially less in Cuba. Would be nice to have all the facts to know we are comparing Apples to Apples, not Apples to PCs.
"Malpractice insurance costs in Cuba are probably miniscule compared to US."--oscar
And you can bet they don't have an AMA to protect bad doctors that keep getting sued - driving up malpractice insurance rates for everyone else.
Also, I believe the government pays for doctors' educations in Cuba, so their doctors aren't so debt-ridden after they get out of school that they need to demand high salaries to pay off their debts.
A couple of other good points, Open_Mind. Lifesyle "choices" (quotation marks to question whether Cubans have as many choices as citizens of USA) also play a major part of healthcare costs. How many teens and pre-teens in Cuba are anchored to a GameBoy or equivalent, sucking on a Big Gulp, downing Chips or Twinkies? (same goes for other areas in the world, both above and below US in health rankings). We are "victims" of our own choices by and large, and yet we expect the Health Care system to "save" when we have gone too far. We are pleased to have the Drugs and Tests that can help save us, but we often forget the monies to develop those drugs and that wonderful diagnostic equipment was paid for out of those nasty profits. Could there be improvements made, surely, but is the government the only instrument through which those improvements can be made? I'm far from sure.
Free? "The concept that health care is free in ... "? Another red herring, this one to argue about whether someone supposedly actually believes that medical professionals in those countries perform their services gratis, and whether hospitals and medical equipment magically appear out of thin air and beckon the ill to arrive. Of course someone pays for all that. Logic would tell most thinking people the government pays for it out of taxes it imposes on its citizens. Another "Look! Something shiny!" to distract from meaningful discussion.
Logic would tell most thinking people the government pays for it out of taxes it imposes on its citizens.
Gupta kept trying to make a huge issue of this. He used the anonymous "less sophisticated" people (you know, 0.1%) as justification for his nonsensical criticism of this. When I drive down my country road, I use the term that it's free (as opposed to a toll road), but 99.9% of people know it's paid for out of some sort of taxes.
I haven't seen Sicko but from what I know of Moore, you'll get a very slanted view biased in favor of his agenda. He is a gifted filmmaker who, through editing, can make anyone look either bad or good, depending on Moore's take.
I'm not saying the Healthcare industry isn't in trouble, and I'm not saying that there are injustices. I'm just leery of socialized medicine.
There are numerous documented reports of Canadians coming to the U.S. for treatment because they don't want to wait 6 months or longer to be treated in Canada.
Here are two excerpts from Larry Elder regarding healthcare:
England? The country's socialist Labor Party now favors privatization and expects, within two years, to triple the number of private-sector surgical procedures.
France? Nearly 13,000 people died in the summer of 2003. Why? The number suffering from the heat so overwhelmed the French health-care system that hospitals simply stopped answering their phones and ambulance attendants told people to take care of themselves. The majority of the 13,000 died from simple dehydration.
Is Larry Elder fact-checked?
He wrote it on worldnet daily which is impecable in its fact checking :)
In the words of open_mind at 10:05:59 EST yesterday posted earlier in this thread.... "I will prefer the truth to misinformation anyday. I couldn't care less about the vessel that delivers it. In this occasion it turned out to be Moore".
Or in this case Elder.
(hat tip - open_mind)
Larry Elder is hardly an unbiased source of information. But people listen to the radio talkers to bolster their own entrenched beliefs. Why anyone would want to pretend that there are less uninsured people than there actually are is a mystery. Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
I find Michael Moore's fact checking more credible. All sourced:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/checkup/
It is usually easier to distinguish truth from misinformation if people would be kind enough to support their arguments with legitimate links.
It is also important to remember that something isn't necessarily true because it hasn't been proven false and vice-versa.
You still fail to understand that overall, those two countries have a better system than what we currently have.
Even Moore has mentioned that those systems are not perfect.
There are however, good things we can learn from them and come up with an even better system here.
AA, I hope you WILL go and see the movie, with a healthy skepticism if you wish, but with the blinders off.
AA,
That failure was addressed and a great plan to prevent it from happening again has been insituted. All of the elderly in France are now provided air conditioning units by the government. There are trained government workers that will patrol sectors to go directly to the elders homes to check on them in the advent of an extreme heat wave and they can hydrate the elderly onsite if necessary, and if a for some reason the cooling systems of the elders fail they will immediately be moved to cooling centers that have generator back up in the advent of a power failure. Did they tell you that on Larry that? OH yeah, and what about NO and Katrina. People who needed medical treatment couldn't get it because the hosptals were flooded and our right wing nut lead government left sick residents baking on the side, in the convention center, or super dome instead of removing them to place where they could receive the care that they would later be billed up the yazoo for.
I just scheduled a visit with a dermatologist through my HMO and I have a more than two month wait.
I've heard that small business flourishes in Canada because business owners don't have to pay health insurance for their employees.
I didn't raise this point originally; I saw it elsewhere. But it's worth repeating:
During Moore's segments on CNN, Wolf Blitzer told him "Sicko" is a powerful film and Gupta said Moore's film raises an issue that people need to know.
So the question is, why has CNN never dedicated any resources to following this story? Maybe they could excuse themselves if they didn't have a medical correspondent, but unfortunately they're using their medical correspondents to nitpick summer films.
Maybe the same reason that I wake up this morning and MSNBC does a 5 minute piece talking about Larry Flynt researching to see if any other Congressmen visited hookers. They ended the story by saying it will be very interesting to see what Flynt digs up.
Yet the media has the exact same phone records as Flynt does. Why isn't the media doing this research instead of constantly having Christian Conservatives on to spew speaking point?
The story is only interesting when somebody else is doing all the work. The media won't cover the facts themselves, they honestly believe their job is to simply repeat what others say.
Don't ANY one mess with my health care. I am poor, unemployeed, and lazy, I live in a state, Washington, I have the same health care as the school principal....who makes $120,000.00 per year. My state co-pay is $20.00 per month. NO WAITS, NO WORRIES, NO PROBLEMS. MICHAEL MOORE......LEAVE MY HEALTH CARE THE HELL ALONE. Thanks Bill Gates.
The movie "Sicko" accurately protrayed the travails of the folks who have become the forgotten in American healthcare. Big bucks healthcare providers have no incentive to just be rich: they need to be huber rich. Let the 'little people" sink or tread water. But they'll drown soon, so there will be fewer folks to cover. . It's the bottom line, people. Their morality is the almighty dollar. Our morality demands we stop them cold from killing us another minute. Sanje Gupta pimps for the crowd that brung him into fat paycheck medicine. The hipocrit has dropped the Hipocratic Oath. Michael Moore owns him.
Why is it that time runs out whenever a person with a progressive/liberat/acurate viewpoint is making a truthful believible point!
Has anyone else noticed that Dr. Gupta has a big stake in the outcome of the healthcare debate? Specialists in the US many several times what their peers make in Europe and Canada. He wants Michael Moore to lose.
In my opinion, he is the last person who should be covering this issue. It's not a medical issue, but is a policy issue. He only knows that he and his peers stand to lose financially in this debate.
Cradle to the Grave Single Payer National Health Insurance. Anything else continues the disgrace of the keyboarding nut-job Republican apologists that infect these threads. Why don't you just dig a hole somewhere and disappear? It is clear that any and all advances made by those desiring progress to a better future would be well served by you just going away...and guess what? You can have it your way--no medical coverage...I think that works. You can pay out-of-pocket while everyone else pays for it throught the collection of taxes, set-up to be progressive in nature...why not? You'd all be better served that way...
Some questions there smasher what percentage of my income would you allow the "state" to take from me in all taxes to pay for your progressive services 60%-70%....higher. Would you set a cap on the amount corporations can profit? What about profits from health care provider corporations? Would you allow rich people to purchase health services that only they could afford? Would you require the best doctors be available to ALL Americans? How would you do that. Would you arrest the best doctors if they left the US and moved to Mexico and set up clinics where they could provide services not affordable to the rest of us....and charge more thus make more money? You see Smasher, when you try to control an activity, no matter what it is, American ingenuity jumps up and causes the whole thing to go to hell. I don't like it either but thats reality. The last job I had was with a large corporation, they had a complete medical office on site with doctors and nurses so any little boo-boo could be addressed at work.....FREE....IMMEDATELY. Got a rash....need a prescription filled....you got it right on the spot with in a few hrs tops. And of course a regular health plan to boot. I think we need to encourage this type of care not apply new laws to it and booger the whole thing up.
Keckley asserted: "That's the reality of those systems. There are quotas. There are planned wait times.
As a Canadian who has never experienced any wait times in seeing a physician or getting timely treatment, I don't know what Mr. Keckley is talking about. There are no quotas or planned wait times. However, there is a need for more general practisioners, as many people have difficulty in getting a family doctor, and therefore have to rely on the use of walk-in clinics or emergency room visits. I suppose the right wing would use that shortage to indict our system, but the reality is that more spaces are being opened up in medical school to accomodate the growing demand for doctors, but it will obviously take years to remediate the shortage.
Here is my favorite counter argument against universal healthcare: "We'll have to raise taxes." On WHOM??? The poor? No, they're broke. The Middle Class? No, they, too, are broke. On the RICHEST Americans and the WEALTHIEST corporations? Yes, and for a sound reason: THEY CAN AFFORD IT. See, the "where will we get the money?" stinger is pure canard. We HAVE THE $$$$ But it's being wasted in Iraq, on pork barrel projects, on tax breaks for the most affluent individuals and multinational conglomerates. America is SWIMMING in excess wealth. "Heaven forbid we eliminate all the tax loopholes and exceptions that were integrated into the tax code for the express purpose of facilitating legal tax evasion. "Heaven forbid we take the steps necessary to create healthcare for every US citizen," say the conservatives, for this is at the root of ALL conservative ideology: PEOPLE ARE DISPOSABLE. Some layer of the public can just up and die for all they care. "Just do it quietly, and in a way that doesn't cost me any money," is their mantra. 47 million without health insurance? Eff 'em. Let 'em die and decrease the surplus population.
Scrooge (during the first 45 minutes or so of the film) would be proud.
Randy
Very well put.
Financing a better system would be a piece of cake, if people really valued life as high as they say they do.
What is wrong with Sicko naysayers?
Nothing. And that is problem.
They are healthy and have health insurance.
It's easy to pooh-pooh Michael Moore's message when you are not one of the unlucky 47 MILLION uninsured or one of the THOUSANDS of denied claim horror stories.
But that is the American attitude in a nutshell. There but for the grace of God go I? Nope. More like, "Get a job or die!"
Brought to you by the country that brought you the Korean, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghani, and Iraq wars, plus other assorted atrocities.
America: contribute to our wealth and way of life or we'll kill you!
Randy
Does anyone know if Michael invested in some HMO's and Halliburton through an organization of his? Some guy wrote a book on hypocrites and mentioned that Michael said he would never invest in the stock market but did buy investments in these companies...
I LOVED THAT SHOW WHEN MOORE TOLD MR. RIGHT-WING WOLF AND RIGHT-WING CNN OFF. ABOUT TIME SOMEONE TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT HOW THE MEDIA DIDN'T DO THERE JOB WHEN IT CAME TOO THIS WAR.
A good essay regarding the Moore-Gupta dust up (credit buzzflash.com or the link)
http://mediabloodhound.typepad.com/weblog/2007/07/we-all-witnesse.html
Michael,
I am from Germany, its a joke what comments they made on CNN.
" A study of six industrialised countries " ; Well there are more than six so that stat is useless.
" 20% will get additional private health care " ; I am one of them but its ontop of a free system. I will explain, a private additional insurance buys you benefits like single room, any procedure even cosmetic, higher ranking doktors, lesser wait time ect. BUT you pay cash they refund 90%. SO for heavy surgery I might have to spend 50k out of pocket. If I do the same procedure but don't think I need the best doctor in town then its free.
" Paying higher taxes for the service " WRONG!!! The concept is NOT "health care is free" the concept is " taking profit out of the equation " !!! Of course we pay higher taxes but we live a better life for it. In Germany we have public transportation in every town and village, free day care, community banks that charge nothing for casual banking, homes for elderly. Some of the services in Germany are not free but they are regulated and profit has been eliminated from the equation. That makes it cheaper for everyone.
Economics are not always right because every system is based on assumptions and variables. For most of them you could just add several further rational assumtions and they don't work out any more.
The free market has its flaws as well. No CEO need to make what they are making. ITS UNREASONABLE and we pay for these people with our everyday prices.
Take three reasonably understandable industries: Movies, Music, Sports. Take all stats for that industry and divide it in half! Pretty easy we can all do that in our head. What happens? We pay 5 bucks at the theater a dvd is 10, a cd 5, good tickets for a game are 60, indemand is 2, real jerseys are 40, a concert is.... What else happens? Players make 5 Million instead of 10, coaches 1 instead of 7, movie stars make 15 a movie instead of 30. It all seems right... I dont even feel bad for the physical therapist, hair dresser or maid ect. they still make 3 times as much as working downtown. So it all works out....
I am writing a book about this, "The flaws of economy" and its not a liberal or socialist book its just a book for the people. So they understand and they can look Giuliani in the eye and say: "No, free market pricipals is not what our health care system needs. If we have one company making viagra thats enough we don't need 4. The other three need to find a cure for other things and take the advertisment money to make current medications cheaper."
Michael keep speaking out, thats all you are doing voice your opinion because you think before you speak and you care for the people.
PEACE
roy