Stossel report again failed to identify conservative expert, did not report WHO rankings of health systems
SUMMARY: Good Morning America aired a preview of John Stossel's "Whose Body is it Anyway? Sick in America," which contained an interview with one expert, David Gratzer, whom Stossel identified only as an author and "Canadian doctor." Stossel failed to note that Gratzer is a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute or that the World Health Organization ranks Canada and Great Britain -- whose nationalized health systems he criticized for their long waits -- ahead of the United States in its ranking of world health systems. At the end of Stossel's report, Diane Sawyer told him: "It is so hard to get perspective on this. Thank heaven you're doing it."
During the September 14 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, Diane Sawyer introduced a preview of ABC's 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel's September 14 report "Whose Body is it Anyway? Sick in America" by asking of the United States health-care system, "Can it be made better? Is government health care the answer?" But in attempting to answer Sawyer's question, Stossel's report contained an interview with one expert, David Gratzer, identified by Stossel only as an author and a "Canadian doctor" who supported the Canadian health-care system "until he started treating patients." Stossel failed to note that Gratzer is a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research. Further, while asserting that patients often have long waits in Canada and Great Britain for hospital and specialist care, Stossel failed to report that the World Health Organization ranks both countries ahead of the United States in its ranking of world health systems.
At the end of Stossel's report, Sawyer told him: "It is so hard to get perspective on this. Thank heaven you're doing it."
According to a June 2000 WHO report detailing the rankings, WHO's assessment of the world's health systems was based on five indicators: "overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system's financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
As Media Matters for America documented, this is not the first time Stossel has used a Manhattan Institute scholar without identifying him. Stossel also attempted to debunk educators' concerns that low funding is "the biggest problem facing public schools" with his interview of Jay Greene, who offered data purporting to show that increased funding has no effect on student achievement. Like Gratzer, Greene is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
As Media Matters documented, Stossel has in the past asserted that "global warming may be a good thing," cited the fact that "hot dogs don't spoil when we get to them" as evidence that "the market figures out ways to make these things work" as support for his argument that the sale of organs should be legal, and claimed that it is a "myth" that "women earn less" than men for "doing the same work."
Furthermore, when ABC News named Stossel the co-anchor of 20/20, the national media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) documented some of Stossel's reporting that it claimed had "been notable for bungled facts and twisted logic, all in service to his conservative 'free market' agenda" and used questionable methods -- "most memorably when he cited research that didn't actually exist about pesticide residues in organic produce (New York Times, 7/31/00)," in order to question whether he should have been given such a promotion.
From the September 14 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
DIANE SAWYER (co-host): As we know, it's one of the single most important decisions Americans have to make. What should the health care in this country be? Can it be made better? Is government health care the answer? 20/20's John Stossel has been asking that question and a lot more in tonight's special hour, "Whose Body is it Anyway? Sick in America." John looked at other countries' health care systems to see if they have better ideas. And he's here to tell us what he found. John?
STOSSEL: And a lot of Americans say government care is the answer, that health care in countries like France, Germany, Britain, Canada is great because it's free. Government pays, and no one has to worry because free is great, right? But not so fast.
[begin video clip]
STOSSEL: It's why the British National Health Service made news by promising it would reduce wait times for hospital care to fewer than 18 weeks. But that's still more than four months.
UNIDENTIFIED ANNOUNCER: The nationwide shortage of NHS dentists --
STOSSEL: These people are waiting for a dentist appointment.
UNIDENTIFIED ANNOUNCER: Hundreds of people queued around the block --
STOSSEL: Waits are so long, some people do it themselves. He used super glue. People pull their own teeth. Dental tools? Pliers and vodka. Government rationing in Canada is why, when Karen Jepp was about to give birth to quadruplets last month, she was told all the neonatal units she could go to in Canada were too crowded. She flew to Montana to have the babies.
DAVID GRATZER (physician and author): People line up for care. Some of them die. That's what happens.
STOSSEL: Canadian doctor David Gratzer, author of The Cure, thought the Canadian system was great -- until he started treating patients.
GRATZER: The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house.
STOSSEL: People wait in line?
GRATZER: You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem. You just have to wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem. Free as the air. You just got to wait six months.
STOSSEL: But fans of Canada's system, like Michael Moore, point to the fact that Canadians live longer. Isn't that proof that the Canadian system is better, even if they have to wait in line?
MOORE: That's the line where they live three years longer than we do. That's the line I want to be in.
STOSSEL: But Canadians live longer because of things unrelated to health care. Americans are three times as likely to die in car accidents and 10 times as likely to be murdered. Take those factors into account, not to mention obesity, and Americans live longer than Canadians.
In America, we kill each other more often. We shoot each other. We have more car accidents. Forgive me, more of us look like you.
MOORE: Me, yeah.
STOSSEL: And that's the reason they're living longer in Canada.
MOORE: I will say in part it's because they never have to worry about paying to go see the doctor.
[end video clip]
STOSSEL: They may not worry about paying to see a doctor, but they do have to wait on average 17 weeks to see a specialist. We found one town in Canada where they have a lottery just to get an appointment with a family doctor. But you can be seen within 24 hours if you meow or woof, because if you're a dog or cat, vet care is privately run.
SAWYER: Privately run. All right. It is so hard to get perspective on this. Thank heaven you're doing it. And it is tonight.
Gee, I just watched a PBS story about the healthcare systems in Canada and Britain that was totally opposite of Stossel's "findings". But then we know what side of the street Stossel is on. I quit watching him a long time ago when he did two reports in a row that I knew to be extremely biased since I was intimately familiar with the subjects. And Diane Sawyer seems to have just given up.
Diane Sawyer was shamelessly plugging this biased program, most likely, because she was told to do so. Unfortunately, sometimes we have to do things in the workplace that we don't agree with. I wouldn't fault Sawyer for her remarks. It's a ratings thing.
That link to email John Stossel doesn't work but it did take me to the ABC site where you can read comments on this show. Almost everyone was giving Stossel the rough side of their tongue for this dishonest piece. Some very interesting comments there.
abc does seem to have a problem with some of their consultants, including this guy who worked for them for six years and was only fired in may when the french embassy notified abc that his academic credntials were fake. now it's been revealed that he put his name to a made up interview of obama. of course, this was the network that turned over 5 hours on the 5th anniversary of 9-11 to some right wing writer.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070913/ap_en_tv/fake_interviews_3
I am guessing when the pundits don't identify " conservative experts ", they are actually exposing their own opinions or fabrications, and not exposing themselves as the authors. In other words, creating facts.
Stossel is EXTREMELY biased. One only needs to watch "Stupid in America" to see which way he leans.
When I worked in England, I had to go to the doctor a couple of times. I don't see how the wait was any longer than I experience here in austin. And just to drive home the point, I wasn't in some small hamlet, my job was in downtown London, the biggest city in England. So if the wait isn't really the issue, what is? I still got the same treatment, and ended up taking the same medicine for my cold, what could it possibly be that's different?
The idea that you have to pay taxes to help your fellow man and enrich the well-being of the nation. Compassion for other citizens is just so un-American. It doesn't jibe with the American ideal of greed and selfishness.
"...greed and selfishness..."
That's self-sufficiency and rugged individualism, Redking.
UNtil some swarthy foreigners get too scary, then it's anything the pimp wants,just tell me I'm "safe".
I have some serious concerns about Dr. Gratzer's political ideology. From the summary of his book at [link to www.manhattan-institute.org] :
"What needs to be done? Dr. Gratzer mounts a bold and provocative argument, rejecting the conventional wisdom that socialized health care is compassionate and that top-down government agencies like the FDA actually save lives. Instead, he prescribes a strong dose of capitalism."
I beg your pardon? The FDA doesn't actually save lives? If I understand this gentleman's argument correctly, if the FDA didn't exist, then the invisible hand of unadulterated capitalism would cause Merck to honestly disclose it's findings about Vioxx?
Has he seen how differently pharma-sponsored trials are set up compared to independent ones? And how this leads to very different findings about safety and effectiveness? Might it have something to do with the profit motive?
Free-market capitalism is all well and good when no one's life is at stake, but rather than thinking ideologically, one's prescriptions should be EVIDENCE-BASED, like a good physician. I think we have abundant evidence that the FDA places a very necessary, and yes, life-saving, check on profit-seeking in the health care industry.
Where's Dave Schultz when you need him?
Hey there Johnny, Sean just called you a great American. No reciprocation? What gives? Manners do count ya know.
The Con Party continues to tell everyone that National Health Care is not good for America. They waver between long lines and raising taxes as their only solid reasons to keep this un-American system out of this country. Why? Long lines, hell, if you don't have DickCheney insurance, you wait 7-10 days for a blood test. With Cheney insurance, you can get those results in 7-10 minutes. Raise taxes, WHY? I have not seen any study as to the amount of money paid in premiums to the ever-fairminded HMOs etc. Why don't we add these totals from individuals and companies and see how much is floating around.
As far as Stasshol goes, my cousin, the DukeofDoors informs me that Johnny was not an honest man and his family has dismissed him. And my cousin is non-partisan. Yuk Yuk
Prince, your statements show a critical error in judgment. You're doing something called risk assessment, which means you are looking at the potential drawbacks of two alternatives, weighing them critically, and using this analysis to inform your decision-making. Clearly you can see how such a process is fatally flawed.
The problem, you see, is that you're thinking LOGICALLY. That's not allowed. The only basis for sound decision-making is to find as many drawbacks for the side you have already decided you're not going to support, and repeat these constantly until you inspire enough fear in others to forcibly convert them to your way of thinking.
If you keep thinking your way, you're just going to keep on being a well-informed, conscientious citizen, instead of rising to the heights of a politician!
OT, but ya gotta love right wingers, the gift that keeps on giving!
yep, the party of taking personal responsibility...Grasping Oddball Perverts
Stossel's brain hasn't resettled since he got the crap slapped outta him by that wrestler.
Yes indeed - thank heaven we're finally getting some perspective from..uh...John Stossel.
Hey ABC - there is a rumor going around that Rush Limbaugh would like to give his perspective on serving in the military.
Stossel is a jerk.
Wow, Craig. Thanks for linking to that article. He IS a bigtime jerk.
Thanks. Should be required reading, especially for every rich snob who thinks like John.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
For what we pay in premiums, and the un-insured's care, the "hold-up" prices for drugs found much cheaper in everybody's country, we could pay for universal care with much fewer waits than the HMO's, PPO's or American industry altogether!.
Medicare has a 3% administration cost, compared to the insurance companies' 30-40% cost, that does not consider the profit margin for the insurance company that does not deliver care. If one administrator were to have the ability to negotiate medical & pharma costs imagine the change in prices!! I'm sure the insurance companies do!!
Simply put, if we all paid into one system, and all carriers billed one administrator as well as all the un-insured in such a system, we would have a fraction of the price for coverage, and their would be no restriction on who, or what doctor you could see because all doctors would be a participant!! The same care for all, at a cost evenly distributed with the profit margin, and need to restrict care the way HMO"s do less, if not a priority at all!
We have known that the universal health care system would mean a huge burden lifted from 95% of the industries big, and small. The only people whom would be effected would be the Bill Frist's Hospital Moguls and the Medical Insurers, and the Pharma industry! You know, the people that have been holding America up for thier health care, making our system, if one could call it that, little more than a monopoly squeezing the blood out of America one dollar at a time!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It is so hard to get perspective on this wiith all your lying and manipulations of facts, John.
That is what she should have said.
Dishonest reporter John Stossel
Airs a passel of lies most colossal
No Canadian would trade
For our health care charade
Unless they were sheeple most docile.
so what if it takes 17 weeks to see a specialist in Canada? It recently took me 10 weeks to see a specialist here in the US, and in addition to the wait, I have to pay $420 per month for my health insurance and my deductible is $1500 a year.
Am I the sole person who is taken aback by the absurdity of these arguments against HEALTHCARE FOR EVERYONE?
There is no other way to frame it. If you support the status quo, you think that only SOME PEOPLE DESERVE HEALTHCARE, since that is the best the status quo can promise, as well as delegating healthcare decisions to INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Are they insane? They LIKE living in a country where 47 MILLION of us have NO HEALTH INSURANCE and those who are insured AREN'T ALWAYS COVERED????
Why can't Republicans take the correct side of a no-brainer issue?
Contaminants in our water and food? Not a problem say Republicans, just leave those huge multinational corporations alone.
Polluted air? Big deal say Republicans, just leave those other huge multinational corporations alone.
And so on.
Follow the money and on the other end you'll find Republican sensibilities rolling around naked on a bed of cash. Cast Rush Limbaugh as their sensibilities and the horrific picture is complete.
Randy
Excellent! 10 out of 10 of my brain functions thought this review was helpful...
Everyone should read the information about Stossel on the fair.org site. This man should not be considered s journalist. Even when I agree with one of his points (which is few and far between) his information and sources cannot be trusted.
Stossel consistently omits facts that do not support his "free market rocks" view, and outright lies at other times. he has been reprimanded several times for lies. How can ABC employ such an idiot?
Totally free markets have been tried for millennium, and they eventually work to the benefit of the wealthy. Who gets the great medical care in the US right now? The wealthy!! They do not want to have a system that may somehow ruin their spoils. Same old story. Who gets no attention? The poor, the lower-middle class, and more frequently the middle class.
So of course the US has great healthcare... if you can afford it. But the average US citizen has poorer healthcare than the average European or even Cuban citizen.
As an ex-pat Canadian living in the US for 15 years now, I am appalled by the arguments against universal health care for everyone in this country. It is SHAMEFUL that the US is the only country in the industrialized world that does not have a national health insurance program, and disgraceful that 47M of our citizens are uninsured...not to mention those that carry "castatrophic-only" insurance (so count them as under-insured).
I'm tired of people railing against the Canadian system, using buzzwords like "socialized medicine", which are only intended to make people angry and fearful. If you don't like the Canadian system, there are many many more to choose from--UK, Norway, France...just pick one.
If this is not the defining issue for Americans in the next 2-3 years, I don't know what is.
Remember, ABC puts people like Stossel on the air. They don't fact-check his stories even when he clearly has a bias and has a past history of dishonest reporting. ABC continues to provide him with a platform. The question is why?
One of the producers is Victor Neufeld.
http://www.fair.org/extra/9406/neufeld-stossel.html
In fact, Victor created Stossel.
In fact, Victor's wife Lois created the PR firm Media Access, which has done work for various non-environmental companies.
In fact, Victor is now working for CNN on Anderson Coopers show and Paula Zahn.
Small world....
Thanks Sluggo, good information.