On Friday's CBS Evening News, correspondent Jeff Greenfield, formerly of CNN, pointed out the one-sidedness of Michael Moore's film Sicko during a report that explored whether the film was likely to impact the presidential race. Although Greenfield did not debunk any aspect of the film in his report, he pointed out that the film "does not include critics" of government-run health systems in other countries "championed" by Moore. And, regarding Moore's claim that typical Cubans receive the kind of quality care presented in the movie, Greenfield cautioned: "That assertion is likely to be sharply challenged."
Anchor Katie Couric set up the report by relaying a CBS News/New York Times poll finding that 90 percent of Americans support "fundamental change or a complete overhaul" of America's health care system as she contended that those happy with the system are "in a minority." Couric: "If you're happy with the health care system in this country, well, you're in the minority." (Transcript follows)
Greenfield introduced the story relaying that Moore's new film "assails America's health care system and champions more or less uncritically a government-run health care system." After conveying that Moore's film praises socialized health care in Canada, France, and Britain, Greenfield added: "The film does not include critics of those systems."
Then the CBS correspondent recounted the story of Moore's trip to Cuba with 9/11 first responders who were treated to health care they had not been given access in America, and the filmmakers's dubious claim that the care was the kind typically received by Cubans. Greenfield: "Later, at a Havana hospital, they received health care that Moore claimed was typical for Cubans. That assertion is likely to be sharply challenged."
Without exploring the merits of private versus government health care, Greenfield concluded by making the case that the film is unlikely to bring about government-run health care in America, citing a health analyst who argued that Americans are "less willing to have government make decisions" than people in other countries.
Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Friday June 22 CBS Evening News:
KATIE COURIC: If you're happy with the health care system in this country, well, you're in the minority. In a CBS News/New York Times poll, nine out of ten people told us the system needs fundamental change or a complete overhaul. Filmmaker Michael Moore has his own point-of-view on that in a movie that's just opened smack in the middle of the presidential campaign. Here's Jeff Greenfield.
JEFF GREENFIELD: Another movie premier, the red carpet, the paparazzi. But the draw this night isn't a pirate captain or Spider Man -- but this man. Filmmaker Michael Moore, whose new film Sicko assails America's health care system and champions more or less uncritically a government-run health care system.
MICHAEL MOORE: We can no longer have a system where private health insurance is calling the shots. We have to remove profit.
GREENFIELD: Sicko features affecting stories of personal suffering at the hands of indifferent corporations, and the film celebrates the government-run systems of Canada, France, and Britain. The film does not include critics of those systems.
Unidentified man: It's not America.
GREENFIELD: Most controversially, Moore took 9/11 rescue workers, denied health care after taking ill, to Guantanamo Bay to demand the same care given al-Qaeda suspects.
MOORE, standing on a boat: Hello?
GREENFIELD: Later, at a Havana hospital, they received health care that Moore claimed was typical for Cubans. That assertion is likely to be sharply challenged. But beyond the arguments that seem to surround every Michael Moore movie -- is it accurate advocacy, is it distorted propaganda? -- lies a bigger question. Could it help shape the direction, even the outcome, of the coming presidential campaign? Recent history says there is reason for some skepticism. There are examples of cultural events that helped shape politics. The 1979 movie The China Syndrome intensified anti-nuclear sentiment. By contrast, 1983's The Right Stuff did nothing to advance the presidential hopes of former astronaut John Glenn. And Moore himself says his 2004 smash Fahrenheit 9/11 didn't change many minds about President Bush.
MOORE: Probably a lot of people who went to see it already didn't like what was going on.
GREENFIELD: So far, the candidates for President have all talked a lot about changing the health care system.
RUDOLPH GIULIANI: Then we should have a health savings account.
Governor BILL RICHARDSON (D-NM): No new bureaucracies.
Former Governor TOMMY THOMPSON (R-WI): Make it a wellness system and make it a prevention system.
GREENFIELD: But no one -- Democrat or Republican -- has come close to advocating the kind of government-run national health system Michael Moore proposes. Why not? Health analyst Paul Ginsburg says Americans are just different.
PAUL GINSBURG, Health analyst: We're much less willing to have government make decisions for people than is the case in Canada and Europe. It's a cultural difference.
GREENFIELD: Michael Moore has proven that he can bring much bigger audiences to his movies than the typical documentary. But if history is any guide, Sicko is likely to have a much bigger impact at the box office than at the ballot box. Jeff Greenfield, CBS News, New York.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No offense here...but I have
June 22, 2007 - 23:19 ET by bigtimerNo offense here...but I have a Sicko overload already...surely there is something else to talk about around this place.
We know the leftist msm loves Moore...no matter the film/faux doc he puts out...
We all know the media is hypocritical no matter the subject...
How about a different subject to attack?
Illegal Immigration issue coming up in the Senate again this next week... That may be more important.... I know...I am just ranting...please forgive me Brad Wilmouth, you always do a great job.
Sorry...I just feel better now.
Btw....From CNN to CBS with Greenfield.... wow...now there's a mighty stretch.
Pathetic really...just pathetic.
even if you don't think uni
June 23, 2007 - 00:44 ET by treshaneven if you don't think universal healthcare is the answer, the
movie emphasizes one HUGE hole in our current health care system.
the
biggest hole: people WITH healthcare contracts are often denied
potentially life-saving procedures for a variety of dubious reasons by private insurance companies.
that's the point i would like to see addressed.
how do you keep profit-seeing insurance companies from denying contract holders of necessary procedures? what kind of oversight or policy reform is effective?
Is the looming national debat
June 23, 2007 - 00:47 ET by maggieqpublicIs the looming national debate about healthcare in the U.S. all about socialized good/privatized bad or privatized good/socialist bad?? There are many of us out here who oppose socialized medicine but who are appalled by the rapidly rising medical insurance premiums for the self-employed. In other words, there are many aspects to this debate.
in addition to agreeing wit
June 23, 2007 - 00:57 ET by treshanin addition to agreeing with you, i again hope that people try to understand that those are the only two sides to the debate. one has to consider first how to reform the current system before making such a vast overhaul into something else.
i would refer to my post above for my concerns...
I have no confidence that my
June 23, 2007 - 01:14 ET by maggieqpublicI have no confidence that my elected representatives (federal or state) have the courage or ability to address this issue.
maggie... I too have been an
June 23, 2007 - 01:01 ET by bigtimerI too have been and am self employed at the time, it is an outrageous cost that most real people cannot afford here.
I know of plans they had when my husband and I had our own small business which was a good idea and thought about consolidating with other companies and paying a rate...but that never worked out and the cost was way out of reach realistically.
Something does have to be done.
I watch and listen in the Senate and House...
I am still waiting....
I also live in a semi-urban a
June 23, 2007 - 01:23 ET by maggieqpublicI also live in a semi-urban area… our local hospital is flooded by the indigent (poor citizens and poor illegals). Local property-owners passed a bond issue a year-or-so ago that enabled us to keep the hospital open. I think another bond issue will be coming soon. It doesn’t appear to have an end to it….
maggie, there is a solution t
June 23, 2007 - 10:50 ET by ncstevemmaggie, there is a solution to your problem. Go buy yourself a health savings account (HSA). You can get plenty of information on the web as to what they are. More and more employers are offering them because they cost less for both the employer and employee.
C'mon man, if you're on this site I would think you'd be the self-starter type and be all over this subject rather than complaining about the cost of health insurance. Rather than wait for someone else to 'fix' the problem, find a solution on your own.
There is a lot of self-starte
June 23, 2007 - 12:51 ET by maggieqpublicThere is a lot of self-starter in me…. purchased an MSA the year they were first offered but eventually discovered that our high-deductible health plan didn’t exactly conform to IRS rules. The IRS excused our initial contribution (no penalty) because their publication on the subject was mystifying…my word, not theirs.
The first year of the HSA, I researched the HSA-compatible high-deductible plans offered by my insurance carrier (Blue Cross). After comparing covered benefits, et.al., between our current high-deductible plan and the HSA plans, I discovered that Blue Cross was essentially charging a relatively higher bi-monthly premium on their HSA-compatible plans. In other words the tax benefits of HSA vs its higher premium were essentially a “wash”.
But I do plead guilty to your charge of “complaining”!
What Perky Couric's 90% doesn't say
June 23, 2007 - 00:58 ET by Lame CherryLiberal CBS and Perky Couric will not tell you about the "dissatisfied" 90% is a misnomer in their "poll".
Ask anyone if THE PRICE OF HEALTH CARE NEEDS TO BE FIXED.....and even those who know America is blessed with thee best health system in the world, which works and saves lives and they will say yes that has to be addressed.
What that cost though is is INSURANCE costs and has little to do with health care. CBS in their polls deliberately skews them as much as asking a loaded question do you support Iraq?
The majority now says no. If you ask the question, "Do you support Iraq to keep young childen and women from being raped and beaten for their support of Ameirca".......well a new finding would occur.
Do you support Iraq if it meant keeping a nuclear bomb from going off in New York?
All kinds of poll questions can find things exactly the way you want it.
Look nobody except the Rockefellers who run American health care with their "poison, cut body parts off, burn with radiation or shove pills" at disease likes the money profit aspect of health care. Everyone knows the Rockefellers and their cartel makes 2 trillion dollars a year off of treatments which in numbers of cases makes no difference at all. Some cancers a person will live a year and half puking during treatment and without treatment they will still survive a year and a half only suffering in the last months.
Make no mistake about it, there are some cold blooded ghouls who have high stakes in treating people not to be well, but to keep a condition just terminal enough to warrant more money being spent.
They make up diseases now that before were simply fixed by your wife slapping a husband over the head and told to stop eating like a pig or you would get indigestion.
That is what that 90 percent wants fixed. They don't want doctors fixed. They don't want nurses fixed. They don't want hospitals or clinics fixed. Americans want insurance companies to stop gouging consumers, hospitals to stop running up 10 gazillion tests costing thousands of dollars, lawyers to stop suing doctors over mistakes running all the prices up and these Rockefeller teaching colleges and boards to stop inflicting debt on dying people.
That is what people want fixed and it has nothing really to do with "health care". It has to do with the profiteer system which the Kennedy clan passed into law back in the 1960's which set off this viscous cycle where people used to be able to pay a doctor in chickens or what they could afford, but now it takes 12 forms and 40 people to process it all.
If you want nuts as an example, I know a person who had an appendix taken out and we all know what causes that, but they got a bill from a cancer lab testing it as the hospital sent it out "per policy". An appendix gets infected and everyone knows it, but yet there are these scams running bills up because governments and insurance pay this money out unquestioned.....because the people behind medical protocols are making the money off of it.
I know Perky and CBS knows all of this as their cartel bosses all profit off of this, but this is not about health care and Perky knows it........"health care" is as Ronald Reagan predicted in 1968 a scheme to get control over the last remaining part of the national economy, so people will be enslaved and be made permanent wards of the state.
It is no coincidence Hillary Clinton wants this and from gun control to this womb to the tomb government enslavement her entire agenda for the cartel bosses sounds exactly like communism. That is what this is and is what Perky knows it is..........just like Pariah Moore knows it. That is why he is being allowed to operate the way he is, because it fits the globalist agenda.
The facts need to start being discussed and no more of this being led by Perky Couric's 90% poll as she knows very well she is lying and where she is taking this.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Well-articulated, L C. Co
June 23, 2007 - 08:37 ET by GalvanicWell-articulated, L C. Couric is once again quite disingenuous in the way she shaped poll results, and as long as the real issues are overlooked, we can't really have a useful national discussion on health.
"If you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Moore's simplistic answer to public anxieties over health care, ignores numerous flaws that have already born out in countries with national health care programs. For one thing, there is no evidence that a government-run system is any more responsive to emergent needs than an HMO or a health insurer. When Canadians, for instance, get frustrated with excessive waits for treatment in their system, they come to the US.
Let's watch the Democrats' reaction to Sicko. Unlike Fahrenheit 911, which they overwhelmingly applauded, Sicko and its message are not what the Dems want to wholly embrace -- at least not just yet. Unlike Moore, the Dem candidates would be challenged to put a price tag on a single-payer system, and the numbers would be chilling. They would prefer to spout rhetoric about 'heath care for all' and '46 million uninsured', rather than resort to Moore's answer.
Well, let’s be specific. Wh
June 23, 2007 - 05:22 ET by KC MulvilleWell, let’s be specific. Why wouldn’t we want government to run healthcare? (Three reasons off the top of my head …)
There are plenty of problems with the healthcare system, and we all have stories. But going to a government solution is hardly my favorite option.
Your problems are all valid
June 23, 2007 - 05:38 ET by sarcasmoYour problems are all valid ones, but I think the biggest problem is psychological. This kind of medicine changes your views. Right now, if you see a fat person smoking a cigarette, you're able to think something like: "That person's behavior will have bad consequences for him/her, so I'm glad I'm not him/her!" In our socialist future, your thoughts will change to: "That person's behavior will have bad consequences for my wallet on tax day, and since there's no way socialism will ever be rolled-back I need to elect the most offensive possible control-freak politicians to keep this smoking fatass from costing me money!" IOW, a change in the law will create incentives that will inevitably turn formerly-nice people into control freaks. Oh, joy.
JMR
Good point, JMR. A root pr
June 23, 2007 - 08:57 ET by GalvanicGood point, JMR. A root principal of socialism is the reassignment of responsibility from the individual to the state, which absolves the individual from maintaining self-discipline and the consequences of bad decisions. The state then determines what behavior is best for all. We're all ready seeing this in cities where smoking has been banned in all restaurants and bars in order to protect the public from making a bad choice. With government as a single-payer health provider, we would inevitably see even more severe "preventive measures" in order to try to reduce costs. How about outlawing ice cream, or requiring a permit in order to eat pizza? Far-fetched? Take a look around at what's already been done.
Agreed. In fact, one of the p
June 23, 2007 - 12:57 ET by KC MulvilleAgreed.
In fact, one of the problems with the current system, in my opinion, is a smaller version of that same psychology. Consumers don't pay the cost directly, and therefore we lose the collective benefit of the market force. Healthcare is paid through insurance, and we essentially pay taxes to the insurance companies. Everyone hates insurance companies, but in the current legal climate, no healthcare provider would dare practice medicine without insurance coverage. They need that coverage because in this culture, lawsuits are how we penalize negligence. The problem is that since healthcare is an art, and not a science, it’s unfair to expect every doctor’s guess to be perfect. Not every mistake is negligence. Healthcare is not an exact science, but doctors can get sued for being inexact. Providers are therefore likely to make mistakes, and are therefore liable to lawsuits that they can't reasonably prevent. So they, understandably, turn to insurers to protect themselves. A lot of the markup, especially on drugs and equipment, is built-in to help defray the legal costs if something goes wrong. But on the other hand, lawsuits are how we penalize negligence, and we can't just ignore that.
Of course, sinister insurers exploit that to inflate costs, which then drives up the cost to everyone. Lawyers then use that to goad juries into catastrophic verdicts, since "it's the only way to make the insurer feel the pain." It’s a vicious circle, in every sense of the phrase.
But beware of anyone who claims to have a magic formula for fixing it (namely, Michael Moore). There is no easy solution. There is no secret answer that we need smart people to discover. We have competing and conflicting values, and no way to satisfy them all, and so it comes down to old fashioned political haggling and horsetrading until we come to a workable agreement. That's how democracy works.
If you substitute government into the role insurance companies play, which is essentially what Moore and others propose ... you don't eliminate the problem, you multiply it. You get all of the downside, and you lose the one power you do have - market power. We absolutely need to fix the system, but going to a government system will multiply the problem. We'd be pouring gasoline on a fire that's already out of control.
There have been some great co
June 23, 2007 - 17:13 ET by general companyThere have been some great comments and solutions posted in this thread. Maybe what we need is a standardized menu of sorts. One that has fixed prices for all routine and popular medical procedures and also lets you know up front what the monetary award would be if it fails. That may make for better price competition and better incentive to do a good job, plus the patient would know up front whether the risk is worth the reward. I do know that if folks are thinking that the Feds wont deny certain coverage they are nuts, they already do. On a scale like what they are suggesting, wow it makes my head hurt. Also I think their should be more insurance regulation. I believe that if you don't use it you should get some percentage of a return. This goes for Health, Home, and Auto. I think you would see insurance abuse plummet if their were incentives like these for the consumer. Plus the insurance Co would need to offer better rates/coverage in order to compete. Dreaming, I know
And on Moore's film as on v
June 23, 2007 - 06:22 ET by sarcasmoAnd on Moore's film as on various other subjects, tiny Reason again intellectually punches well-beyond its weight class.
JMR
The minority are those in the
June 23, 2007 - 08:53 ET by sembyThe minority are those in the media who make millions and can afford to have any healthcare they want.
Ask Katie if she would've wanted government healthcare when her husband was sick and she didn't make millions at that time!
Couric: " If you're (sic
June 23, 2007 - 09:19 ET by Conservative in the ArtsCouric: " If you're (sic) of a mindset anywhere near conservative or Republican, well, you're in the minority."
Here's a question I'd like the answer to:
During the filming process did Michael provide health coverage to all his "employees" or did he have them all sign on the project as independant contractors? That would put a nail in his coffin if he didn't provide one ounce of health coverage as an employer while making a film about how there's no coverage.
The House & Senate will f
June 23, 2007 - 09:22 ET by right minded and lovin itThe House & Senate will fix healthcare. God save us all from that nightmare scenario. Healthcare is not just hospitals & insurance companies. You have to look deeper. I worked in hospitals for 18 years & I can tell you the mark-up on anything that deals even remotely with healthcare is horrendous - and I am not just talking about the drug companies. All suppliers gouge the industry. While I believe capitalism, I also believe in fairness. Stop the "courting" of physicians and hospital "biggies". I've seen for myself how a trip (actually a cruise on a luxury ship over & a return flight on the Concord payed for by the vendor) to Europe to "tour the companies" plant (lasting all of 1 hour) can easily change certain minds toward systems and products that are not the best or affordable or sometimes even needed.
And we are going to rely on Congress to fix this! Please - don't start me on that - I start see a vision of pigs flying. By the way, I have a good friend in Australia that waited over six months for an MRI on his deteriorating knees. Once it was established he needed surgery on both, he had an additional 2 year wait. Why you ask? Because it was not deemed an emergency and he could still walk although in significant pain. God only knows what his musculature supporting his knees went through not to mention his back, hips & feet try to compensate for his poor knees.
You will actually find may overseas that will purchase private insurance to enable them to receive proper medical care in a timely manner such as we take for granted here or like Canadians slipping over the border to have routine tests done to diagnose a chronic condition.
One last thing to chew on. Take a look at Congress, Hollywood and the insanely rich. Do you think they will be subject to "Universal Healthcare". Me thinks not! Trust me, when Michael Moore suffers his first MI or stroke - his thunderous butt will be at the Cleaveland Clinic gladly paying the big bucks to have his atreries cleaned out.
Be very careful what you wish for .............
Moore's film is properly name
June 23, 2007 - 09:44 ET by TheProfMoore's film is properly named, as it is really "Sicko". If you want to see the real truth about Cuba's health service please go to www.therealcuba.com and click on the link to "free healthcare ?". You will see what the cubans get with their free medical care. In addition I lived in Britain twice. I had a cancerous turmor in my back, and I was told that I had to wait 4-6 months for an operation. So I paid for it myself and I was able to get the operation in a private hospital. I lived in Spain for 9 years and I had to pay for all my medical treatment myself as I wouldn't wait 8-9 hours just to see the doctor.
Canada has had a passive ci
June 23, 2007 - 11:16 ET by daveinbocaCanada has had a passive citizenry who didn't mind plucking the hems of royalty's robes while more enterprising and self- respecting colonists to its south threw off the yoke of tyranny. Europe has gone from Empire/Royalty to statist tyranny with hardly a mis-step. For these slackers, big government is simply something weak citizens can do nothing about.
Americans ARE different!
"So I paid for it myse
June 23, 2007 - 16:36 ET by ckc1227"So I paid for it myself and I was able to get the operation in
a private hospital. I lived in Spain for 9 years and I had to pay for
all my medical treatment myself as I wouldn't wait 8-9 hours just to
see the doctor."
The hell you say. What a novel concept....paying...for one's OWN health care. If more people took that route, we might not need insurance the way it is delivered today, and could certainly reduce the cost of that insurance. Instead, as it is today, we have people paying $3,000 + annually for health insurance just to avoid paying $100 for their yearly visit to the doctor for a physical.
Can't help but notice...
June 23, 2007 - 17:10 ET by c5thenAlthough Greenfield and ABC noted that the film and premise were one-sided, they didn't feel the need to explore the opposing view point at all. Wouldn't that have been journalism? Actually go out and investigate to see why there are alternative views on this? I mean...the debate is just starting. How about showing the debate and actually looking at all the views? Is that too much to ask of a National Network News organization like ABC?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
If Moore picked his facts sel
June 23, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Space CowboyIf Moore picked his facts selectively, so what? Who DOESN'T in political debates? The modern political arena is all about spin and "framing" and Moore is doing just that in selecting the facts that he wants you to be aware of. Nothing he’s saying is untrue (that I know of at this point). It’s facts used to frame the issue his way but facts nonetheless. Take a look at the advertising campaign that the health care industry mounted to defeat the attempts by the Clinton administration to reform health care in America. That wasn't selective?
Anyway, select THIS. According the The World Health Organization, the U.S. health care system ranks 37th in the world - only TWO RANKINGS above Cuba, one of the poorest countries in the world, for Christ's sake! http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
So, love MM or hate him, he's done us a service by putting this issue front and center. The U.S. spends per capita more than any other industrial nation on health care - more than DOUBLE the next closest country (Switzerland) - AND all of the other industrial countries have universal coverage. Yet, we still rank at the bottom of the heap in a broad array of measures. And, we already have a system that is roughly 50% "socialist medicine". It's called Medicare and is one of the most efficient delivery systems in terms of bureaucratic costs in the world- a fraction of the operating cost of HMO's that are paying gold-plated salaries to CEOs.
So, lock and load with your favorite SELECTIVE facts, little buddies, the fight is on.