Michael Moore claimed in his movie “SiCKO” that there are 50 million uninsured Americans, according to his own Web site. But he’s wrong.
He’s certainly not alone though. So were President Bush, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as well as The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, CNN, CBS and ABC just to name a few.
“It’s really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families,” said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a May 31 speech.
ABC medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson cited the incorrect data as he praised a "bold" and "politically brilliant" universal coverage plan on the April 26 “Good Morning America.”
“It’s bold because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured, within five years,” said Johnson.
Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be between 40 and 50 million Americans. But the number of the uninsured who aren’t citizens is nearly 10 million on its own according to the Census Bureau, invalidating all the claims of 40+ million “Americans” without health insurance.
Moore should have paid attention to that fact, since he agrees that being “an American” matters to get health insurance.
“That’s the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an American. That’s it,” said Moore in footage aired by ABC’s “Nightline” on June 13.
But that isn’t the only problem with the numbers being used to stir up support for socialized medicine. There are also roughly 17 million people who can afford their own insurance – they make $50,000 or more a year. Journalists and politicians also frequently neglect to mention that 45 percent of the uninsured will be insured again within four months, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
It seems to me Michael Moore (and quite a few others) have “fudged” some facts.
—Julia A. Seymour is an assistant editor for the Business & Media Institute.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mike got it wrong?
July 18, 2007 - 18:57 ET by bassndudeMike got it wrong? Noooooo...well how bout that? Well, ya gotta understand, Mike likes fudge..
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
“That’s the only
July 18, 2007 - 22:49 ET by motherbelt“That’s the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an
American. That’s it,” --Michael Moore
Considering the 10 million illegals, maybe Moore should have said "the only condition that should exist is that I am in the US."
No blood for oil...
July 18, 2007 - 19:01 ET by annoyedman...sadly so, because we could end our energy dependence simply by rendering Michael Moore down for his melted fat in a large vat. That oil alone would drive America's heavy industries for the duration of the War on Terror. Add in his oily invective, and you've got more free energy than any windmill farm off of Martha's Vinyard. Throw in a couple of Democrat Senators, and you've got enough heavy crude to fuel the nation until the next millenium.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. ~~ Ecclesiastes 10:1-2
Libs and facts???
July 18, 2007 - 19:02 ET by LionKingSince when have liberals ever concerned themselves with facts? Distortion, decpetion, half-truths, and talking-points are much more effective and convenient.
Parlor tricks
July 18, 2007 - 19:05 ET by americaneagleSeems like the same old liberal parlor trick; ignore the real evidence and make up your own facts from whole cloth. If you keep telling the same old story, eventually someone will believe it!
% of uninsured is down from..
July 18, 2007 - 19:25 ET by Gary HallIt is interesting to note that the % of uninsured is down from.. 1998, when it was just a bit over 16%. In the year quoted, 2005, the census bureau notes that the number is 15.9%. I suspect this reflects the same gross numbers, notably all people living in America - including the illegals.
The numbers are not really getting worse - we seem to be on a rather level plane.
Err; In 1998 the population
July 18, 2007 - 19:54 ET by M J BErr; In 1998 the population was what? 270 million?
In 2007 the population is 300+ Million. The percentage may be similar but the numbers have risen.
Even at 16% the numbers are unacceptable for the "richest" country in the world.
M J B- Stay away from numbers please. I know they are confusing
July 18, 2007 - 20:11 ET by acaiguanaM J B - Stay away from numbers please. I know they are confusing.
"Even at 16% the numbers are unacceptable for the "richest" country in the world. "
Where did you make this cipher? Sixteen percent times 300 million is 48 million which is the bogus number being used by the drive-bys and Moore to peddle socialistic medicine.
Did you read the article?
Another small point - the 'richest country in the world' is rich because we do not have a socialist government, not because it can afford a socialist government - and we cannot afford such a government.
Here's how it works. I don't need your hand in my pocketbook to make you feel good about every little social ill that tweaks your pity.
Got it?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Not to mention we are not
July 18, 2007 - 21:18 ET by dscottNot to mention we are not the richest country in the world, there are many countries with a higher GDP per capita than the US. The EU has the same GDP at the US, but a lower per capita rate. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Regardless of wealth,
July 18, 2007 - 22:32 ET by JDWRegardless of wealth, socialized health care is not free. People such as whoever attempted to dispute the number of Americans without health care fail to realize all countries who provide it do so at a cost. And that cost has extended beyond monetary means.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
They are not talking about
July 18, 2007 - 22:57 ET by motherbeltThey are not talking about people without health care; they are talking about people without health insurance. For the umpteenth time, they are not the same.
health care fail to realize
July 18, 2007 - 23:35 ET by JDWhealth care fail to realize all countries who provide it
Other countries providing health care are taxing insurance costs of benefits. Taxation has inevitably lead to nothing more than huge government waste. Focusing on the dem goals, private industry would be shut down. Conservatives would permit private tax-deductible accounts as well as pools for those who have no plans. Today people in other countries are dying everyday because of lack of care even though they are insured.
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
aca
July 18, 2007 - 21:17 ET by Gary HallACA. Just stopping by. Nicely handled.
I might note for M J B's consideration - I suspect that there are probably 38 million other's, like him, who feel the same. I encourage them to each take in one un-insured American and provide them with health care. Also, I suspect that there are some 10 million others (perhaps journalists) who would offer to take in the 10 million illegals and provide their health care, as well. (;~> gary
" Err; In 1998 the
July 19, 2007 - 00:46 ET by ckc1227"
Err; In 1998 the population was what? 270 million?
In 2007 the population is 300+ Million. The percentage may be similar but the numbers have risen.
Even at 16% the numbers are unacceptable for the "richest" country in the world."
What is unacceptable about it? Health insurance is available to anyone who wants it. Is it also unacceptable that most Americans don't own Porsches? Of course not. What's really unacceptable is expecting me to pay for sorry asses who are unwilling to pay for themselves.
Sicko
July 18, 2007 - 19:27 ET by seejayWhere would this discussion go......if there were no insurance lobby?
No one EVER died from lack of insurance!
IF our gummint is responsible for our health, let's put a clinic in every neighborhood!
Giving today's insurance companies license to screw all of us even more than they already are seems ......unwise at best.
I can't believe that there
July 18, 2007 - 19:46 ET by Night WatchmanI can't believe that there are only 10,000,000 who don't pony up $700 a
month for health insurance, of which 17,000,000 can afford it but
choose not to buy it.
Assuming that the minimum
July 18, 2007 - 20:07 ET by M J BAssuming that the minimum wage is $10/hr & that the minimum wage worker earns $1600/ month. Health care at $700/month is to say the least a bit rich.
My friends Doctor! health consultant ( surgeon's assistant) cannot afford his healthcare premiums for his family of three kids & his wife & he works in the business.
ok, let's be honest here,
July 18, 2007 - 21:28 ET by dscottok, let's be honest here, at what level of coverage does $700/month get you? Let's acknowledge there are various levels of coverage depending on how much of a deductable your budget or rather contingency savings can afford. The purpose of health insurance is not to pay every little item. The purpose is catistrophic cost that you can't afford to pay.
A major medical plan will cost around $150/month. So claiming you can't afford health insurance is bogus. Not to mention there are plans which give you the benefit of the discounts that all health insurance companies, for around $50/month. Most people who run into financial trouble with medical costs are those who have no insurance and therefore get charged the full freight cost, that is why at minimum you should have a medical discount plan if you choose not to be insured.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
dscott, if you go to your
July 18, 2007 - 21:34 ET by botgdscott,
if you go to your account and place the curser just before your tag line (in your edit) then hit enter.
you won't have to deal with the bold waiting to darken all your comments
"The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Einstein
Thanks for the
July 19, 2007 - 07:35 ET by dscottThanks for the tip.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
Surgical Assistant's
July 19, 2007 - 10:55 ET by stratmanSurgical Assistant's yearly salary is between 70K - 80K on average. Prerequisites include Undergraduate Degree plus Physician Assistant Degree.
Surgical Nurse, first assistant, yearly salary is between 60K - 70K. Prerequisites include BSN (Undergraduate) Degree.
Sugeon's Assistant yearly salary between 30K - 50K. Prerequisites include High School graduate plus Physician Assistant program.
Various other degreed or program certificate holders will assist surgeons in the operating theater.
What exactly is your friend's title / education level? Are there pre-existing medical conditions in the family which raised his premiums to elevated levels?
Surgical Assistant
July 19, 2007 - 17:28 ET by River CityA Surgical Assistant could be a Registered Nurse or could be a surgical technician which both are two year degrees (granted, an RN can also be a 4 year degree). The nation-wide average for a Surg Tech was $35,000 according to O Net (the most recent data available was 2005). The last hospital I worked at (last year) the health premiums for a family with a $600 deductible was $206.00 a month. We paid our Surg Techs $18 an hour in 2006. RNs made $22 an hour. These are brand new graduates. They got full time insurance even if they worked only 30 hours a week. Most hospitals in our region are like that. Health care workers are paid well.
Nw, $700/month seems like a
July 19, 2007 - 00:01 ET by RESTLESS 1Nw, $700/month seems like a high number, although there may be programs out there that cost that much. The point is that if health insurance is completely privatised, the market will determine the cost. If the government provides health insurance, the cost goes up and we pay in the form of higher taxes. The real fix is to assess a 10-15% flat tax, coupled with a constitutional amendment limiting government spending. I don't know about anybody else, but if the taxes that are currently taken out of my check were cut to these levels, I would be able to afford a decent insurance plan on my own.
Also, there are a lot of insurance companies who insure many people on the same plan, much the same way as company plans do. This keeps the cost low as they are spread out among many people.
There are other options to fix this rather than hand government 1/7 of the nation's economy.
"I can't believe that there
July 19, 2007 - 00:32 ET by ckc1227"I can't believe that there are only 10,000,000 who don't pony up $700 a
month for health insurance, of which 17,000,000 can afford it but
choose not to buy it."
You shouldn't believe it, for one simple reason: Not everyone's health insurance costs $700/month. Young adults, for example, can often get health insurance for $70 a month, yet choose not to. If they aren't willing to pay for it, I damn sure ain't gonna do it.
Would another 45 percent
July 18, 2007 - 20:05 ET by sanskritgWould another 45 percent become uninsured in the intervening 4 months?
Uninsured in America
July 18, 2007 - 23:08 ET by AtheistRepublicanThere is a real good video on how most of the uninsured merely choose to not be insured even though they either have enough money or opt out of a program.... it uses the 45 million number Michael Moore uses, so I am thinking, if we were to take out the number of illegals that are included in it, how many would really be uninsured? Maybe they took that into account in the video, but I don't really remember...
http://freemarketcur...
AR, thanks for the link -
July 18, 2007 - 23:31 ET by jdhawkAR, thanks for the link - great video!
AR, thanks for the link -
July 18, 2007 - 23:31 ET by jdhawkAR, thanks for the link - great video!
insurance
July 19, 2007 - 00:54 ET by dmntd1For any that are curious, I just went to www.ehealthinsurance... and plugged in me with an imaginary spouse and our three imaginary children. The 'top pick' for us was $211/month for health insurance. Seems fairly reasonable, actually.....
I really think that questioning others' masculinity is a game probably better left to people who haven't had more cock in and out of them than a Tyson Chicken regional distribution center. AceOfSpades 06162007
$75 per month health insurance
July 19, 2007 - 08:00 ET by DanSI just saw an ad on TV from a major insurer for $75 per month health insurance.
I would assume this is
July 19, 2007 - 08:20 ET by dscottI would assume this is a major medical (catastrophic insurance) plan, with high deductible say on the order of $2,500 to $5,000? The lower the deductible, the higher the premium. If you're a young single, such a plan makes sense since your group don't use the medical system as much and usually only does so in an emergency. If you're forced by court order to provide health insurance to a child under a custody agreement, again a good choice as the point of child support is to pay the expenses of the child, not be free income for the mother. Just make sure to know if the major medical plan provides the discounts for all medical services otherwise you need to purchase a discount plan.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.”
Insurance has three
July 19, 2007 - 09:47 ET by Prester JohnInsurance has three components:
Cost
Benefits
Conditions of the contract to collect benefits
The insured gets to pick two, the insurance company picks the third i.e. you want low cost and great benefits, the company will put extremely tight conditions on eligibility; you want loose conditions and great benefits, it's going to cost you etc.
I have to believe that many of those who complain about the high premiums are expecting great benefits with a low annual deductible and are shocked to see that it's expensive, and then instead of increasing the deductibles to lower the premiums they say screw it, and don't buy anything at all.
Insurance companies are not non-profit organizations.
Parallels Medical Care
July 19, 2007 - 11:01 ET by stratmanThe analogy for medical care:
Inexpensive
Fast
Good
But you can only pick two of the three at any one time.
My son is 24 years
July 19, 2007 - 13:13 ET by ricklailMy son is 24 years old. He drives a truck. He does not have health insurance because he would rather spend his money on other things. He has to take a DOT phsyical each year that he pays for out of his pocket. I have always wondered how many more are out there are like him that would rather spend his money for something besides health care.
A bonafided and certified member of the beer guzzling, NASCAR watching middle class.
50 Million Un-insured
July 19, 2007 - 17:57 ET by River CityThe 45 to 50 million number is all hype. A good chuck of that number is illegal aliens. The majority (about half) are the people that are in transition. They are between jobs or are in a waiting period for a new job. A lot of unions and companies have waiting periods for their health plans.
As some others have stated here some Americans have made the choice (which is their right as Americans) to go without insurance. They would rather spend their money on other things. As long as they don't push the cost of their health care off on the rest of us they are perfectly within their right to do so. Obviously they have made the cost/benefit analysis and it wasn't worth the cost to them to buy the insurance. In some cases you would have to give it away to make it worthwhile to those people.
There are the proponents of requiring all of us to buy insurance like in Massachusets. Most states require us to buiy car insurance. Not one state has 100% compliance. There will always be people who say it isn't worth it.
We, as a country, have to make a decision. Do we want to be a communist/socialist country or a democratic/capitalist country? Either way it isn't up to Hillary or Michael Moore to force it on us. NCPA