Michael Moore/Wolf Blitzer smackdown on CNN

[gldstwmn]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2i2dp_moore-on-cnn

Moore's rebuttal from his website:

'SiCKO' Truth Squad Sets CNN Straight

DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN: "(Moore says) the United States slipped to number 37 in the world's health care systems. It's true. ... Moore brings a group of patients, including 9/11 workers, to Cuba and marvels at their free treatment and quality of care. But hold on - that WHO list puts Cuba's health care system even lower than the United States, coming in at #39."

THE TRUTH:

"But hold on?" 'SiCKO' clearly shows the WHO list, with the United States at number #37, and Cuba at #39. Right up on the screen in big five-foot letters. It's even in the trailer! CNN should have its reporter see his eye doctor. The movie isn't hiding from this fact. Just the opposite.
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.
Although Cuba ranks lower overall than the United States, it still has a lower infant mortality rate and longer life span. (see below)
And unlike the United States, Cuba offers healthcare to absolutely everyone. In an independent Gallup poll conducted in Cuba, "a near unanimous 96 percent of respondents say that health care in Cuba is accessible to everyone." ("Cubans Show Little Satisfaction with Opportunities and Individual Freedom Rare Independent Survey Finds Large Majorities Are Still Proud of Island's Health Care and Education," January 10, 2007.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...atinamericara/
300.php?nid=&id=&pnt=300&lb=brla)

CNN: "Moore asserts that the American health care system spends $7,000 per person on health. Cuba spends $25 dollars per person. Not true. But not too far off. The United States spends $6,096 per person, versus $229 per person in Cuba."

THE TRUTH:

According to our own government – the Department of Health and Human Services' National Health Expenditures Projections – the United States will spend $7,092 per capita on health in 2006 and $7,498 in 2007. (Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Expenditures, National Health Expenditures Projections 2006-2016. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealt...s/proj2006.pdf)
As for Cuba – Dr. Gupta and CNN need to watch 'SiCKO' first before commenting on it. 'SiCKO' says Cuba spends $251 per person on health care, not $25, as Gupta reports. And the BBC reports that Cuba's per capita health expenditure is… $251! (Keeping Cuba Healthy, BBC, Aug. 1 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ht/5232628.stm )
As Gupta points out, the World Health Organization does calculate Cuba's per capita health expenditure at $229 per person – a lot closer to $251 than $25.

CNN: In fact, Americans live just a little bit longer than Cubans on average.

THE TRUTH:

Just the opposite. The 2006 United Nations Human Development Report's human development index states the life expectancy in the United States is 77.5 years. It is 77.6 years in Cuba. (Human Development Report 2006, United Nations Development Programme, 2006 at 283. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/pdfs/rep...6-complete.pdf)

CNN: The United States ranks highest in patient satisfaction.

THE TRUTH:

True, but even when the WHO took patient satisfaction into account in its comprehensive review of the world's health systems, we still came in at #37. ("World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html ).
Patients may be satisfied in America, but not everyone gets to be a patient. 47 million are uninsured and are rarely patients - until it's too late. In the rest of the Western world, everyone and anyone can be a patient because everyone is covered. (And don't face exclusions for pre-existing conditions, co-pays, deductibles, and costly monthly premiums).
It's not that other countries are unhappy with their health care – for example, "70 to 80 percent of Canadians find their waiting times acceptable." ("Access to health care services in Canada, Waiting times for specialized services (January to December 2005)," Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepu...XIE2006002.htm )

CNN: Americans have shorter wait times than everyone but Germans when seeking non-emergency elective procedures, like hip replacement, cataract surgery, or knee repair.

THE TRUTH:

This isn't the whole truth. CNN pulled out a statistic about elective procedures. Of the six countries surveyed in that study (United States, Canada, New Zealand, UK, Germany, Australia) only Canada had longer waiting times than America for sick adults waiting to schedule a doctor's appointment for a medical problem. 81% of patients in New Zealand got a same or next-day appointment for a non-routine visit, 71% in Britain, 69% in Germany, 66% in Australia, 47% in the U.S., and 36% in Canada. (The Doc's in, but It'll be AWhile. Catherine Arnst, Business Week. June 22, 2007 http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/
tc20070621_716260_page_2.htm)
"Gerard Anderson, a Johns Hopkins health policy professor who has spent his career examining the world's healthcare, said there are delays, but not as many as conservatives state. In Canada, the United Kingdom and France, 'three percent of hospital discharges had delays in treatment,' Anderson told The Miami Herald. 'That's a relatively small number, and they're all elective surgeries, such as hip and knee replacement.' (John Dorschner, "'SiCKO' film is set to spark debate; Reformers are gearing up for 'Sicko,' the first major movie to examine America's often maligned healthcare system," Miami Herald, June 29, 2007.)
One way America is able to achieve decent waiting times is that it leaves 47 million people out of the health care system entirely, unlike any other Western country. When you remove 47 million people from the line, your wait should be shorter. So why is the U.S. second to last in wait times?
And there are even more Americans who keep themselves out of the system because of cost - in the United States, 24 percent of the population did not get medical care due to cost. That number is 5 percent in Canada, and 3 percent in the UK. (Inequities in Health Care: A Five-Country Survey. Robert Blendon et al, Health Affairs. Exhibit 5. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi.../full/21/3/182)

CNN: (PAUL KECKLEY-Deloitte Health Care Analyst): "The concept that care is free in France, in Canada, in Cuba - and it's not. Those citizens pay for health services out of taxes. 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."

THE TRUTH:

'SiCKO' never claims that health care is provided absolutely for free in other countries, without tax contributions from citizens. Former MP Tony Benn reads from the NHS founding pamphlet, which explicitly states that "this is not a charity. You are paying for it mainly as taxpayers." 'SiCKO' also acknowledges that the French are "drowning in taxes." Comparatively, many Americans are drowning in insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays and medical debt and the resulting threat of bankruptcy – half of all bankruptcies in the United States are triggered by medical bills. (Medical Bills Make up Half of Bankruptcies. Feb. 2005, MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895896/)

CNN: "But even higher taxes don't guarantee the coverage everyone wants … (KECKLEY): 15 to 20 percent of the population will purchase services outside the system of care run by the government."

THE TRUTH:

It's not clear what country Keckley is referring to. In the United Kingdom, only 11.5 percent of the population has supplementary insurance, but it doesn't take the place of NHS insurance. Nobody in France buys insurance that replaces government insurance either, although a substantial amount buys some form of complimentary insurance. ( Private health insurance and access to health care in the European Union. Spring 2004. http://www.euro.who.int/document/Obs...bserver6_1.pdf)

CNN: "But no matter how much Moore fudged the facts, and he did fudge some facts…"

This is libel. There is not a single fact that is "fudged" in the film. No one has proven a single fact in the film wrong. We expect CNN to correct their mistakes on the air and to apologize to their viewers.

[bikerchic]

I can't wait to see this movie! Moore and Gupta on Larry King tonite http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/larry.king.live/

[skcin]

I missed them on CNN last night, but from the clips I've seen, it got very heated:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movi...cko/index.html

Here's Gupta's blog regarding the whole thing:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/

I haven't seen the film yet, but I definitely will. I'm well aware that Moore tends to show only 1 side of things, but it's a side many people wouldn't see otherwise. Working in the healthcare industry is so damned frustrating sometimes.

And Theresa (or any other Canuck on the board) - is your healthcare paid for through income taxes? Offhand, how much income tax do you guys have to pay, percentage-wise? Any idea how much of it goes directly to healthcare? Or is there a specific healthcare tax? Or does it come from other taxes (GST or whatever the hell it is?)

[BombaySapphire3]

I would have to agree that the US. media needs to apologize for it's skewed reporting of the Iraqi invasion disaster.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I would have to agree that the US. media needs to apologize for it's skewed reporting of the Iraqi invasion disaster.

I just do not get this argument. What did they not report?

All the major outlets reported the UN proceedings, the inspections, the ceasing of the inspections, etc. Then, we had real time coverage of over a year of actual combat. Then, all the Halliburton cronisms have been reported as have the horrible acts of a comparatively few bad soldiers. The WH has tried to stop all of this and has not succeeded.

So, my question is "what else could the media have done?"

Note - I get that Fax is skewed in its opinions, but the actual anchors reported the news as did all the other majors.

In the end, Americans were pissed off at all Muslims and Iraq had a history of utter BS and killing. Thus, Americans saw the truth, but chose to avoid it. In other words, there was nothing else the media could have done IMO And, I think this is because for eight years in the Clinton era, the US killed in the name of the same WMD -- so, it was logical to fgo after SH as a terrorist and even though he had nothing to do with 9/11. I also think many on the far left think the words "WMD" were never uttered until W came into office and they are all W's fabrication. That is just not so. Even Bill Clinton agreed with W on everything except the ceasing of the inspections and the jumoing into the invsion.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I would have to agree that the US. media needs to apologize for it's skewed reporting of the Iraqi invasion disaster.

I was delighted that somebody finally went on a mainstream media outlet and showed true emotion like that. It needs to be said over and over and over again.

[Musicman408]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

I would have to agree that the US. media needs to apologize for it's skewed reporting of the Iraqi invasion disaster.

Completely agreed.

[MacMan]

Originally Posted by skcin

I missed them on CNN last night, but from the clips I've seen, it got very heated:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movi...cko/index.html

Here's Gupta's blog regarding the whole thing:

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/

I haven't seen the film yet, but I definitely will. I'm well aware that Moore tends to show only 1 side of things, but it's a side many people wouldn't see otherwise. Working in the healthcare industry is so damned frustrating sometimes.

And Theresa (or any other Canuck on the board) - is your healthcare paid for through income taxes? Offhand, how much income tax do you guys have to pay, percentage-wise? Any idea how much of it goes directly to healthcare? Or is there a specific healthcare tax? Or does it come from other taxes (GST or whatever the hell it is?)

I saw the movie... and loved it. I'm in Canada - and after watching this I'm sure glad I live here!... It's not a perfect system here in Canada, but at least I know that if something were to happen to me where I needed a doctor or a hospital for whatever reason, I know I won't be denied the care because I don't have insurance.... And nobody is going to send me a bill. Everyone IS covered here - and it is paid for through taxes... not sure how it's structured tax wise, it's not like it's a line within your income tax that shows how much you paid for health care - and I'm sure the GST (Goods and Services Tax) covers some of it. The GST is a federal tax on pretty much everything you buy and it's 6%. Most provinces also have a provincial tax as well that I'm sure portions of go towards health spending provincially... Provincial tax were I am is 7% on pretty much everything except food is exempt for the most part. So for instance, if I buy a shirt - add 13% tax onto the price.

I think a big difference is the hospitals aren't privately owned here, it's all government - and they aren't in the business of making money and there aren't share holders to answer too...

I don't know it's all very confusing... But after watching the movie - you definately get the sense that France has a fantastic system in place..

[irishgrl]

First of all: what the HELL happened to CNN? when did they become Faux Lite? apparently I've been away from the tv too long....(or not! if thats all Im missing!)
Second: I am glad Michael Moore is happily being the thorn in the side of rampant corporate/political GREED. Keep up the good work, Michael.
Third: Jason, why are you using this thread to perpetuate your "Clinton did it first" spiel?