Did you even read the article from Moore's site? Agenda or not, CNN, straight up, got their facts wrong.

MediaMatters regularly features CNN's right wing bias. Occassionally, not nearly often enough, Wolf even addresses/apologises for the specific issues raised by MM.
I don't think Dobbs or Beck have ever apologised for their constant right wing reporting and opining.

Looks like Michael Moore and Gupta will be on Larry King tonight...i'll be watching can't wait

Why don't you follow the link I provided where Moore takes on the "facts" provided in Gupta's hit piece and destroys them one by one. Those "facts" you apparently support are nothing but lies and half truths and Moore knocks them down with sourced information. It should only take you two or three minutes to read Moore's response- that is, if you actually care about the truth. Personally, I don't think you will ever let the truth and reality get in the way of your preconceived notions.
Regardless, here is the link to Moore's response yet again:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/ne...icle_10017.phpLink To Moore's Response

I took Moore's advice and "TiVo'd back" to the part of the Gupta bit where they show the US at #37 and the "CNN logo covered up Cuba at #39". I wish I have an easy way to get the screenshot, but there's Cuba plain as day at #39.

Gupta made good points to the Moore counter-points too. First, about the per capita amounts being "projected" because even the link on Moore's site says it's projected (how often does projected come true?).
hxxp://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2006.pdf
"Forecast Summary"

Another of Gupta's points is that Moore uses $251 for Cuba from that BBC link on his counter-point argument but he doesn't use the $5711 for the US it also shows.


Cuban healthcare
256 hospitals
13 medical research centres
445 24-hour clinics
13,857 family doctors
Health care spending per person per annumn: Cuba $251; UK $2,389; US $5,711


Essentially, as with more and more "facts" today: where you take them from and how you use them can give you fuel for any argument you care to make.

There are so many points against Michael Moore's idea of Universal Health Care that he ignores...

1. The U.S. Government has no experience with a good health care system. The military health care system is criminally bad, and I wouldn't wish that system on my worst enemies. To expect this government to suddenly do a better job than providers who have been doing it for decades is just delisional.

2. It will be at least twice as expensive as any "projections." EVERY government program ends up costing 2-3 times as much as projected in the long run. The health care system as it stands now is larger than the U.S. government - how will they be able to run a system that more than doubles the size of government with ANY kind of efficiency.

3. It will cost the middle class more. ANYONE who has an employer who pays at least part of their health care costs will see a net pay cut when factoring in the new taxes. The employer will pocket the savings and the employee will have much higher taxes - resulting in a huge net pay cut. Tens of thousands - maybe even hundreds of thousands - of people will be forced into bankruptcy.

4. Canada, The U.K. - most universal health care systems feature MUCH larger waits than the U.S. for ELECTIVE procedures (even though many "elective" procedures, such as hip replacements, are necessary for any kind of quality of life). These systems have gaps that many people who are well off financially pay for separate coverage to fill in the gaps - something that the middle class and poor can't afford to do. Those systems are not perfect, not even close.

5. There are VERY effective steps than can be taken to fix the system without the radical shift to universal health care (Tort Reform, Health Savings Accounts for the poor paid like Earned Income Tax Credits, Increased penalties/jail terms for fraud, etc). Universal Health Care isn't even needed, these steps solve almost every problem currently cited.

Michael Moore didn't cover any of that, did he? Those nasty, nagging points that undermine his socialist utopian dreams.


I don't want to be a government program junkie. I want to live as free FROM the government as possible. Unfortunately, with the health problems that I have, and the health issues my daughter has, Universal Health Care means dealing with the government 10 times a year or more. Sorry, they don't make enough advil to cover that kind of a headache that often.

And IF this ever comes to pass I want you all to remember those, like me and several others on this thread, who warned you and everyone else that this is a disaster waiting to happen. You may scoff now, but there is NO evidence that this government can do anything but TOTALLY screw this thing up. Believing that Universal Health Care can work in this country is nothing more than wishful thinking. It has no basis in reality.

Smaller countries with far fewer citizens can pull it off to some degree, but our government is a completely inefficient, ineffective, incompetent oranization, and to apply that level of incompetence to health care is just unthinkable.

Another point - this government is COMPLETELY PC in hiring practices. I don't want a rainbow group of people that "looks like America" running this system - I want the BEST POSSIBLE people running this system, regardless of ethnicity. Unfortunately, that's not how the government hires.

But I want you to think about this - what precedent is there that says that our government can do this better than health care professionals that have been doing this for decades?

What (recent) precedent is there that indicates that the government can do this without completely screwing it up and making the situation worse rather than better?

Precendents? Just Google. Willful ignorance of the health care system is no excuse. This from an article about Bill McGuire (he's the poster child for government-free healthcare):

"UnitedHealth and other managed care providers have essentially become medical brokers, making money at the expense of an inefficient system.

They may allow doctors to make treatment decisions, but they ultimately decide who gets paid and who doesn't. They are the arbiters of capital in the medical community, and for that, they extract a hefty price."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...z/4318193.html

I don't agree with Michael Moore on most things, and I think he's a huge ass, but I still found this entertaining - Michael Moore and Dr. Sanjay Gupta on Larry King Live:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifVsu8AQaps"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ifVsu8AQaps" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mpfHcCffNS0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mpfHcCffNS0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IBD8SLvnGM0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IBD8SLvnGM0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I don't think the movie would have been very entertaining if it was a a scripted based on a 50,000 page report on every detail on how to handle a universal health care policy. It's a fucking movie to raise discussion. That what you Moore bashers don't seem to get. Moore is not telling people how to think. He's raising topics for debate. Are you so scared of what he presents, that you immediately have to start bashing it, throwing out "liberal" or "socialist."

I mean c'mon, you are just reaching for things to bash this guy on. All he does with this movie, is raise the topic for discussion. That's all. He does not say he's going to solve all the health care problems. It's so obvious you hate the man and need to nitpick to bash him. You come up with a better, more proven plan, and show me an example that works. He shows countries were universal health care is working. If it was so bad in Canada, UK and France, why do they continue to pass laws broadening those systems? Why aren't their people voting against those policies? You're criticisms against the foreign systems are just heresy, and your arguments against universal health care in America, are just unproven opinions that have only tired and failed.

And who gives a shit if it's socialist or not. If you are so against socialism, get your fucking kids out of the schools I pay for. Don't call my cops or firemen. hire your own, bitch.

Fact of the matter is that more countries are moving towards state sponsored health care, and those countries have people that live longer and more healthy lives. Their systems look out for each other. Instead of candlelight vigils and stupid shit we do in front of TV to make us look like we care, how about we start using our tax money to help people instead of killing them. And Moore made the perfect example of how great this country can be if healthcare didn’t break families down.

Just because you hate Moore, doesn’t mean you have to hate everything he says.
Just because you read on the internets somewhere that he (OMG) edits his movies like filmmaker’s do doesn’t mean that everything he does is so “evil”

The man just wants people to have health care in this country, like other world powers have. Who can argue with that? The selfish and the ignorant, that’s who.

longer life expectancies in other countries are due to a lot of other factors like diet and not healthcare. the country with the most people who live past 100 has most of it's people live simple agrarian lifestyles with very poor healthcare

"The study paper, titled Canadians' Thoughts on Their Health Care System: Preserving the Canadian Model Through Innovation commissioned by the Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada captures just over a decade of public opinion research about health care. The study concludes that the overwhelming majority of Canadians are definitive about their strong attachment to the current health care model and its principles. While they see the need for significant improvements, Canadians are not prepared to accept "radical change" says the study released in Ottawa in early June, 2002."

The study states that "Canadians very much like the current Canadian health care system model, with 88 per cent saying that a strong, national, publicly funded system is important to them." Canadians also indicated a willingness to expend public funds to ensure quality, and demonstrated deep discomfort with any system that would limit access to health care services due to an inability to pay.

There is little doubt that Canadians believe the health care system has deteriorated over the past decade. In 1991, 61 per cent of Canadians thought the system was excellent or very good (and an additional 25 per cent thought it was "good"). In 2000, only 29 per cent shared that strong view (with an additional 34 per cent saying it was "good").

Topping the list of Canadians' concerns about the health care system are waiting times, a lack of the most sophisticated equipment, a shortage of specialists and shrinking staffs.

A large number of surveys have shown that while the vast majority of Canadians continue to be satisfied with the health care they have receive, the number who express concerns have jumped dramatically. Between 1989 and 2000, the number who said they were unable to access needed health care services soared from two to 15 per cent, and the number who said they and their family have had difficulty accessing needed health care services almost doubled, from 18 to 34 per cent.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/...w/hcc0094.html

I bolded both good bad, but it seems overly positive.
Not perfect, but I wouldn't say my dealings with my (very expensive) health plan has been perfect either. (I had to wait 4 hours with a kidney stone before anyone would see me at one of the leading hospitals in the world).

Guys, you're wasting your time arguing with people like B5Erik, and I'm gonna tell you why.

I've had countless debates on health care with Americans. And if you can read between the lines, you will find out that they are fundamentally opposed to a universal healthcare system because of ideological reasons. I repeat, ideological reasons. Oh sure, they'll start out the debate by pointing out flaws with "socialized medicine". Of course these turn out to be mostly lies, distorsions and gross exaggerations (see the first few pages of this thread). Regardless, it's really a pointless approach to debating akin to trying to prove that Coke is better because one doesn't like Pepsi... Then when you start pointing flaws in their own system, they go into denial mode: "It's not that bad", "I have excellent coverage", "Those health care system rankings are bogus", "Yeah but if we have lower life expectancy/higher infant mortality rates it's because...", etc... etc... They'll do their best to twist, distort, ignore, evade facts in order to fit their beliefs (hey! just like Michael Moore! ). And the argument that "socialized medicine" cannot work in the US (FYI, you already have it, it's called Medicare and Medicaid) is just bogus. If it were true, I can only conclude that your politicians represent the world's epitomy of ineptitude, which really doesn't say much about the people who elect them.

But, after pages and pages of useless debate, bits and pieces of information manage to come out to support the notion that, again, they are opposed to a universal health care system, not because of facts or figures, but because of purely ideological reasons. So you get comments like:

"Why should I pay for lazy fat people who eat badly and don't exercise?"
"My coverage is great! Who cares about the rest of them..."
"Michael Moore didn't cover any of that, did he? Those nasty, nagging points that undermine his socialist utopian dreams."
"But I want you to think about this - what precedent is there that says that our government can do this better than health care professionals that have been doing this for decades?"
"I don't want to be a government program junkie. I want to live as free FROM the government as possible."

In the above, you have a summary of American core values: A fundamental distrust of government, an impetus on individual liberties and freedoms (as opposed to social equality and justice) where individuals are expected to take care of their own problems. Add to that, a booga booga buzzword, "socialism" (which nobody but Americans use when referring to social democracies), to make sure it sounds REALLY evil.

So in a word, when you are trying to have Americans buy the idea of a universal health care system, you are asking them to go against their core values and principles. So, one more time, the objections to a universal health care system have little to nothing to do with the "arguments" presented, it is mainly an ideological issue.

The End.

P.S. I just wish these people would come out right off the bat and say: "I'm opposed to a universal health care system because it goes against American core values and principles". One, I'd have a lot more respect for their opinion, and two, it would save a lot of typing and grief.

eXcentris - In your zeal to lay this down to "ideology," you failed to address the SUBSTANCE of my post. Like Michael Moore, you ignore that which undermines you point. You don't care to debate it on the facts, you just sweep it under the rug and attack your opponent personally.

I haven't once attacked you personally, only your points/point of view.

So, prove me wrong - address these points.

None of that is ideology.

Those are legitimate points that have to be addressed before anyone should even CONSIDER Universal Health Care. And #5 should be adopted and allowed to run its course long before we ever adopt Universal Health Care - because if they work the way they should there will be NO NEED for universal health care.

And what is your answer to this?
See, there are absolute practical reasons above and beyond the ideological reasons NOT to rush into universal health care.

Anyone who wants to live in a country with "free" health care can move to Canada. Canada has some beautiful country - and tons of wide open spaces, so there's plenty of room for American immigrants up there.

If the U.S. goes with universal health care there is nowhere for people who do not want Government Health Care to go. (And there are tens of millions of us - do we not count?) Our health care "choice" will be gone - forever. That may be ideological, but it's also legitimate.

But again, beyond the ideology I am scared shitless of the idea of the same government that brought us the IRS, Medicare, and Walter Reed Hospital & the Military Health Care System running my family's health care. The level of incompetence shown by the Federal Government is mind boggling.

Anyone living in Canada all you see are the decisions that the U.S. government makes. You don't have to live with the inefficient and incompetent bureaucracy that these guys have set up. It's a freaking nightmare, and to have that applied to health care is the scariest thing I can think of short of nuclear terrorism.

...and this is proof that I haven't been making stuff up.
How is that any better than the U.S. system?

And if Canada has that hard a time with only 35 or so million citizens, how can the U.S. Government do even half as well with 300 Million citizens to cover?

These 'American' core values sound like some Canadian core values I've heard about involving Moosehead beer, some term of endearment, 'Hosehead', I think, and since they have Universal Health Coverage, mandatory dialectical materialism.

You have mistaken the views of a depressingly large but still minority group for 'core' values. For instance, a high percentage of people who lived in the 1930s have a very different understanding of what government's role isthan these Americans you have conversed with.

Americans, including both the majority who consider our health care system to be a top priority (after ending military operations in Iraq) as well as the minority who find it goes against their core values (and/or have dozens of "legitimate' questions) will not have their current system much longer. Corporations are struggling with the cost of these benefits; I wish the company I work for had a sales trend that came close to matching that of the escalating costs of benefits (we're doing well, but not that freakin well)...biggest portion of the runaway costs are for health care. We have tried to accomodate Private Sector solutions and it does not work and will not work due to the need to make and maximize profit in private sector solutions. I think its a question of when and how much rather than 'if'.

I don't know, how many times does it grossly overestimate? Someone should have quantified the accuracy of past estimates by now, and if material, the pro-Moore or pro-Gupta sides should be using it!

Moore's responses are up:

I really don't have a problem with someone fact checking (wish they'd do it more often, particularly with pols and their own commentators!), and even questioning whether it was appropriate to cite statistics from two different reports, but I think its appalling to call it fudging.

Really? And what "solutions" have been tried?

Tort Reform? Nope, killed by the Democrats at the urging of the trial lawyers.

Health Savings Accounts for the poor? Nope, killed by the Democrats.

Increased penalties/jail terms for fraud? Nope.

The first and last above would cut costs dramatically, the middle idea would cover all those not currently covered.

What do you say we actually TRY those ideas before radically going in a direction that we can NEVER go back from?

You think any/all of those propositions 'cut costs dramatically' and or otherwise significantly impact the quality and expense of our health care, I suggest you quit trying to persuade the MovieTalk crowd and work on the Fortune 500, its those lefties you need to worry about.

My comments weren't addressed to you and you don't need to repond, you are welcome yo your opinion, I will not try to change your mind.

First: I enjoyed the movie, I agreed with the premise. I'm also going to say, I don't know who is right about all these facts. I'm just making comment on what I see, I don't have "a side" here between Moore and Gupta.

First, Moore updated his site with screenshots of what CNN showed with the WHO list. That shot may be from the original Gupta piece on Wolf or it just might be a few frames before what I went back and freezeframed during Larry King: but I saw Cuba displayed on my screen when I watched King the other night. (As I commented above)

As for using projected numbers: if in the movie Moore had said something like (and I'm making this up) "the last year with actual stats was from 2004 where per capita expenditures was $5711, but projected expenditures for 2007 it jumps to $7400", I would not only not have a problem with that, I would in fact think the point was even better.

These ideas are not mine - experts far more knowledgeable than me have proposed them. Here are the basic reasons:

Two huge escalations in costs for health care providers are malpractice insurance (because of staggering amounts awarded in lawsuits) and fraud. In any insurance field fraud is responsible for over 10% of your premiums. Because the health insurance industry is so large and there is so much money to be made fraud is particularly insidious in this area. Malpractice insurance has skyrocketed over the last 10 years, and that is added in to your premiums, along with the costs of paying out these gigantic awards. (What, do you think the company is just going to eat the losses? Even the non-profits have to recoup those costs.)

Increasing the penalties (much larger fines, longer jail terms) for fraud will put a dent in the problem (some people who would otherwise commit fraud will think twice if they face longer jail sentences). Instituting a new branch of the FBI to investigate these cases would also go a long way to cutting down on fraud. Right now the problem is hardly ever investigated even though it costs the industry billions - and that gets passed on to you and me.

Health Savings Accounts - paid by the government like earned income tax credits once a year - WILL cover those who truly cannot afford health insurance. And the fact that the people with the accounts will be able to CHOOSE their providers will allow them to shop around and this will act as a market force to encourage providers to lower prices to be more competitive.

Have you seen premiums in the auto insurance industry? They've gone down. Why? Because of competition - they have to price their coverage competitively in order to grow their total numbers of policies in force (you have to take policyholders from other companies in order to grow your own p.i.f.).

Market forces cannot offset the skyrocketing costs of fraud and malpractice insurance. Something needs to be done legislatively, but the Democrats in congress have filibustered any attempt at Tort Reform and Health Savings Accounts. Why do you think that is?

The government can't get their act together enough to even address these issues - how can they run the entire health care system?

And why would we go from "A" to "Z" without trying solutions in between first? Isn't finding a less radical solution that costs US nothing worth a try before having the Federal Government absorb an industry that is larger than that Federal Government is today?

No one on the "Pro-Government Health Care" side is looking at the practical issues involved with such a radical change. It's hoping against hope that the government can do something right, do it efficiently and with expertise - for the first time in our lifetimes! Are lawmakers suddenly going to put aside their inclinations to load up bills with pork and useless stuff to line their pockets while writing this law? Really? Are they going to write this law so well that the system has a strong foundation? Or are they more likely going to blow it in the details/wording of the law so that the system becomes even MORE ripe for fraud and overinflated costs than it is now?

There's the dream, and then there's reality. Reality when it comes to Government Health Care will be a cold slap in the face - and you will come to wish that it had never happened if it does come to pass.

People support this idea because they're desperate for a change. Some people are almost panicked because of the way this issue has been brought forth by the media and people like Michael Moore. You make the worst decisions when desperate or panicked.

All I'm saying is take a step back, look at more moderate solutions that have not yet been tried (like those I've noted - I'm sure there are more), and give them a shot. If they work - like I'm confident that they will - then there is no need to gamble with a Government take over of a system that it is ill equipped to run.

If they don't - and they have been given time to really take effect - then I'm open to new ideas. But not until then.

I wasn't trying to imply you were siding with either. It sounded like your presumption on the accuracy of forecasts was that they weren't accurate. I wasn't saying you were wrong, just that it is surprising neither side has said the use of forecasts is/is not a reasonable thing to do because the last 5 years have been x% accurate.

I just included Moore's response was to CNN so you could see what Moore had to say about the specific Gupta charge you cited.

I'm not attacking you personnally, I'm just pointing out that there is a strong ideological component to your opposition to a universal health care system that's evident in pretty much everyone of your posts. As for your "facts", especially those pertaining to "socialized medicine", i did debate them in the first few pages of this thread, and they mostly turned out to be lies, distorsions or gross exaggerations. I'm not trying to push a universal heatlh care system on you, if you can find a workable alternative that's fine by me, but I'm pretty convinced that even if someone managed to prove to you that a universal health care system would work in the US, you'd still be opposed to it, for ideological reasons.

These would be stereotypes, not values.

I think you are confusing views with values because you concluded that I believed that the overwhelming majority of Americans had similar views as those expressed in the quoted statements I posted. That was not my intention. I don't think anyone, especially Americans, can argue that the US was founded on the principles of individual liberties and freedoms and that these have always been core American values. This of course, doesn't mean that all Americans hold views that represent extreme manifestations of those values. But one cannot dismiss the importance of these values, and how they have shaped American thinking, when addressing historical/cultural/sociological/institutional differences between the US and say Canada (or any other "social democracy").

If I knew for a fact that THIS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT could do health care right - no drop off in quality of care, no longer waits, no loss of specialists, etc, AND I knew for a FACT that it would COST LESS and that NO ONE would see a net pay cut due to increased taxes then I would be all for it.

The problem is THIS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT hasn't done anything well in our lifetimes. They get away with it when it comes to the military because the military's job is to kill people and break things.

But health care is to HEAL people and fix things - something this government has not shown an ability to do. This government has also not been able to do ANYTHING for less than double the projected budget, and most often for THREE TIMES the projected budget.

Letting the Federal Government do it is a HUGE risk - a gamble I am not willing to take.

Read my entire post addressed to you. Common sense says that with the track record of this government that they will TOTALLY screw up health care if they take on the responsibility.

And when there are untried GOOD ideas out there for reforming our current system, why not try them first?

exactly. I think we understand each other.

Is anyone else here amused by the irony of some of the comments in this thread?

For instance, here are several comments all by the same poster:

1."There is NO right to health care in the constitution. If it's important to you, you pay for it."
2."If someone truly does not have the means to get health care coverage get them a health savings account. ONLY to be used for health care."
3."Bullshit. No one owes you a damned thing. You want it, pay for it."
4."We waited until we were in our 30's and paid for everything ourselves."
5."...I don't want ANYBODY else paying for MY health care ..."
6."I'll keep my health insurance, thank you - even if I have to pay for part of it myself (and I do)."


If I could make stuff like this up I might get a job on "The Onion." Now, you might say that the part he says he isn't paying for is paid for by his employer and is therefore part of his compensation, so that, in effect, he is paying for all of it. But you'd be wrong, because the same guy says in another post:

"But most important to working families is the FACT that without the employers paying their share EVERYONE who has employer subsidized health care will take a real income hit of thousands of dollars per year. The employers are not going to just give that money (the share that the employers pay) to the employees - they're going to keep it to help pad their bottom lines."

So, the employer paid share IS NOT part of his compensation; and furthermore, it is a SUBSIDY, which sounds like a kind of "socialism." And, of course, insurance is itself a form of "socialism." In fact, insurance essentially satisfies the very definition of socialism: each according to his ability, each according to his need. Many people pay in, those who don't need a payout don't get one, and some people, those who do really "need" a payout, get back far more in benefits than they ever contribute. Insurance socializes risk. It seems to me that a real individual paying his own way would not have insurance, he'd just pay whatever medical expenses came up for himself. Anyone who receives more in insurance benefits than he pays the insurance company is living off someone else. The fact that the insurance company is the middle-man instead of the government does not change this fundamental principle.


And this comment seemed rather amusing as well, but perhaps it's just me:

"I'm not a pessimist - I'm a REALIST."


Does a true "realist" watch movies and television and participate on a website that is essentially devoted to movie and television fantasy? The dictionary says a realist "is inclined to literal truth and pragmatism;" and that a pragmatist is "somebody who only considers things as they are or appear to be, and avoids ideals and abstractions." Not to carry a point too far, but does that sound like the kind of guy who'd watch James Bond and Babylon 5?