Hermes, you can take your shots at me - and that's fine. But you (and many others) have completely ignored the substance of WHY I (and millions of others) believe that this government is ill equipped for this job.

You have absolutely NO evidence to show that the Federal Government is even remotely capable of doing the job of administering Universal Health Care as well as the companies and organizations currently doing it, let alone doing it better.

We do know that this government is notorious for wasteful spending and tons of middle management bureaucracy - as well as major cuts to programs when the budget gets tight. So how would having the government run the system be ANY improvement? The evidence to the contrary (Military health care - Walter Reed is just the tip of the iceberg, I've been hearing about incompetence and a complete lack of "caring" in military health care for over 15 years) - that government run/administered health care would actually be far WORSE and far more EXPENSIVE than what we have now is staggering. Ignoring that evidence on the WISH that government was more capable than it is is just foolish.

And, by the way - the portion of my health care that my employer pays IS part of my compensation package. A big part that will just disappear and be paid by me in the form of increased taxes if Universal Health Care is implemented - and that would be true of EVERYONE who has employer paid health care. It IS part of the compensation - but would become a PAY CUT (essentially) if Universal health care is passed. (Since we never see this in our paychecks the employers will not feel obligated to pay it any longer, and they will just pocket the savings themselves.) Actually, it would be sort of a double whammy - not only would my employer no longer pay their portion (essentially a pay cut), but then I would ALSO have to pay higher taxes (essentially ANOTHER pay cut). What part of that do you not get?

Wow. Fast response. I've extracted the more relevant remarks in your response in the interest of space.

I actually had opinions more or less like yours when I was young and reading Ayn Rand. You claim to be a realist but your arguments are all based in theory and hearsay.

Our medical system is no where near being "efficient," even when compared to the government. It is designed to extract the maximum amount of money from the people who use it and the government that subsidizes it, NOT to keep people healthy. The incentives, in fact, are to keep people SICK. They don't make money off of healthy people. It does a pretty good job with emergency care, but it is otherwise little more than a marketing tool for selling drugs and services (and often unnecessary ones to boot) at the highest possible prices: prices protected by the government via any number of laws intended to insulate the industry from any kind of competition. The notion that the cost of this system represents some kind of market driven "efficiency", as reflected in, say, the charges for a typical hospital visit , is ludicrous.

I've been in the military and I've worked for large corporations. In my experience, the military was a far more efficient organization than any large corporation I've worked for. The medical treatment I received in the military was just as good or better than the medical treatment I have received from the so called "private" sector. It also included vision and dental care. The problem with military medical care is not a problem with "efficiency," it's a problem with FUNDING. What gets funded is what makes money for Bush and Cheney's buddies in the defense industry, like bombs, and planes, and phony no-bid contracts; medical treatment, by comparison, is an after thought.

And finally, if your employer isn'tl obligated to pay you something, it's not part of your compensation --it's more like a "bonus." The fact that he can stop paying it to the insurance company and put it in his own pocket --even money that he might get refunded retroactively by the insurance company-- means it belongs to him, not to you. Your compensation belongs to you in exchange for work performed.

So if budget problems and payments going to the President's buddies are the problems with Military health care, why won't that be a problem with the same government running ALL health care?

Well, I guess that depends on how you define having the government "run" health care. If the model is anything like the Halliburton and Blackwater model for military services, it will at least be more expensive than it should be, and perhaps, more expensive than it is now. However, this isn't a function of relative efficiencies, it's a function of relative corruption.

One potential mitigating factor is the simple fact that the nature of defense expenditures makes it relatively easy to hide corruption. Many costs in the military have no comparative basis. For instance, we can't compare the cost of "Star Wars" to what they're paying for "Star Wars" in Europe, but we can compare what, say, a hospital stay and a colonoscopy costs in Canada, to what it costs in the US. So, it's easy to charge the taxpayers 100 times what "Star Wars" is worth, but someone might notice a $100,000 charge for a colonoscopy.

What's to stop the amounts currently charged for an MRI or a colonoscopy to be charged under Government run/administered health care? Or even a marginial increase citing increased costs?

Having the government pay for it is like asking for overcharges. The government pays more than anyone else for just about everything they buy or contract out for.

Also, you're asking people to believe that the health care laws that would have to be written would be written well to set the system up with a solid foundation. When was the last time either house of congress wrote an airtight, well written bill? Not in our lifetimes - and if the foundation is rotten, then the whole thing will crumble.

Again, why not try more moderate steps that may go a long way towards fixing the problems before taking such a huge risk?

my personal thought/comments on the film and post screening conversation with a doctor and someone who worked for nearly all the health care corporations seen in the movie

- Unity Health Care got off lightly, my friend says they are the worst.

- I found the scenes of the young man and Americans in the Paris scenes off putting, they seemed to revel in 'exploiting' France's health care industry's benefits.

- the beginning montage of individuals and situations didn't make clear that they had individual paid health care, if they had coverage through their employees they wouldn't have been turned down.

- the film never talks about the similiar extreme situations or victimes of chronic health problems in countries like the one's mentioned in the film: The UK, France, Cuba

- the film on the whole seemed to paint a great picture of all the problems but really didn't offer any solutions. One solution that my friends talked about was that National US health coverage was a pipe dream, but if the Government extended it's policies like Medicaid to the uninsured, that is a possible option.

- the portrayel of Hilary Clinton was a briliant knife in the back to her credibility - she comes off as a total hypocrite and this movie was particularily damning in that respect.

- it's was made quite clear that HMO's warned doctor's not to speak to Michael Moore, for this movie, but I honestly can't think that all American doctors are this leacherous.

- Filmwise, Michael Moore's narration I thought got grating and the overuse of melodramtic music and silly montages felt highly manipulative.

- the one scene I felt was the most powerful of the film was the meeting of the Cuban firefighters with the 911 rescuers - that was very emotional for me.

I agree, Moore doesn't really bring this aspect into the film. Those countries also particularily France and the UK aren't car dependent countries. Moore suggests eating more fruit and walking - but that isn't the case for American particularily the latter - outside the metropolitan cities, who actually walks daily. The suburbanizing of American has made alot of American use their cars since everything is so spread out.

Great Article at The American Prospect :

Tim, excellent article. The nitpicking Moore films are subjected to has reached astronomical levels of silliness. Perhaps, as the article suggests, it's because Moore tackles very touchy subjects, but regardless, one can't help but notice some form of jealousy from the "too tame" media, who invariably don't have the balls to address real issues in depth and ask tough questions. As for the general public well, they only seem to be obsessed with bias when they hear, read, or see stuff they don't agree with, and they usually respond with half-truths, distorsions and exaggerations of their own.

There is the wishful thinking crowd that hopes that the U.S. Government can do something right for the first time in forever, and then there is the side that notes that letting the U.S. Government take over all health care is a HUGE gamble. Losing that bet will be disastrous.

Again, there are SEVERAL fixes that can be implemented BEFORE that gamble should ever be considered.

It's easy to say that the system is broken. It's easy to say that other governments do health care better than ours. It's easy to call for Universal Health Care.

What is hard is to take a realistic look at this government and honestly believe that they're capable of doing this thing well. What do you base that belief on?

Seriously - are there any precedents that say that the bill will be written without MAJOR flaws that will cripple the system? Are there ANY precedents that say that this government can efficiently, effectively, and compassionately administer health care to 300+ million people?

Having worked in the healthcare realm for 10 years I completely agree with your first statement.

Healthcare in this country has a lot of inefficiencies. I've worked in a centralized business office for a 600+ provider clinic and it had some mind-blowing inefficiencies. I'm now in managed care and there are severe problems in that realm, as well.

I only partially agree with the rest of the highlighted statements. I agree that for the most part it has operated that way in the past (and still does in many ways/places). However, I do think there has been a shift in some realms and areas. Medical Management, when done well (i.e. not the hack job that Cigna, United, the Blues, etc. do), can have a tremendous impact.

The problem is the lack of partnership between the people using the insurance (members), the payors (insurance companies or self-funded employers), and health care providers (facilities and doctors).

Through medical management you can start compensating providers more for showing they are doing quality care. Employers save money overall because they aren't paying for the higher levels of care unnecessarily. Emergency room care is not just over-utilized but it is used for non-emergent care situations (ear-ache, stomach flu, etc.). Implementation of nurse-on-call that triages a patients symptoms and advises on the course of action (home remedy; wait until next day for doctors visit; visit urgent care; or this is a true emergency). Disease management that works with asthmatics and diabetic members to help manage their chronic conditions. This reduces the number of asthmatic attacks that result in ER visits or blood sugar issues for diabetics.

Separate comments directed to the general public and not any particular poster:

I think there is middle ground. There are networks, providers, and employers making great strides. I work for and with them.

But for anyone to deny that there are major issues with health care in this country is idiotic.

CNN's Response to Michael Moore and Sicko:
---------------------------
In response to a letter Michael Moore wrote about CNN's reporting on his documentary "SiCKO," a CNN spokesperson released the following statement:

"It's ironic that someone who has made a career out of holding powerful interests accountable is so sensitive to having his own work held up to the light by impartial journalists, as we did in our examination of 'SiCKO,' " the spokesperson said.

"In our original report, we made one mistake, which we apologized for and corrected on air and online six days ago, despite Mr. Moore's claim yesterday in his letter to us. Further, the e-mail Mr. Moore released in an effort to cast doubt on our reporting does no such thing.

"We appreciate Mr. Moore's attention to the important subject of health care and have featured him on CNN four times to discuss his movie and our reporting on it. While Mr. Moore may want to continue the discussion in order to drive publicity to his movie, we have presented the facts and are comfortable letting the viewers judge for themselves.

"We have zero vested interest in shading the numbers to tell a certain story. Suggesting otherwise, of Dr. Gupta or of CNN, just doesn't hold water," the spokesperson concluded.

CNN has always prided itself on balanced reporting of claims made by special-interest groups. Moore's documentary "SiCKO," which makes an impassioned case for a complete overhaul of the U.S. health care system, was not exempt from that reporting.

Moore has been sharply critical of CNN's reporting on his movie. CNN gave him multiple opportunities to respond, including lengthy segments on "The Situation Room" and "Larry King Live." Portions of those segments were aired in other CNN programs.

Moore recently posted and open letter and two so-called "Truth Squad" statements on his Web site. This document responds to the specific points Moore lays out:

POINT NO. 1:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

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 (World Health Organization) list puts Cuba's health care system even lower than the United States, coming in at No. 39."

"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

"But hold on? 'SiCKO' clearly shows the WHO list with the United States at number No. 37 and Cuba at No. 39. Right up on the screen in big 5-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.

CNN RESPONSE:

Moore appears unhappy with Gupta's use of the phrase, "But hold on."

Moore appears to be creating an issue where none exists.

Gupta and Moore agree that the U.S. ranks 37th and Cuba ranks 39th on a WHO report. Gupta in his fact check says this is true.

And Gupta never said Moore didn't convey that Cuba was 39th, even though the verbal emphasis at that point in the movie is a comparison between the United States and Slovenia.

POINT NO. 2:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

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" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

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).

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, August 1 2006). This is confirmed by the United Nations Human Development Report, 2006. Yup, Cuba spends $251 per person on health care. As Gupta points out, the World Health Organization does calculate Cuba's per capita health expenditure at $229 per person. We chose to use the U.N. numbers, a minor difference - and $229 is a lot closer to $251 than $25.

CNN RESPONSE:

CNN has corrected and apologized for an error in transcription in our report. We did so on television and online.

CNN had said that in the film Moore reported Cuba spends $25 per person for health care when the film actually reported that number to be $251. We regret that mistake.

However, we originally fact checked Moore's reporting because he uses numbers for each country from different reports and he compares a number that describes actual spending to a projection from another source.

He sources his number from Cuba to a BBC report. In that same BBC report, the number cited for U.S. spending is $5,711. Moore doesn't use that number, but instead a higher number found in another report (as cited by Moore above) from the Department of Health and Human Services' National Health Expenditures Projections. That projection is that 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). Actual numbers for the years 2006 and 2007 are not yet available, which is why CNN could not use them.

We believe the most accurate comparison of statistics comes from analysis of numbers from the same report and the same year.

CNN used the WHO's World Health Statistics 2007 report for both the Cuban and U.S. data. That report uses the latest information on actual dollars spent, in this case from the year 2005. These summaries of actual expenditures -- not projections -- reported by CNN are: Cuba-$229, U.S.-$6,096.

Both of these numbers come from the same report and provide consistency under statistical analysis.

The only controversy here is within Moore's numbers. Moore uses $251 to describe Cuban health care spending in his movie, but when CNN e-mailed Moore's production company to verify numbers, his own staffer e-mailed back that $229 was the correct number.

As Gupta said, CNN's numbers and Moore's numbers aren't far off, but we believe ours are a fairer comparison.

POINT NO. 3:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

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

"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

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).

CNN RESPONSE:

Moore cites the 2006 United Nations Human Development Index, which uses life expectancy data from 2004. CNN relied on the 2007 World Health Organization report, which uses life expectancy data from 2005. That data shows Americans with a life expectancy of 77.9 years and Cubans with a life expectancy of 77.2 years.

The 2005 data is available online at:

http://www.who.int/whosis/database/l...ife_tables.cfm

POINT NO. 4:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

CNN: The United States ranks highest in patient satisfaction.

"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

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 No. 37 ("World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000).

Patients may be satisfied in America, but not everyone gets to be a patient. Forty-seven 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]).

CNN RESPONSE:

Moore does not seem to have an issue with CNN's report on this point. Here's what Gupta actually said on the air:

"SiCKO" Film clip: "The United States slipped to No. 37 in the world's healthcare systems..."

Gupta: "It's true. Thirty-seven is the ranking according to the World Health Organization's latest data on 191 countries. It's based on general health level, patient satisfaction, access and how it's paid for. France tops the list. Italy and Spain make it into the top 10. The United Kingdom is 18."

Again, Moore seems to be creating controversy where none exists.

POINT NO. 5:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

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" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

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. Eighty-one percent of patients in New Zealand got a same or next-day appointment for a non-routine visit, 71 percent in Britain, 69 percent in Germany, 66 percent in Australia, 47 percent in the U.S. and 36 percent in Canada ("The Doc's In, but It'll Be a While," Catherine Arnst, Business Week, June 22, 2007).

"Gerard Anderson, a Johns Hopkins health policy professor who has spent his career examining the world's health care, said there are delays, but not as many as conservatives state. In Canada, the United Kingdom and France, '3 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 health care system," The 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).

CNN RESPONSE:

We believe our example of so-called "elective" procedures such as hip replacement and cataract surgery is accurate and is helpful information. More than 400,000 Americans have hip or knee replacements each year in the U.S. (http://www.niams.nih.gov/hi/topics/a.../jointrep.htm). By age 80, half of all Americans either suffer from a cataract or have had cataract surgery (http://www.nei.nih.gov/health/catara...act_facts.asp).

POINT NO. 6:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

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" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

"SiCKO" never claims that health care is provided absolutely for free in other countries without tax contributions from citizens. Former (member of the British Parliament) 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, February 2005, MSNBC).

CNN RESPONSE:

On Moore's Web site "Prescription for Change" (http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/health-care-proposal), item one is a call that "Every resident of the United States must have free, universal health care for life."

One of Gupta's overall critiques of the film is that Moore leaves viewers with an impression, as he does on his Web site, that universal health care comes without cost. In fact, substantial taxes are required to pay for such programs around the world.

POINT NO. 7:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

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" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

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 complementary insurance (Private health insurance and access to health care in the European Union. Spring 2004).

CNN RESPONSE:

The very same newsletter cited by Moore points out that complementary insurance "provides cover for services excluded or not fully covered by the state." The rates cited for complementary insurance in that newsletter show 85 percent of the French buys such policies, 9 percent of the Germans, 45 percent of the Irish, and 15.6 percent of the Italians. In Britain, 11.6 percent buy supplementary health insurance, which the newsletter says provides "cover for faster access and increased consumer choice."

POINT NO. 8:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

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

"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

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.

CNN RESPONSE:

Gupta believes picking and comparing numbers from different places and times to suit an argument is not the best approach to a complicated issue like this one. Again, as pointed out earlier, by mixing types of data and time periods in some of Moore's comparisons, Gupta felt that the film effectively fudged points that could have been made just as compellingly by comparing data from the same source and time period.

POINT NO. 9:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

GUPTA: "Well, I mean, he pulls $251 from this BBC unsourced report ... Where you pulled the $251 number was a BBC report, which, by the way, stated that the per capita spending in the United States was $5,700. You chose not to use the $5,700 from one report and chose to go to a totally different report and you're sort of cherry picking data from different reports ... Well, why didn't you use the $5,700 number from the BBC report?"

"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

Actually, the number "SiCKO" cited for per-capita Cuban spending on health care -- $251, a number widely cited by the BBC and other outlets -- comes from the United Nations Human Development Report, helpfully linked on our Web site. Here it is again: http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/statisti...cators/52.html.

That U.N. report does list American health care spending as only $5,700, but it's a few years old. Since then, the U.S. government has updated its projections for health care spending, to $7,498 in 2007. So we used that number. It's the most recent, and comes right from the Department of Health and Human Services. If the Cuban government gave a figure on 2007 projected health spending, we'd have used it.

CNN RESPONSE:

To reiterate, we believe numbers should be compared apples to apples, oranges to oranges. Moore himself says the data he's citing from the U.N. Development Programme is dated. Consistency is important in statistical analysis and is not present in Moore's comparison.

POINT NO. 10:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

GUPTA: "Medicare is going to go bankrupt by 2019, and is going to be $28 trillion in debt by 2075 ... Look, I believe the very measure of a great society is in how we take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. But would you say that this is going to be still a working system 20 years from now?"

"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

Medicare indeed has enough money to cover all seniors until 2019. At that time, it will simply need more funding. That shouldn't be hard to find in a nation spending trillions of dollars to invade other countries.

Medicare is not in trouble because it is socialized medicine. Medicare faces the same economic problem private health plans do -- health care inflation is out of control, far outpacing inflation for other goods and services. And in fact, Medicare is much more efficient at dealing with this inflation than is private insurance. According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Table 13), per beneficiary costs have risen in nominal dollars by 519.5 percent since 1980. By contrast, the cost per enrollee of private insurance has risen by 676.6 percent over this same period. So Gupta should instead be pointing his finger at the inefficiency of private insurance (Social Security and Medicare Myths, Lies, and Realities. Institute for America's Future and "Gupta Says Medicare is Going Bankrupt," Dean Baker, Beat the Press) blog).

There is a clear way to make our health economy more efficient. We waste $400 billion dollars per year administering our mess of a private, profit-driven system. The answer is switching to a single-payer, Medicare-style system and taking absurd profits and administrative costs out of the equation (Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A., and David U. Himmelstein, M.D., Costs of Health Care Administration, N Engl J Med 2003;349:768-75 ).

CNN RESPONSE:

Again, Moore seems to be creating controversy where there is none. Moore agrees with Dr. Gupta's reporting that Medicare solvency is only assured until 2019.

POINT NO. 11:

FROM MOORE'S WEB SITE:

GUPTA: (On the lone expert shown in the original piece, Paul Keckley). "His only affiliation is with Vanderbilt University. We checked it, Michael. We checked his conflict of interest. We do ask those questions."

"The Truth" (from Michael Moore's Web site):

Keckley left Vanderbilt in October 2006 to become the executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. The chyron on CNN even notes his new position ("Vandy administrator to head Deloitte research center," Nashville Business Journal. November 1, 2006).

The independent chairman of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions is Tommy Thompson, who was George W. Bush's Health and Human Services Secretary from 2001 to 2005 and is currently running for president as a Republican ("Meet Tommy G. Thompson," Deloitte Center for Health Solutions).

Keckley has made large contributions to Republican candidates and organizations. He gave $1,000 to GOP Senator Bob Corker in 2006, $1,000 to the Tennessee GOP in 2002, along with $1,500 to two GOP congressional candidates and $1,000 to the Tennessee GOP in 2000 (www.fecinfo.com).

Keckley was also the CEO and Founder of EBM Solutions Inc., of Nashville, Tennessee, which counted among its customers Blue Cross of Tennessee, the drug company Aventis and others. Considering Keckley makes his living in the for-profit health care world -- a world "SiCKO" argues should be abolished -- viewers should have been told exactly where Keckley was coming from.

CNN RESPONSE:

Moore is correct. Paul Keckley left Vanderbilt in late 2006. That is the affiliation Gupta referenced on "Larry King Live." In addition, CNN obtained the following details about Paul Keckley from his current employer, Deloitte Center for Health Solutions:

"The original CNN report accurately described Paul Keckley's role as a Deloitte health care expert. Keckley is executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. He left Vanderbilt University in October 2006 to take this new position.

"The comments by Keckley in the CNN interview were factual, neutral and descriptive. The accuracy of his balanced comments in the broadcast has not been challenged.

"Neither the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions nor Paul Keckley has a political or ideological agenda. The center's mission is to develop innovative, practical and workable solutions to systemic issues of the U.S. health system. As such, it embraces a diversity of viewpoints that transcend easy labels.

"Keckley as an individual and Deloitte as an organization operate under rigorous rules, government regulations and professional standards designed to ensure his and our independence.

"The center has been an active participant in the national dialogue about the critical challenge America faces to preserve the best that our health care system delivers -- while at the same time seeking ways to provide coverage for the uninsured, promote wellness and prevention, deploy more effective information technology to improve patient outcomes, and reduce soaring health care costs.

"One example of how the Deloitte Center's approach is a report issued in late 2006 titled, 'The Catalyst for Health Care Reform: Providing More Choices and Innovation to Heal the U.S. Health Care Financing System.' In addition to providing a thoughtful and comprehensive overview of the key issues, it presented one possible, innovative approach to solving health care coverage for America's [46] million uninsured citizens. It reflects the serious, thoughtful and independent nature of the Deloitte Center.

'Keckley does not maintain any professional or financial ties to Aventis or Blue Cross. From 1998-2002, Keckley did serve as CEO of EBM Solutions, a private company formed by researchers from Vanderbilt, Duke, Emory, Washington University and Oregon Health Sciences University. EBM developed and licensed evidence-based guidelines to 32 hospitals, medical groups, insurance companies and drug companies during this period. Among those licensing these guidelines were Aventis and Blue Cross of Tennessee.

CONCLUSION

CNN has long been committed to covering health care issues in the United States and around the world. During the same period that Michael Moore has been working on his movie, CNN has aired hours and hours of health care related reporting. Topics included: lack of insurance, under-insurance, quality of care, access to care, problems with drugs and inappropriate ties between drug companies and lawmakers. Just this week, CNN aired a second investigative piece on hospitals that dump homeless patients onto Los Angeles' skid row.

Gupta lives with the painful problems of the health care industry every day. He is a practicing physician, serving as a neurosurgeon for the past five years at a large indigent-care hospital. His experience as a White House fellow gave him a deep understanding of the political issues surrounding health care reform. For the last six years, Gupta has also worked as a journalist whose reporting on health care and health care issues is widely recognized for its objectivity and care.

We have laid out the facts, plain and simple.

-------------------------

at michael moore that a neutral network called him out

Ummm Michael Moore was the one "calling out":

Saturday, July 14th, 2007
An Open Letter to CNN from Michael Moore

Dear CNN,

Well, the week is over -- and still no apology, no retraction, no correction of your glaring mistakes.

I bet you thought my dust-up with Wolf Blitzer was just a cool ratings coup, that you really wouldn't have to correct the false statements you made about "Sicko." I bet you thought I was just going to go quietly away.

Think again. I'm about to become your worst nightmare. 'Cause I ain't ever going away. Not until you set the record straight, and apologize to your viewers. "The Most Trusted Name in News?" I think it's safe to say you can retire that slogan.

You have an occasional segment called "Keeping Them Honest." But who keeps you honest? After what the public saw with your report on "Sicko," and how many inaccuracies that report contained, how can anyone believe anything you say on your network? In the old days, before the Internet, you could get away with it. Your victims had no way to set the record straight, to show the viewers how you had misrepresented the truth. But now, we can post the truth -- and back it up with evidence and facts -- on the web, for all to see. And boy, judging from the mail both you and I have been receiving, the evidence I have posted on my site about your "Sicko" piece has led millions now to question your honesty.

I won't waste your time rehashing your errors. You know what they are. What I want to do is help you come clean. Admit you were wrong. What is the shame in that? We all make mistakes. I know it's hard to admit it when you've screwed up, but it's also liberating and cathartic. It not only makes you a better person, it helps prevent you from screwing up again. Imagine how many people will be drawn to a network that says, "We made a mistake. We're human. We're sorry. We will make mistakes in the future -- but we will always correct them so that you know you can trust us." Now, how hard would that really be?

As you know, I hold no personal animosity against you or any of your staff. You and your parent company have been very good to me over the years. You distributed my first film, "Roger & Me" and you published "Dude, Where's My Country?" Larry King has had me on twice in the last two weeks. I couldn't ask for better treatment.

That's why I was so stunned when you let a doctor who knows a lot about brain surgery -- but apparently very little about public policy -- do a "fact check" story, not on the medical issues in "Sicko," but rather on the economic and political information in the film. Is this why there has been a delay in your apology, because you are trying to get a DOCTOR to say he was wrong? Please tell him not to worry, no one is filing a malpractice claim against him. Dr. Gupta does excellent and compassionate stories on CNN about people's health and how we can take better care of ourselves. But when it came time to discuss universal health care, he rushed together a bunch of sloppy -- and old -- research. When his producer called us about his report the day before it aired, we sent to her, in an email, all the evidence so that he wouldn't make any mistakes on air. He chose to ignore ALL the evidence, and ran with all his falsehoods -- even though he had been given the facts a full day before! How could that happen? And now, for 5 days, I have posted on my website, for all to see, every mistake and error he made.

You, on the other hand, in the face of this overwhelming evidence and a huge public backlash, have chosen to remain silent, probably praying and hoping this will all go away.

Well it isn't. We are now going to start looking into the veracity of other reports you have aired on other topics. Nothing you say now can be believed. In 2002, the New York Times busted you for bringing celebrities on your shows and not telling your viewers they were paid spokespeople for the pharmaceutical companies. You promised never to do it again. But there you were, in 2005, talking to Joe Theismann, on air, as he pushed some drug company-sponsored website on prostate health. You said nothing about about his affiliation with GlaxoSmithKline.

Clearly, no one is keeping you honest, so I guess I'm going to have to do that job, too. $1.5 billion is spent each year by the drug companies on ads on CNN and the other four networks. I'm sure that has nothing to do with any of this. After all, if someone gave me $1.5 billion, I have to admit, I might say a kind word or two about them. Who wouldn't?!

I expect CNN to put this matter to rest. Say you're sorry and correct your story -- like any good journalist would.

Then we can get back to more important things. Like a REAL discussion about our broken health care system. Everything else is a distraction from what really matters.

Yours,
Michael Moore
[email protected]
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. If you also want to apologize for not doing your job at the start of the Iraq War, I'm sure most Americans would be very happy to accept your apology. You and the other networks were willing partners with Bush, flying flags all over the TV screens and never asking the hard questions that you should have asked. You might have prevented a war. You might have saved the lives of those 3,610 soldiers who are no longer with us. Instead, you blew air kisses at a commander in chief who clearly was making it all up. Millions of us knew that -- why didn't you? I think you did. And, in my opinion, that makes you responsible for this war. Instead of doing the job the founding fathers wanted you to do -- keeping those in power honest (that's why they made it the FIRST amendment) -- you and much of the media went on the attack against the few public figures like myself who dared to question the nightmare we were about to enter. You've never thanked me or the Dixie Chicks or Al Gore for doing your job for you. That's OK. Just tell the truth from this point on.

true but no one stands up to the guy.... probably didnt pick the great words but hey... i think it was great to see a different entity not be afraid and played his game well....

I don't see the point in addressing every possible question on this subject. I don't disagree with the above statement either, but I do consider it irrelevant to the discussion. In fact, I would assess Congress AND the Executive much more severely than you do. However, an "airtight" bill has nothing to do with anything. No law or bill can be "airtight" even under the best possible government run by the best possible people.

The larger problem is that the foundation IS rotten. We are now subject to a government run by and for special interests, not the country or its people as a whole. We have a corrupt Congress, a corrupt Executive, and are on our way to a corrupt judicial system. Once the courts have been thoroughly corrupted its all over anyway. This corruption is a fact of life, and it is unlikely to change in the near future: witness the reaction just to someone raising questions about the system. So the issue is what is best for the people of the country, AS A WHOLE, not between theoretical constructs of systems that never have and never will exist.

As a whole, there is no "free market" in this country; there never has been; and there never will be. "Socialism" is a part of this system, but it's a "socialism" of the rich that on the corporate level tends toward "socializing" risk and loss while keeping profit "privatized." The question isn't whether we will have "socialism''; the question is whether our "socialism" will benefit the people as a whole or just primarily those with wealth and political power, as it does now.

Of course, the nature of this discussion means we have to speak in generalities. There is definitely movement towards a different way of looking at health in this country, but I think this movement is in opposition to the vested interests of the "health care" industry.

In this general sense, the so called "efficiency" of the "free market" is largely an illusion because the "free market" is largely an illusion. Efficiencies that could theoretically be gained through competition don't really, or at least, fully exist, because competition is generally limited or constrained among the big players. Mom and pop running the store on the corner have to compete; most big corporations are "blessed" by any number of factors, including government subsidies of all kinds, as well as protective legislation, that mitigate the economic effects of "competition" for them while reducing the potential efficiencies of the market as well.

As an example, I work in an industry that is supposedly being "deregulated" --the electric utility industry. The entire process is essentially a scam that is designed to exploit a captive market. There are now more regulations than when we were "regulated" and these new regulations are also far more complex. One difference between then, and now, is that in the past, the design of these regulations was, on the balance, intended to favor the consumer; now these regulations are intended to favor large power generators, and are explicitly designed to enrich these producers at the expense of everyone else. And given the large demand elasticities for electricity there is tremendous potential for exploitation.

As a result of all this supposed "competition" prices have more than doubled --except where there are coops and municipal generators who haven't been forced to "compete." How do all the true believers in the mythical free market rationalize this discrepancy? If the government is so inefficient then the costs of operating a municipal plant must be higher than a "market" plant (and most of these municipal plants aren't subsidized either --they are revenue sources for the city), yet the market rates are anywhere from 50% to 100% higher. The two obvious possibilities seem to be: 1) a government plant is more efficient than a "market" plant (which may well actually be part of the explanation); 2) deregulation is really a scam and there really isn't any "free market" competition (also probably part of the explanation).

Just finished watching this movie. I thought it was good for the most part. I would have liked to see how other countries handle homeless mentally ill people. Moore made it a point to show what happens in the US but not in other countries.

I thought it odd how he didn't show how many people with mental problems get sent to prison instead of getting help. However, maybe universal health care wouldn't cover such a thing.

I watched the movie last night and I kept asking myself how much are these foreign citizens being taxed to pay for this "free" healthcare. The only section of the movie Moore mentioned taxes was when he was in France. He then proceeded to interview a French couple who showed their affluent lifestyle while filming inside their home showing a lot of great possessions. How this correllated to paying taxes or tax rates was totally lost on me. It seemed like a total non-sequitor. Did anyone else make sense of that?

You are unable to follow that if a middle class family lives well despite the tax burden all of their 'free' state provided benefits means that burden must not be too onerous?

That's what he was trying to show. Of course, he could have picked a middle class family showing the exact opposite, but chose not to.

Having been to France, I would say that Moore's depiction is pretty representative of the French middle class.

Maybe since I'm more of a numbers person, I would have appreciated hearing what the approximate tax rates were for the middle class instead of seeing a nicely furnished household. So just what are the income tax rates in France on the middle class?

You have departed from film criticism to policy wonk-age. This is two seperate and distinguishable items.