Great. I was just looking for this. Thanks for posting, fedquip.

Gupta's a CNN insider, and he knows his role is to tear down Moore. He knows who butters his bread. Pisses me off.

He can't sing either.

I love the part in the middle where Moore is completely in shock about what just happened and Gupta says "we've left him speechless". Um, no, how about you just told the Larry King viewers that Moore doesn't understand the fact that Universal Health Care comes out of taxes, but used MOORE'S OWN QUOTE when MOORE WAS POINTING THAT VERY THING OUT IN HIS MOVIE! I just slapped my head in disbelief when that happened.

Moore never blatantly presents incorrect statistics, but he is a master of presenting things out of context. The following article is biased on the conservative side, but has some noteworthy counterpoints:

http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/2007/06/kyle_smith_on_m.html#more


http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article_10017.php - Michael Moore's fact checking that he's referring to.

Unfortunately, he quotes the WHO for many of his statistics, which relies on the respective governments to report their own information. Call me crazy, but I highly doubt Cuba's submission meet the same criteria that the United States uses. I would be highly suspect of most figures actually.

Taken as a whole, most of the 'fact corrections' are quite minor. Except for the last one, but see the opening sentence..

WOLF AND GUPTA AND LARRY AND CNN ARE NAZIS.
THIS IS ALL DAMAGE CONTROL BY YEE DARK FORCES FOR THE MOVIE.
VIVA MOORE.

I think Moore was most heated about Gupta's assertion that he "fudged some facts". His research team may have used different sources from Gupta's, but his figures are all verifiable. That was most definitely a slanderous statement, and he's right to be pissed off about it.

I'm a health care proffesional in the UK and i've been following the whole 'Sicko' debate as the UK is being driven toward an American style health care system. It seems CNN et al are muddying the waters. rather than debate Moore over the accuracy of the central premise of his film they are trying to nail him over some minor factual point. I'm afraid Moore's on to a loser here. Nobody in the media will be dicussing whether or not large corporations are ripping off ill people, instead 'Sicko' will be all about whether Moore telling lies to prove a nutty left wing view point.

lol@antimatter. What a weirdo.

@ Pisc,
Unfortunately, that does seem to be the point. But then again, that's how they've always done it. Michael Moore was doing a great job as resisting that very thing from happening until this fiasco takes place. I really hope the next Larry King interview IS about the movie and NOT about this little argument.

However, from the sounds of it, Moore stated more than a few times here that he feels bad for the fact that all of the coverage has been on this argument and not on the movie, and that'd he like to get back on that. So let's hope he does.

Look for the stats on Canadian wait-times and you'll find they spike near vertical between 1993 and 1996 when Paul Martin pulled aprox. 40 Billion out of healthcare.

Abe_Prisc,

Several time, during the first interview, Wolf tried to get Moore back on topic about the movie. However, Moore *insisted* on bashing CNN about prior issues. It's his own fault; he created the distraction away from the movie. Too bad, because it is much more important than these little cat fights. Hopefully the real debates will begin and we can find the truth and expose the health care "providers" and pharmaceutical companies for what they are.

@Rotty,

Actually, not entirely true. There was a second part to that interview that isn't very popular, probably because it was about the actual issues and not this little argument that's erupted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hq6Js9Rs&eurl=

Also, aside from the interview with Wolf Blitzer, there are TONS of other TV shows that have had him on their show and they had a very interesting conversation about the real problems in health care. So this one specific time when Moore got side-tracked and decided to get upset on the innacurate segment played before -he was even allowed to speak-, I'll excuse, because I would've been plenty pissed off myself.

Check out just about every other TV show that allows guests, he's been on most of them already, and they've all been interesting. Also, it's also good to mention that aside from this segment that showed minor 'inaccuracies', all of the other TV shows that have had him have said that his documentary is not only powerful, but checks out with them as a good source of information. So if you want "the truth on exposed health care", i think it's safe to say at this point that the documentary itself is an excellent source.

Also, a 'good debate' between Gupta and Moore about the movie would actually be a bit hard to have, because it seems to me that aside from these very small differences in statistics, they both believe in the same thing. Several times Gupta heard Moore speak and said "I agree with all of that".

Moore did pretty well here until the question on the heart catheters. He simply dodged that question as far as I'm concerned. Although I ultimately support single-payer healthcare, wait times are big problem with those systems. No one who has lived with the excruciating pain of a severely herniated disk or broken hip should have to wait a year for surgery. And a six day wait for an emergent heart procedure is inexcusable.

It may be worth it in the end for moral--and economic--reasons to nationalize the US healthcare system. I believe it is. But as the economists are fond of telling us, "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

Where do you get the idea people with herniated discs and broken hips wait for surgery?

Tofumar,

I agree about him dodging the question, well he certainly made it seem that way. It would've been better for him to say "That's true, however, Canada isn't the only country with free health care..." and then list off the European statistics. That way, he would've proved the same point without making it seem as if he was dodging it so blatantly.

And people with severe problems that are either life-threatening or are severe in the sense that they're herniated discs and broken hips in no way have to -wait- for surgery. They're talking conditions that need help, but not necessarily right away.

I've realized I can't stand Moore, he seems to find it so ridiculous that anyone would disagree with them he doesn't even try to have a reasonable arguement, rather he just falls back on the same morals about having profits in the health industry.

Tags changed from "sajay gupta,michael moore,sicko" to "sanjay gupta, michael moore, sicko, cnn" by gold star member Krupo.

Vermeulen: If there's a sensible argument favour of permitting "the profit motive" to factor into health-care delivery I'd like to hear it.

I live in Canada, and they justify increasing laws like seatbelts regulation, anti-smoking, anti-drinking, general health /safety regulations, because of public health care. It takes away your rights.
Because I am forced to go under the government health care system, I am forced to go under their rules of how I should live. I can not have the freedom to be an idiot, and do things that might risk or harm my body, because if I am an idiot then that costs the society.
If you make health public and socialized (which would be the only option if it was not profit driven) you make it other peoples business how you live your life, and in the end your rights are taken away.
For example, if I wanted house insurance I have the option of going with several companies and their rules. Maybe one company demands I get certain type of roofing, maybe another charges more but lets me do whatever I want with the house. I have the option of going with whatever rules I choose. Once this insurance becomes national, and the only option, I no longer can choose how I want to live. If I want to go into health insurance plan that lets me smoke and do drugs, I should be able to.
I understand the US has seltbelt laws and such, and smoking/drinking is sin taxed, but not NEARLY as much as in Canada, and the reason is our health care system.

Socialized medience keeps the majority happy just because they don't directly see what they get charged (most income tax goes to health care in canada), and they don't care about rights unless it affects them (and in many cases, only care about the exact rights that affect them, rather than overall rights, for example the divid with people who want drugs legalized and the people who want less gun control, they are both going for more civil rights but have become two very distinct groups).
I am not trying to be an economist and to convince people that a free market is more profitable, all I am saying is that I want to live my life as I choose.

No offence but that's a lot of libertarian bullshit. It's not "because of public health-care". Anti-smoking laws, for example, are put in place to protect the rights of non-smokers not to limit the rights of smokers. You don't make a serious argument.

I like your analogy to house insurance. Do you advocate a two-tier health care system?

"Anti-smoking laws, for example, are put in place to protect the rights of non-smokers not to limit the rights of smokers"
Anti-smoking laws for restaurants you mean? I support that restaurants have the option of not allowing smoking, so if a person wants to go into a smoke free restaurants they can, or if a person wants to build a smoke free bar. But according to the canadian laws, if I wanted to go build a bar in the middle of nowhere, allow smoking, and put giant signs everywhere saying 'PEOPLE SMOKE HERE', I can't do that. How is that not taking away rights? How the hell is that enforcing rights? People who don't smoke have the option of not going into a smokers bar.
Or do you mean the sin taxes? Because how the hell is charging smokers more protecting non-smokers rights? Or how is it doing anything but charging more because in the end it will cost the health system more?
And seatbelts? Maybe you don't live in a country with a full health system, but they do justify increasing seatbelt laws because it hurts the health system

Why do you think that in a privatized world, your rights are secure and free? Just an example: if you really want to, you can go and build a house on an active volcano. I think you will be disappointed though, because the insurance companies will either not insure your house or ask a detrimental high price.

The same is already happening in health care. Do you think current private insurances charge you the same if you cross the `I smoke` part of the questionnaire? If you have a large health risk and are not already in a good insurance, you are in shit. The reason you get anything at all at that point is due to `altruistic` social laws. If it was completely left to the private sector, you would rot in hell.

The negative side is indeed that you get these parental laws stating what is good for you. (I hate those too) Though I think smoking is the wrong example, seat belts is a good one. I always wondered why that was required by law when you can decide how stupid you want to be.

Still, I personally think that these laws are far better then hoping some profit driven company will help you instead of trying their utmost to prove they dont have to pay, in which they have a huge interest.

Do you believe the rights they are taking away from you are worth so much?

Here's another link to newsbusters profiling Moore's newfound vendetta against a liberal network that dared to disagree with his point of view. This is the enlightened and reasonable Michael Moore - man of tolerance, compassion and truth - threatening to 'get' CNN - the network that's done more to pimp his propaganda movies than any other network....

http://newsbusters.org/node/14097

If liberals should ever get full control of government - this is what can expect from their vision of 'no one gets free speech unless they agree with me'.

Qualm said: "Where do you get the idea people with herniated discs and broken hips wait for surgery?"

I take it that by the definitions being used in the debate, hip replacements and disk surgeries are considered "non-emergency elective" surgeries. These are the surgeries that even most proponents of single-payer systems ADMIT involve serious wait times (I recently read that wait times for a hip replacement in Canada are at almost a year).

But the real question is: "Why do you think that they don't?" Queues have always been a problem inherent to planned systems for any commodity. It's basic economics. Plus, you just heard in the video that the average Canadian wait for an emergency heart catheterization--something way more vital and time-sensitive than a disk surgery--is 6 days. This wasn't even disputed by Moore! As I said, he simply dodged the question.

If these claims are wrong, feel free to provide evidence. I am open to hearing it, especially since it will only strengthen my "all things considered" support for nationalized healthcare. Remember, my position is that **even with the wait times and funding issues,** single-payer is the way to go. It is the only morally viable option, especially since we must assume institutional failure on the part of the current system. I just think it is silly and naive to believe--as Moore apparently does--that wait times aren't a problem with public systems.

Does he think there are any downsides at all? Do you?

If liberals should ever get full control of government - this is what can expect from their vision of 'no one gets free speech unless they agree with me'.

I just think it is silly and naive to believe--as Moore apparently does--that wait times aren't a problem with public systems.

Does he think there are any downsides at all? Do you?

Here Here

djsunkid:

If he's so convinced that there are these problems, then why does he act like it's beyond the pale to discuss them? I'm beginning to worry the man says "of course there are problems" because he knows that if he didn't, he'd get laughed out of the fucking studio--not because he really takes those problems seriously. Moore treats everything that might count against his position as some sort of corporate/media conspiracy designed to screw the American public. He'd do better if instead of dodging the question or getting outraged, he took legitimate criticism (like the discussion of wait times) head on. The points can successfully be addressed without the histrionics we saw with Blitzer, et al.

This is a public relations point--not a point on the issues--but it's an important one. It's precisely when he does shit like this that I begin to wonder if he's telling me the truth in his documentary. He comes off like a man who is so convinced of his rightness that he is beyond questioning (You're Canadian, and haven't had Captain Ideology as your president for the past 6 years, so maybe you aren't as tired of that as I am). He UNDEREMPHASIZES the inevitable tradeoffs involved in going single-payer, and acts insulted when anyone begins to discuss them--say, by engaging in a legitimate debate about which statistics are the proper ones to use.

Look, I think Moore is a decent guy and an effective activist. But it's becoming increasingly clear that he was serious when he said on Nightline that he views getting everyone covered as some sort of religious duty. I'm VERY wary of people like that. It doesn't matter to me whether they are Democrats or Republicans, or whether they are right on the issue at hand.

I'll continue to support nationalized healthcare, but based on his handling of the heart catheter issue, I'll continue to be sceptical of Moore as a filmmaker. That is, until qualm or you or someone else sets me straight.

To make the point clearer: I'd like, just once, for him to have the honesty to tell me what he thinks the problems with a single-payer system are and how he thinks they can best be handled.

If anyone can point to a video where he does that sort of thing, I'd be much obliged. I'll see Sicko this weekend; maybe it's in there.

I haven't seen "Sicko" but I'm not sure how much of a requirement there was, on the part of Moore, that "Sicko" be structured around an analysis of socialized medicine, in counter-proposition to "sick" US-style care-for-profit.

The stuff there is on wait-times in Canada shows a significant spike in all wait-times after '93, as a direct result of Paul Martin, then Finance Minister, who began to remove what eventually became 40-plus Billion dollars out of health care, in a few short years. And then a few years later the "national debate" has been artificially constrained to exclude any talk of full or even partial replacement of that money. "The solution is not to throw more money at the problem." We see it in print all the time.

The problem with the growth of wait times has been the diminished staff and material resources due to lack of funding prior to the removal of which queues were not significant.

Groups like the National Citizen's Coalition were founded to be the voice of big US HMO concerns here in Canada. They lobby aggressively in favour of care-for-profit and they've been quite successful in advancing their position so far. Stephen Harper was the head of the NCC for a few years during his sojourn away from the HoC.

Up-thread someone asks about smoker's rights and why the main question isn't about the loss of smoker's rights; briefly, because it's about worker's rights. It's not "either/or" - but wherever there are workers - their right to not breath toxic fumes supercedes that of smokers to breath toxic fumes.

For anyone who still cares, CNN has posted a response to Moore:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/moore.gupta/index.html

Take it for what it's worth....

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.