Sicko makes the point

I heard today about the throwdown on CNN between Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s resident medical expert, and filmmaker Michael Moore over the “facts” in Moore’s documentary “Sicko”. The film is an indictment of the US health care system.

Filmmaker Michael Moore launched into an 11-minute rant on American TV on Monday, during which he blasted the media for misrepresenting his new healthcare documentary Sicko. The controversial director was appearing on CNN show The Situation Room when he blasted both the network and host Wolf Blitzer for having a “poor track record” as journalists. Moore had been invited onto the program to counter a report made by CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, which pointed out alleged false information and statistics in Sicko, which takes aim at the U.S. health care system. Moore blasted, “That report was so biased, I can’t imagine which pharmaceutical company ad is coming up right after our break. All the statistics show that we have far worse healthcare than these other industrialized countries. We’re the only ones that don’t have it free and universal.” Moore also accused the network of covering up the truth about the American healthcare system and the country’s military involvement in Iraq. He said, “You’re the ones who are fudging the facts. You’ve fudged the facts to the American people now for I don’t know how long about this issue, about the war. And I’m just curious, when are you gonna just stand there and apologize to the American people for not bringing the truth to them that isn’t sponsored by some major corporation?”

Moore Blasts Blitzer & CNN Live

In another report Gupta conceded Moore’s point in the film:

In the end, however, Gupta acknowledged that overall the movie “strikes at the irrefutable fact — [the U.S. health system] is broken.” Gupta, who continues to practice medicine, was asked by Moore whether he himself didn’t find the current health-insurance system cumbersome. The surgeon replied, “It’s a shameful system, especially when I’m dealing with some of my patients.”

Michael Moore Spars With Sanjay Gupta on CNN

Now if CNN and other media would concede they have been parroting Bush’s talking points for years now….

I admit I haven’t seen the film yet. I really don’t have to because I have had my own run-ins with the health care system so I know it is broken.

Here is one example:

I caught a bug on a Saturday and it got worse to where I had a 102 degree fever. It scared me because the year before I got a bad infection that started the same way and I ended up in the hospital for 4 days getting massive I.V.s of antibiotics.

Being a Sunday I decided to save my HMO some cash and I went to an Urgent Care center instead of the Emergency room. Not only would it save money but it would save time. When I went to the ER when I had my bad infection I waited for 12 hours before I was seen by a doctor.

I went to the Urgent Care place and waited maybe 30 minutes. The doctor confirmed that all I had was a bad cold. *Whew*.

A month later I get a letter from my HMO denying coverage because I didn’t call them first. That cost me $156.

That same year I was getting some physical therapy as result of the previous infection and I didn’t learn until after my 2 weeks of therapy that the HMO wasn’t paying for it because the doctor didn’t go through the referral process – that’s where they clear a therapy with the HMO. That cost me $7000. Don’t even get me started as to why 10 one hour meetings with someone who only wrapped my legs in bandages cost $7000. That’s $700 an hour. I did file an appeal but the HMO only said “rules are rules.”

Then there is the fact that many plans won’t pay for weight loss programs or smoking deterrents. They will pay for the resulting medical conditions from being fat or a smoker but they refuse to cover treating the causes.

Here is a comentary on the film from James Clay Fuller of the Twin Cities Daily Planet:

[Philip M. Boffey of the New York Times] says it is “hard to know how true” are the stories Moore puts on film -– stories such as that of a young woman who was retroactively denied health care insurance because of a minor yeast infection that was cured years before she applied for and got the insurance that was taken away when she needed it.

Well, I’ll tell him. There is not the slightest reason to doubt any of the individual stories Moore has used in the film.

First, the director is too smart to use a phony story, and risk getting caught, when there are, as he says, countless such stories. When he put out a request on his Web site for personal stories of being screwed by health insurers, Moore was inundated. Within days, he had more than 20,000 such stories.

Second, I can recount four or five such tales from the years I was the primary caregiver for my aged mother, and another dozen from among my acquaintances. This moment, I am deeply concerned about a friend who is in despair because of the years-long battle he has had to wage with his health insurer in order to get care he must have to live, and the debt that has piled up as a result.

Anyone who hasn’t experienced such a situation, or doesn’t at least know someone who has had to fight for his or her life in such a way, must live in another country.

Sicko: Commenting on commentaries

I support moving to a single-payer health care system. It preserves choice and allows for people to get the treatment they need. As some one commented on the above story put it “Single payer reform is NOT socialized medicine. It’s socialized INSURANCE. Cuts out the middle man but the delivery system remains private and people can go to any doctor or hospital they want.”

For more info see:

Single Payer Universal Health Insurance

MichaelMoore.com: “Sicko”

Courier editorial is wrong about Fairness Doctrine

Friday night I was surfing the web and I checked out the site of WFIN 1330 AM located in my hometown of Findlay. I was checking out any new news since The Courier had published that day.

Along the right side of the screen was a large graphic with a link to a Courier editorial about “Talk Radio”.

Of course I clicked it.

I normally ignore Courier editorials because it is simply the paper’s view of some issue and I usually don’t care what their view is. This time I was compelled to respond. The editorial, published on 6/29, started:

For years it’s been driving the political left crazy that talk radio is dominated almost completely by conservatives.Now, with the 2008 election cycle already under way, Congressional Democrats are doing some talking of their own. Armed with a report released June 20 by the Center for American Progress (CAP), a liberal think tank run by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, they want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Talk Radio

This the 2nd Courier editorial where the use of certain buzz words concerned me. Mainly because The Courier has never tried to echo the Talk Radio shows its parent Findlay Publishing broadcasts on stations like WFIN.

It then continues:

Liberals have been trying for years to break into the talk show market, but most of their attempts have failed while conservative shows continue to thrive. Now, thanks to the CAP report, we know the reason: “Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system …” It then lists the requirements of the Fairness Doctrine.

In other words, the free market has nothing to do with it. The problem is that the government no longer forces radio stations to give equal time to “progressive” views.

The CAP report referred to in the editorial doesn’t support the use of the Fairness Doctrine and the report also offers evidence that an argument from “the free market” is also suspect.

The CAP report is quite clear why there is a lack of Progressive voices on Talk Radio:

Our view is that the imbalance in talk radio programming today is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S.
regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation resulting
from pro-forma licensing policies, longer license terms (to eight years from three years previously), the elimination of clear public interest requirements such as local public affairs programming, and the relaxation of ownership rules, including the requirement of local participation in management.

The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio June 22, 2007 Center for American Progress

The report makes the point that the Fairness Doctrine still is on the books at the FCC, it is just not enforced and that by itself, is not an effective means of restoring balance on the public airwaves.

Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters. The key principle here is not shutting down one perspective or another—it is making sure that communities are informed about a range of local and national public affairs.

And as to the argument about letting the free market decide, CAP offers a couple of examples that put the lie to that view:

More importantly, even in markets where progressive talk is considered a success by the industry standards of ratings and revenue, licensees will often broadcast conservative talk on three or four stations compared to one station for progressive talk. For example, in Portland, OR, where progressive talk on KPOJ AM 620 competes effectively with conservative talk on KEX AM 1190, station owners also broadcast conservative talk on KXL AM 750 and KPAM AM 860. Although there is a clear demand and proven success of progressive talk in this market, station owners still elect to stack the airwaves with one-sided broadcasting… In Ohio, for example, there are 10 radio markets. In eight of those markets, there is not a single hour of progressive talk. In the two markets that do broadcast a total of six hours of progressive talk (Al Sharpton on two urban talk stations), those hours compete against 52 hours of conservative talk. Clear Channel Communications, the ownership group that has committed the largest number of stations to the progressive format, recently canceled the only three progressive talk stations in the state of Ohio.

When 91 percent of the talk radio programming broadcast each weekday is solely conservative—despite a diversity of opinions among radio audiences and the proven success of progressive shows—the market solution has clearly failed to meet audience demand. Even greater deregulation and consolidation of radio station ownership is therefore not likely to meet audience desires or serve the public interest in any meaningful way.

The point was proven in one of the markets that had a progressive radio station. Here in Columbus, Clear Channel changed a station from Air America to all conservative. The company claimed ratings made them change, however the first ratings book after the change showed the station dead last out of 27 stations measured.

The main point in the CAP report and why I support a return to the enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine is to return to the public trustee concept of broadcast regulation. There needs to be a renewal of the idea that the air waves these stations use are “owned” by the people and so they need to serve the local interest and they need to offer all sides to a debate.

The trademark of our democracy is that we believe government should protect the minority from the whims of the majority and again since the frequencies a radio station uses is owned by the public (ie. the government) then it ought to reflect that idea. For a vibrant democracy to flourish there needs to be a collection of views available.

For every Rush Limbaugh a station broadcasts, there should be a show hosted by a local person allowing for local responses (like a call in line) and if that isn’t available then the station should offer a host like Randi Rhodes or both.

This post hasn’t really concerned itself with content too much. I do believe that all points of view should be available – even if I don’t like some of them but the truth needs to be told.

I highly doubt a majority of the public likes what passes for Talk Radio today. Most people listen like how most people slow down to view a traffic accident.

Talk Radio isn’t journalism. It’s just one long editorial and in a majority of cases rebuttals are not even considered and if they are the person presenting the “other side” is either a watered down version of it or they are simply shouted down. The so-called host can say whatever they want, no matter how wrong in fact they are, and no matter who they insult or hurt.

It just happens that most conservative hosts, including the Top 5, do this on a daily basis. It can be entertaining in a sick sort of way but it contributes nothing to democracy or to the public fabric.

New home for this blog

This is the first post on this blog since I moved it to a new server.

I want to say that my previous host – 1and1.com – was a good host. They were easy to use and provide a good package with unlimited e-mail boxes and several mysql databases. In the approximate 4 years I was with them, I had only one real technical issue and that happened early this year when one of my databases went down due to the server going down. It was fixed in few hours after my I put in a ticket.

The reason I’m leaving 1and1.com is because they had severe restrictions on running scripts and since I use Movable Type, my blog is mostly scripts. I understand that in a shared hosting environment that resources need to be shared but I was paying for the top shared package and it was getting to be useless.

And before various fanboys point out that I am using dead technology etc… I know that some others have passed MT by (like WordPress) but I spent literally hundreds of hours on this blog and I don’t feel like learning new software. However getting a glimpse of MT 4 currently in Beta may change my mind – it seems at the start too much like Myspace or Vox and I like old school blogging. If I wanted 1500 pictures of people I really don’t know to clog up my web page then I would be based on Myspace. Send your fan mail to my contact page.

Any way, my issue with 1and1 started slowly, I would get 500 error messages that I never had before and rebuilding my pages would get slower and slower before crapping out altogether. I tried all the tweaks and hacks I could to squeeze out the rebuilds. At the end I was working on slices of 5 pages at a time and it would take an hour and half to rebuild my pages if I made any changes to the structure. I think the problems got bad when 1and1 started offering a blog feature.

The other issue I had was that 1and1 has had issues with spammers. I found that out when my e-mail to a friend at AOL bounced because the 1and1 mail server was blacklisted. I had also heard some stories that 1and1 had an issue with hosting spam sites and not booting them out quickly enough.

My contract was coming up so I decided to find a host that was more Moveable Type friendly. Six Apart, the makers of MT, has a partner page that listed some hosts that 6A recommended. That’s how I found NEXCESS.NET

For about the same price I was paying for 1and1’s top shared host package, Nexcess had an entry level VPS package.

VPS stands for Virtual Private Server. It is a bridge between shared hosting (many accounts on one server) and dedicated hosting (you are the only one on the server). VPS has two or more accounts on a server with separate resources and the big feature is that I have root access to my server. I also have my own mail server and name servers.

This has allowed me to put each of my blogs in their own accounts, separate from each other.

It is so nice to be able to rebuild my blogs without any errors and it finishes in a reasonable time.

The downside is I know next to nothing about running a server.

Wish me luck.

For more info:

MaxVPS

MovableType Hosting Partners

2008 Election Burn Out Not My Fault

A friend of mine, on an e-mail list in which I participate, asked us what we thought of the recent GOP presidential candidate debates. I made a snide comment: “There was a debate last night?”

She said that one of those men could be the next the President so I should care.

I don’t and here’s why:

I am not a member of any party so anything having to do with choosing any party ticket is not relevant to me.

My concern is from Labor Day weekend 2008 to November 2008 when the two people we are forced to choose from will be on my ballot and their final messages will be out.

I’m guessing that Hillary and Rudy will be the two evils I will have to choose from when I really want to vote for Obama since I can’t vote for Pete Stark since he is not running.

But, Doug, how do you know it is going to be Senator Clinton and Rudy Giuliani in 2008?

I’ve seen it before. The Democrats seem to let conservative “hit” men and their media lackeys pick their candidate. Back in the 2004 elections, the populist candidate was Howard Dean. He had the buzz and the money. The GOP was scared so they and their media flunkies destroyed him. They got the candidate they wanted in John Kerry.

Basically they want someone to run against who they can smear effectively. They had pretty much nothing on Dean but tons on Kerry.

In recent weeks there have been 3 or 4 books released by conservatives about Senator Clinton. All of them rehash falsehoods from the time her husband was President. The GOP HATE Senator Clinton and they know if she is the Dem nominee they can solidify their base like they did against Kerry in 2004.

Take a look at this article:

Wash. Post review misrepresents, conflates allegations in Clinton books

Until 2008 I really don’t care as it is out of my hands – right now it is all about filling time on the 24 hour news channels, in between stories about missing white women and out of control young Hollywood starlets. It seems they can’t deal with real issues that are happening in the world today that effect real people.

Like the Democrats caving to a President with an approval rating of 28% on the issue of a timetable to withdraw from Iraq.

or this one:

John Boehner- Hypocrite

On Star Wars – 30 years later

I remember it well. The film had been in theaters almost a year when I finally was able to see it. It was the talk of my school and several kids already had the action figures and other merchandise. We were too poor to see a movie all the time so I had to basically wait until my Mom got her tax refund. But there I sat in my seat at the old Cinema World theater just outside the Fort Findlay Mall.

“A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far, away…” appeared on the screen then it fades out. Then *BLAM*

STAR
WARS

fills the screen and John Williams score fills the once empty void around me. Then the beginning crawl tells me the point in time of the story. Then the music starts to simmer down and the picture shows a star field as the camera pans down to show the horizon of Tatooine and we hear ominous music – Darth Vader’s theme I learn later – and a space ship moves from the top to the bottom of the screen.

That was cool.

Then I see the Imperial Star Destroyer as it fills the screen as it pursues the other craft…

WOW!

So began my love affair with Star Wars.

So, for better or worse, a tip of the hat goes to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope – released on May 25th 1977.

Star Wars