Jeff Greenfield Responds To FAIR's Critique Of Michael Moore Piece
Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, or FAIR, today posted a critique of CBS News chief political correspondent Jeff Greenfield's "Evening News" piece on Michael Moore's film "Sicko." You can watch the piece by clicking on the video box.
In the piece, Greenfield asserts that "no one, Democrat or Republican, has come close to advocating the kind of government-run national health system Michael Moore proposes." Writes FAIR: "This is incorrect; Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio), a presidential contender, supports the very same approach, as do dozens of congressmembers who have co-sponsored H.R. 676, a bill that would provide single-payer coverage in the United States."
The piece also includes a quote from Paul Ginsburg of the Center for Studying Health System Change, who says "[w]e're much less willing to have government make decisions for people than is the case in Canada and Europe." FAIR argues that "[t]hat assessment is contradicted by recent polling." It cites two recent polls to back up its argument.
I asked Greenfield to respond to the FAIR piece, which has generated more than 70 emails to Public Eye in just the past hour. He did so over email. His response in full:
© 2007 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved. 
Video: In the piece, Greenfield asserts that "no one, Democrat or Republican, has come close to advocating the kind of government-run national health system Michael Moore proposes." Writes FAIR: "This is incorrect; Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D.-Ohio), a presidential contender, supports the very same approach, as do dozens of congressmembers who have co-sponsored H.R. 676, a bill that would provide single-payer coverage in the United States."
The piece also includes a quote from Paul Ginsburg of the Center for Studying Health System Change, who says "[w]e're much less willing to have government make decisions for people than is the case in Canada and Europe." FAIR argues that "[t]hat assessment is contradicted by recent polling." It cites two recent polls to back up its argument.
I asked Greenfield to respond to the FAIR piece, which has generated more than 70 emails to Public Eye in just the past hour. He did so over email. His response in full:
FAIR's critique is not. The organization is comparing apples and oranges; actually, apples and bowling balls is more like it.
Michael Moore is very clear about what he is proposing: it is not simply a "single payer" system. What Moore advocates is a government-run system in which the doctors work for the government, as they do in Britain, Canada, and elsewhere. He devotes part of "Sicko" to an interview with a British doctor, who lives in a fine home and drives a nice car, to make his point that state-employed doctors need not face privation. Later in the film, he answers the charge of "socialized medicine" by noting that we already have "socialized" police officer, firefighters, and teachers: all of whom are public employees.
Unless I am very much mistaken, this is very different from the "single payer" system that Rep. Kucinich advocates; nor is it supported by the members of congress who back a "single payer" system. (Medicare, for example, is a government-paid system; but recipients go to the same doctors the rest of us do).
Similarly, what polls show is that most American do indeed want major changes, and believe it is a matter of public responsibility to provide health care for all--that is very different from the proposition that Americans are open to a government-run system along the lines most other industrialized nations have.
My point is not that such a system is a good or bad idea; only that what Moore advocates is simply not on the political radar. Moore himself told me in an interview that there is a "pioneer mentality," an "everyone for himself" tradition that needs to be confronted if his goal is to be achieved. In this regard, Moore shows a much clearer understanding of the American political climate than does FAIR.
You miss the point entirely and let your defensiveness get in the way of a correction.
The main element of HR 676 and Moore's vision is that the role of the insurance industry is completely eliminated from the health equation.
The two ideas are very close and to say otherwise is simply misleading. Ask Michael Moore; he was in DC last week advocating on behalf of HR767, the Conyers/Kucinich bill.
And by the way, Dennis has been pushing for single-payer since the 2000 Democratic platfrom commitee.
Ultimately we all are, but I will die sooner because I do not have any health care. I am in trouble because I cannot get a job that has heath care, because I would cost too much because the Insurance can charge differently based on how much you need the care, soon I will not be able to even hold a job that does not have health care, even now it is difficult. Tying health care to jobs is insane.
Both myself when I did have Insurance, and many friends have been injured by the facts that MM laid out. A friend died a year ago, because the insurance told her that her bone cancer was arthritis, and she was "just getting old". Well she isn't getting any older.
You call actual people writing in Astroturf because they were alerted by someone. You are lying! Real Astroturf doesn't have actual people, only money, and money that is hidden. Only the Gang Of Pirates has that kind of money, but you are their toady.
AMERICA Wants real health care. It is the Gang Of Pirates that wants to bleed us dry at every opportunity.
. . .Polls show that Americans are ahead of the politicians and obviously ahead of certain news reporters on the topic of single payer health care.
Please ask your researchers to go beyond the usual pro-market sources (Cato, Pacific, Fraser Institutes, Johnson, etc.) and look at Woolhandler . . . or Jonathan Cohn.
Not so long ago they laughed at Dennis Kucinich in Cleveland, but it turned out he was right.
#2 And this morning I responded to Jeff's defensive repost:
Send Jeff out to do some investigative reporting because he still has it wrong. Canadian doctors are paid through the single payer system under a . . . well-designed, fair and equitable system. Canadian patients have their own choice of physician and hospital. The same is true in France whose system is rated # 1 in access and overall quality.
In Britain's nationalized system, the gov't tells you which doctor to go to. In the US, the insurer tells you which doctor to go to and determines your treatment.
When it comes to saving lives, I have no problem with a well-run government system e.g. the VA, the CDC. There will be errors and foul-ups in any human endeavor, but I doubt any of the countries with taxpayer-funded single payer systems would condone the tragedies and travesties of our multi-payer market-based non-system.
Sunderan
Good thing.
You write, "(Medicare, for example, is a government-paid system; but recipients go to the same doctors the rest of us do)."
Where do you think the government gets the money it pays for Medicare?
It is our money, we pay it in taxes, poor and rich even though many of the rich find ways to avoid and evade taxes, which shifts more of the burden to the poor, so if we go to the same doctors, it is only logical.
Or do I sense a fear on your part of the notion that a "poor" person might be in the bed next to yours being the real problem here?
I posit that there are certain parts of a healthy society that should not be given over to the corrupt nature of capitalism, they include education, health care, public transport, telecommunications and mineral rights on public land.
A government hospital that provides health services to those who cannot afford private care will put pressure on private health care institutions and insurers to improve their product and lower prices, this is good for society as a whole.
We could subsidize med school for those who volunteer in exchange for a bond to work for the equivalent of four years in public institutions. the money can come from "sin taxes" on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, marijuana and cocaine, the last two because it will never be stopped, so it may as well be taxed.
We should only grant patents for five years on essential life saving medical discoveries, mainly drugs, after which the formulas become public domain, thusly allowing for cheap generic drugs for those who cannot afford the expensive stuff.