Today the Seattle Times ran this ad for Michael Moore and his new movie, Sicko. But they did not mark it as an ad, as they usually do. Even stranger, whoever created the ad hired a Seattle Times reporter, Mark Rahner, to do the dialog for the ad. I thought most newspapers, even newspapers with low standards, avoided that kind of mix-up.
In places, the ad reads as if it were intended as a satire, as ads often do. For example, there is this exchange:
Q: Even when I tend to agree with your overall point of view, sometimes I think I need an independent fact-checker to find what's anecdotal and what isn't.
A: That's a fair question. All of the facts in my movie are 100 percent accurate. I have a team of fact-checkers that come in, I have a team of lawyers then that tear the film apart. I have to do this in part because it's the right thing to do, and secondly I need to convince you of my argument. And if you don't trust the facts then I'm never going to get you to think about agreeing with the argument. So because I do such a good job of making sure what I say is true, it's why I rarely if ever get sued.
Anyone familiar with Moore's casual way with the facts will find that exchange hilarious. (Those not familiar may want to begin by looking here, here, and here.) And those familiar with our libel laws will know — as Rahner should — why public officials almost never sue for libel.
The ad has unbelievable bits, as ads often do. For example:
Q: I've heard you're not exactly Lindsay Lohan in your private life.
A: I'm actually a fairly conservative person. I live a very conservative lifestyle. I try to go to church most Sundays. I was raised Catholic, so I'm Catholic — sometimes a recovering Catholic. I've been with the same woman for the past 26 years.
I suppose that it is not impossible that Moore tries to go to church "most Sundays" (though he doesn't say whether he succeeds), but that isn't the way any reasonable person would bet. And it would be interesting to know whether the Catholic church approves of him living in sin all these years. I am no expert on Catholic theology, but I thought that was a no-no, even for film producers.
Newspapers typically avoid mixing ads and content this way, because they believe that it lessens their credibility. Perhaps, given the low ratings that journalists have earned, the Seattle Times has decided that it has no more credibility to lose. But they should still explain to their readers why they decided to run this ad — without labeling it as an ad.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(The ad takes up about a page all together. For reasons that escape me, the creator of the advertisement gave two-thirds of a page to that picture of Michael Moore.)
Correction: When Michael Moore said that he has "been with the same woman for the past 26 years", he meant that he has been married that long.
Did Moore use that deceptive phrase in order to fool people? I wouldn't be surprised if he did, and he is certainly smart enough to know that most people would think that he was living with a woman, but not married to her, when he puts it that way. As always with Moore, it is best to pay very close attention to his words, and to double check everything he says, with external sources.
Thanks to commenter "Cat" for catching my mistake.
Posted by Jim Miller at June 26, 2007 02:17 PM | Email ThisYou notice that doesn't stop him from cashing the checks though, huh?
Posted by: John Galt on June 26, 2007 04:18 PMThe fact is that socialized medicine does not work, and won't assure a better outcome if implemented in the US. It does not work in Britain or Canada, which are some of the most US like of the socialist countries, so that's really all one needs to know.
The solution to the woes of our current system is to remove the HMO middlemen and reconnect the consumer of healthcare with the actual costs of healthcare. It's only when we know how much we are paying for something and that the money is our own that we make serious and sensible purchase decisions. And knowing that our health habits might have a direct effect on our finances would also be a much greater incentive to manage our own health.
As it is now, most people have no idea how much healthcare costs, and they would be outraged if the found out that relatively common and simple items cost far more in hospitals because the insurance middlemen have skewed everything by removing the feedback loop associated with consumer knowledge.
Once again, Michael Moore creates a propaganda movie. And once again, the left media shills for him without shame.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 26, 2007 10:35 PMWhile 800,000 thousand Canadians and 850,000 Britons are waiting for health services, that number is still far below the Americans who are without health insurance.
47million of 300million US=15%
800thousand of 33million CA=2%
850thousand of 60million UK=1.4%
And I'm not sure I would like that 15% to apply for and drain the Medicaid resources. I'd like to see more of the Institute's responses and also their view of German health services, whose efficiency I enjoyed when I lived there.
Posted by: redkittyred on June 27, 2007 05:42 PM15 million without insurance but NOT waiting for health services... Those four words - waiting for health services - make all the difference, don't you think?
And, if the US had the same rate of waiting individuals as Canada, that would be 8 MILLION people with prescribed treatments waiting for them. Sobering, don't you think?
Personally, I'd rather be in the US, uninsured and NOT have to wait for health services. I know, because I've been that way in the past (about 9 years ago). Yes, I worked out payment plans for checkups and treatments with my doctor directly. I was never denied treatment, never made to wait longer than anyone else. Just had to be honest, straightforward, and do my best.
Now (and for the last 7 years) I pay for my own insurance, and when I had employees I paid for their insurance too.
Right now - this very year - I pay $93 per month for a fairly comprehensive policy. Not bad for a 39 year old male, don't you think? That's HALF of what Canada and the UK spend per person for insurance.
Oh, the insurance plan? Lifewise Essentials, affordable and complete.
So with 8 million people having to wait for treatments we would need to assume that 83 percent of that 47 million won't need any treatment. Then we would be on par with the averages while paying less per person in health care.
While I did pay a lot of taxes in Germany, I found that the benefits of walking into an office seemed worth it.
- swiping my medical card without filling pages of paperwork
- not having to copay whenever I saw my doctor
- freedom to choose your docto
- not having to wade through complex rule changes and exclusions each year. Trying to find out if my medication has changed to a higher rate of copay or if it's even covered.
So even if we don't get a new health insurance plan for the US, can we just do away with HR departments who are constantly negotiating new insurance plans? Thanks for the Lifewise link though. I'll check it out!
Posted by: redkittyred on June 28, 2007 07:30 AM