[NYTr] FAIR Goes after Stossel's 20/20 Lies on Healthcare, Cuba, Sicko

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Previous articles:

What Has John Stossel Been Smoking ? (Nothing, that's his problem) 9/22
http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20070917/068940.html

We Deserve Better than ABC's "20/20" on Cuban Health Care 9/15
http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/Week-of-Mon-20070910/068467.html

FAIR - Sep 25, 2007
Action Alert

Stossel's Healthcare Distortions

One-sided report omits context--and facts

9/25/07

ABC's 20/20 host John Stossel got an hour of prime time on September 14
to launch a one-sided attack on single-payer healthcare, and advocate
for the so-called "free market" solutions that Stossel and his favorite
sources prefer.

"Tonight, we ask some provocative questions about your healthcare. We
get some surprising answers," explained Stossel at the beginning of the
"Sick in America" special. But "surprising" is not the first thing that
comes to mind for anyone familiar with Stossel's journalism; as usual,
Stossel relied largely on interviews with people who endorse the ABC
host's platitudes about the virtues of the marketplace ("Private sector
does everything better because they compete," for example). Except for
an appearance by filmmaker Michael Moore, which serves to set up some
of Stossel's complaints, the experts interviewed all share Stossel's
vision: right-wing think tank spokespeople, a Harvard business school
professor, a CEO who offers employees "health savings accounts" instead
of insurance, a senior fellow at Manhattan Institute identified only as
a "Canadian doctor" who criticizes his country's health system, and so
forth.

Stossel tries to make the familiar argument that public healthcare
programs in countries like Canada and Great Britain don't live up to
the hype. "Many people say that healthcare in countries like France,
Germany, Britain and Canada is great because it's free. Government pays
for everything. No one has to worry. And free is good, right? Well, not
so fast." In an effort to debunk the idea that "free" is always good,
Stossel presents footage of giveaways for gasoline and ice cream
causing chaos.

This is a classic straw-man attack, as actual advocates for
single-payer healthcare rarely describe it as "free"; instead, they
accurately point out that governments that provide healthcare for
everyone spend far less money than the United States does to provide
healthcare for some. It's a central point of his opponents' argument
that Stossel never directly addresses.

When Stossel does get around to the quality of care under public
systems, he relies on showcasing a few anecdotes, omitting mention of
research that would undermine his point. "Waits are so long, some
people do it themselves," he says, before launching into a string of
anecdotes--each premised on the assumption that Americans are
accustomed to timely care. But studies of these systems arrive at a
strikingly different conclusion; when the Commonwealth Fund studied
(5/15/07) various government healthcare systems--including Britain--all
but one (Canada) were found to have shorter wait times than the United
States. It's a staple of Stossel's journalism to showcase a few
anecdotes when more careful research would undermine his point.

Later in the special, Stossel admits, "Now, I should say all of
Canadian healthcare is not long lines." But this is merely a set-up for
another slam on Canadian care--that animals get better healthcare than
humans.

Stossel claims another advantage for for-profit medicine--that it
drives medical improvements: "People competing for profit-- that's
lifted us out of the 13th century and given us 21st century medicine.
Drug companies looking to make money create things that improve our
quality of life and save lives." When Stossel notes that government
researchers do research of their own, one of his favored
guests--Grace-Marie Turner of the pro-free market Galen
Institute--responds, "Government is responsible for 4 percent of the
drugs on the market today." Stossel follows up with a reference to an
earlier guest's medical care: "Those expensive cancer drugs Vicki
needs? They were made by companies looking to make a profit. So were
these amazing artificial legs and artificial hearts. All invented for
profit."

Actually, many of the advances Stossel referred to received significant
public sector research support. Reporter and medical industry expert
Merrill Goozner summarized the evidence that undermines this
industry-friendly argument (American Prospect, 11/30/02):

Every independent study that's ever looked at the sources of medical
innovation has concluded that research funded by the public sector--not
the private sector--is chiefly responsible for a majority of the
medically significant advances that have led to new treatments of
disease.

Goozner cited a Joint Economic Committee of Congress (JEC) report that
pointed to a 1997 National Bureau of Economic Research study showing
that public research led to 15 of the 21 drugs considered to have the
highest therapeutic value introduced between 1965 and 1992. The JEC
also cited a 1990 study by Robert Maxwell and Shohreh Eckhardt, "Drug
Discovery: A Casebook and Analysis." That study found that 60 percent
of 32 innovative drugs would not have been discovered or would have
taken much longer to discover without research contributions from
government labs and noncommercial institutions.

Goozner also pointed out that the National Cancer Institute had
sponsored research for most anticancer drugs (as of 1995). It's also
worth pointing out that artificial heart research has received
significant government research funding over the years (New York Times,
12/10/87). Once again, Stossel's simple free-market fable turns out to
be much more complicated in real life.

Stossel is critical of the health insurance industry, but largely
because he views health plans that cover a wide range of care and
treatment as interfering with the discipline of the market. A better
alternative, he argues, are health savings accounts, where employers
give workers a fixed amount of money and a high-deductible plan, and
care is paid for out of that fund. Healthy workers who don't need care
can save up the money themselves, making it a free-market dream.
Stossel's account is based almost entirely on the case presented by
guest and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, a staunch supporter of this
approach to healthcare.

A balanced report would have interviewed critics of health savings
accounts, who point out that while this arrangement works well for
younger, healthier workers, it would have little effect on total
healthcare spending, since a relatively small number of patients who
require much greater levels of care incur the majority of total
healthcare costs (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 6/12/06).

Stossel also championed healthcare providers who avoid traditional
insurance and sell their services directly to consumers. His leading
example is laser eye surgery, which is not often covered by insurance.
These doctors are competing and keeping costs down for consumers,
enthused Stossel: "Prices dropped, even though doctors pay for
advertising."

Stossel may have made a stronger point had he chosen a different
example, though: Two major laser eye surgery providers were cited for
deceptive advertising by the Federal Trade Commission in March 2003.

Such inconvenient facts can't stop Stossel from reaching utterly
predictable conclusions: "Where consumers decide for themselves rather
than having governments or insurance companies make decisions for them,
competition erupts. And competition gives us more choices.... Choice
gives us power."

Ironically, Stossel criticizes Michael Moore for not interviewing more
health insurance companies for his documentary Sicko ("Why didn't you
confront them?"). But the same should be asked of Stossel: Why was his
"Sick in America" special so heavily slanted in favor of the arguments
he favors?

ACTION: Ask ABC why John Stossel was allowed to present a completely
one-sided special on health care in America. You can also write to
Stossel himself, and ask him to respond to FAIR's criticism of his
report.

CONTACT:
ABC 20/20 feedback form:
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3271346&cat=20/20

ABC News Senior VP, Editorial Quality, Kerry Smith
212-456-4446

John Stossel, ABC News
JohnStossel at abcnews.com

******
FAIR
(212) 633-6700
http://www.fair.org/
E-mail: fair at fair.org