DOWNLOADS: (1384)

PLAYS: (7276)

It's a blockbuster admission that we already knew: The health care insurance industry was petrified that Americans would see Michael Moore's Sicko and realize that government-run health care was something that would be good for citizens and lead to better health outcomes.

CIGNA Public Relations Chief turned whistleblower Wendell Potter said the words to Bill Moyers that no insurance company wanted said out loud in this country:

BILL MOYERS: You were also involved in the campaign by the industry to discredit Michael Moore and his film "Sicko" in 2007. In that film Moore went to several countries around the world, and reported that their health care system was better than our health care system, in particular, Canada and England. [..]

So what did you think when you saw that film?

WENDELL POTTER: I thought that he hit the nail on the head with his movie. But the industry, from the moment that the industry learned that Michael Moore was taking on the health care industry, it was really concerned.

BILL MOYERS: What were they afraid of?

WENDELL POTTER: They were afraid that people would believe Michael Moore.

Of course, we knew this. We've been screaming it for years. Still, it's difficult to pierce through that Beltway bubble to those politicos that are still hemming and hawing as the insurance industry insiders fill their campaign coffers.

The full episode (which I cannot recommend highly enough) is available on PBS.com.

More from Moyers:

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL has covered the public option that appears to be on the table and the idea of a single-payer plan which is not. Find out more about those plans and all the iterations under consideration below.

>>Compare the current plans. The Public Option The public option, according to Robert Reich, is a government-run non-profit insurance pool, that, by virtue of its size and bargaining power, could control costs and offer people who are either uncovered by, or unhappy with, private insurers an affordable alternative path to health care. Medicare is an example of a public option, notes Reich, with one important caveat — the Medicare drug benefit bill passed during the Bush administration expressly forbids Medicare from using its size to negotiate for lower costs which would be an important strategy for keeping prices down.

Whence Single-Payer?Dr. David Himmelstein and Dr. Sidney Wolfe told Bill Moyers on the JOURNAL that President Obama isn't considering a popular plan — single-payer. In a recent town-hall meeting in New Mexico, President Obama said switching to single-payer would be too disruptive.

The term "single-payer" generally means a system in which rather than having private, for-profit insurance companies, the government runs one large non-profit insurance organization. That organization pays all the doctor, drug and hospital bills — it is the "single-payer" of all medical bills. In most single-payer plans, every American would be enrolled and would pay into the fund through taxes.

Advocates argue that a single-payer system would pay for itself, saving huge amounts of money in administrative costs. The U.S. currently pays a higher percentage of health dollars for administration than any other nation.

The U.S. also ranks highest in total cost of care, but according to a recent report by the Commonwealth Fund, ranks last among industrialized countries "in preventing deaths through use of timely and effective medical care." In a recent FRONTLINE report comparing the health care systems of five other capitalist democracies, "Sick Around the World," WASHINGTON POST reporter T.R. Reid notes that, "The World Health Organization says the U.S. health care system rates 37th in the world in terms of quality and fairness. All the other rich countries do better than we do, and yet they spend a heck of a lot less."

George W. Bush has been exceedingly stingy when it comes to presidential pardons and commutations, issuing fewer than any modern president. But as Bush’s presidency winds down, there’s some talk about the president using his powers to help conceal some of the administration’s own transgressions.

As the administration wrestles with the cascade of petitions, some lawyers and law professors are raising a related question: Will Mr. Bush grant pre-emptive pardons to officials involved in controversial counterterrorism programs?

Such a pardon would reduce the risk that a future administration might undertake a criminal investigation of operatives or policy makers involved in programs that administration lawyers have said were legal but that critics say violated laws regarding torture and surveillance.

Some legal analysts said Mr. Bush might be reluctant to issue such pardons because they could be construed as an implicit admission of guilt. But several members of the conservative legal community in Washington said in interviews that they hoped Mr. Bush would issue such pardons — whether or not anyone made a specific request for one. They said people who carried out the president’s orders should not be exposed even to the risk of an investigation and expensive legal bills.

There are two angles to consider here: whether the White House would do this and whether the White House could do this.

On the prior, the Bush gang isn’t saying much. The NYT asked the White House about whether “pre-emptive pardons” — clearing people of legal responsibility before they even face charges — are on the table. The Times reported, “Emily Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman, would not say whether the administration was considering pre-emptive pardons, nor whether it would rule them out.”

On the latter, is this even a legal option? Does the president even have the authority to pardon someone who isn’t even facing criminal charges? Apparently, he can.

One last (?) swipe at the ABC debate from MediaBloodhound, with the "untelevised portion" transcript:

GIBSON: But how wasted were you the first time you heard "I Am the Walrus," Senator [Obama], and did your psychotic drug binge -- which may have caused you to black out for days on end while committing unspeakable acts you don't remember -- add or subtract from your listening pleasure?

OBAMA: Again, Charlie, I'm not sure how this helps get Americans health insurance, brings home our troops, or fixes the economy.

GIBSON: I'll take your response as an admission that pot and acid do, in fact, make this song better....

STEPHANOPOULOS: So [Senator Clinton,] you admit there was no gunfire that day you landed in Bosnia?

CLINTON: Well, you know, George, I've already conceded that I misspoke on that issue....

(STEPHANOPOULOS brandishes a revolver and fires a few feet above Sen. Clinton's head.)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you would've remembered that, right?

Open Thread below....

In his first six years in office, the president has made little mention of Thanksgiving, beyond the ceremonial turkey pardons, but yesterday Bush traveled to Charles City, Virginia, for his first speech devoted specifically to the holiday. “[O]ur nation’s greatest strength is the decency and compassion of our people,” he said. “As we count our many blessings, I encourage all Americans to show their thanks by giving back.”

The problem, in this case, wasn’t with the president’s inoffensive message, but rather with his audience.

You might think that a presidential speech on Thanksgiving would be open to all comers. But no, even when President Bush is talking about something as uncontroversial and inclusive as the essential goodness of our country, he wants his audience prescreened for obsequiousness.

Bush traveled to the historic Berkeley Plantation in southeastern Virginia yesterday for an event carefully calibrated to emphasize his compassionate side. In his remarks, he encouraged “all Americans to show their thanks by giving back.”

But, as usual, he wasn’t talking to all Americans. At least not in person. Admission to the event was tightly controlled by White House and Republican party officials.

Tyler Whitley and Mark Bowes write in the Richmond Times-Dispatch: “President Bush found something to be thankful for yesterday — a friendly, invitation-only Virginia audience. . . . “‘We love you!’ one woman yelled as Bush prepared to deliver a 16-minute Thanksgiving message to a standing-room-only crowd of about 800 people standing at Berkeley under a tent facing the James River.

Yes, it appears Bush can’t even wish Americans a happy Thanksgiving without the comfort of his ever-present Bubble.

Via CREW:

Today, CREW filed a Senate Ethics complaint against Senator David Vitter (R-LA). We asked for an investigation into whether he violated the Senate Rules of Conduct by soliciting for prostitution. The complaint can be found here.

On July 9, 2007, it was revealed that Sen. Vitter's telephone number was included in the so-called "D.C. Madam," Deborah Jeane Palfrey's, list of client telephone numbers. Sen. Vitter confirmed that he had sought Ms. Palfrey's services, saying in a statement, "this was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible." Read more...

It doesn't get better for Vitter - Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid wants "a full airing" of the details of Vitter's actions.  Via The Times Picayune:

The Democratic leader in the Senate said Tuesday the call-girl scandal that has engulfed Sen. David Vitter, R-La., should have "a full airing" and noted that there is an open criminal investigation into the escort service that Vitter acknowledged calling. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., made his comments on the day that Vitter returned to Capitol Hill after a week-long hiatus prompted by his public admission that his number appeared on the phone records of the "D.C. Madam." Read more...

(h/t Americablog)

CNN did a little piece on the history of Larry Flynt's outing of the lying liars in the Republican Congress who claim to be men of high morals and then cheat on their own...Several quit...Will Vitter be the next "family values" hypocrite to go?

Download | play Download | play (h/t Scarce)

Flynt: Payback is a bitch.

Hannity was crying last night about Larry as a way to shift the blame from the cheating Republicans to Flynt... Remember Bob Livingston during the Clinton days?

House Speaker-elect Bob Livingston, reeling from the admission of his own marital infidelities, stunned Washington Saturday by announcing he would not run for speaker when the 106th Congress convenes next month and will quit the House in mid-1999.

Yesterday, Wall Street Journal reporters from across the country staged a surprising walk-out to protest Rupert Murdoch’s impending takeover of the newspaper. After seeing some of the comments Murdoch made to Time’s Eric Pooley, it’s hardly a mystery why WSJ professionals are worried.

“CNN is pretty consistently on the left, if you look at their choice of stories, what they play up. It’s not what they say. It’s what they highlight.” (CNN, which is also owned by Time Warner, hotly disputes this charge.) Then he mumbles conspiratorially, “And if you look at our general news, do we put on things which favor the right rather than the left? I don’t know.” Has Murdoch just said what I think he said? Has he flirted with an admission that Fox News skews right? If so, he quickly backs away. “We don’t think we do. We’ve always insisted we don’t. I don’t think we do. Aw, it’s subjective. Neither side admits it.”

Murdoch is usually more careful than this. “Neither side admits” what, exactly? Murdoch didn’t say. Then again, he didn’t have to.

In the meantime, Bill Moyers is weighing in on the pending sale: “Rupert Murdoch has told the Bancrofts he’ll not meddle with reporting. But he’s accustomed to using journalism as a personal spittoon,” Moyers says. “His worst offense with Fox News is not even its baldly partisan agenda. Far worse is the travesty he’s made of its journalism."

Paul Krugman is weighing in, too. This may seem like a business story regarding one major corporation dealing with a different major corporation. The stakes are higher than that.

John Amato: Let's not forget that Murdoch already admitted manipulating the news in Davos...

While at Davos, Rupert Murdoch discusses the rise of the Internet and digital media, but tells us he used News Corp. to manipulate the news.

Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried." Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East...but we have been very critical of his execution."

Am I reading this correctly? I found the webcast and it seems they haven't included Rupert's admission in the 9 minutes or so that they posted? I emailed The World Economic Forum for the full video. A memo to Murdock: A news organization is supposed to report-----<drum roll please>--- the news, not support an agenda.

Mark Howard sent in the tip and has more...

Juan Cole...Murdoch's media have done more to cheapen American values...

This is too much.

Poliremix:

"A 19 and 17 year old from Arizona, have been offered a plea deal which requires no jail time and virtually no penalty for crimes they admitted to commiting. What were these crimes? As counselors at a boys camp, the 19 and 17 year old punished 18 of the 11-14 year old boys by making them lay face down on their bed, in front of all the other boys, shoving a broomstick into their anus through their pants. Eighteen 11-14 year olds! And, no penalty despite the parents outrage.

One may ask how this could happen. It is really quite simple. The 19 year old, Ryan Bennett, is none other than the son of Arizona's Senate President, Ken Bennett, a Republican who is part of the effort to ban equal rights for same-sex couples in the state, viewing same-sex relationships as immoral...After his son's admission, Bennett wrote a letter to the D.A. handling the case informing her that his son could not rightfully serve time in jail, because he is prepared to leave the country on a mission - to teach the word of Christ to youth around the world...read on"

Here's the AZ Central article.

David used a lot of video to dissect the latest spin regarding the admission by President Bush that he did leak information to the press that was helpful to him sell the war in Iraq.
Download | play -WMP Download | play -QT

Bush verifies the former "Hill staffer"-Scooter Libby's claim. The video contains Bush saying that he didn't know anybody in his administration that leaked any classified information. He obviously wasn't including himself.