Let's be clear about who's running this country. I don't think they're going to stop just because we ask, Tim.

From Bill Moyers' Journal, July 10, 2009:

BILL MOYERS: So what did you think when you saw that film [SiCKO]?

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.

BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry's trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." What was that about?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.

BILL MOYERS: And there was a political strategy. "Position Sicko as a threat to Democrats' larger agenda." What does that mean?

WENDELL POTTER: That means that part of the effort to discredit this film was to use lobbyists and their own staff to go onto Capitol Hill and say, "Look, you don't want to believe this movie. You don't want to talk about it. You don't want to endorse it. And if you do, we can make things tough for you."

BILL MOYERS: How?

WENDELL POTTER: By running ads, commercials in your home district when you're running for reelection, not contributing to your campaigns again, or contributing to your competitor.

BILL MOYERS: This is fascinating. You know, "Build awareness among centrist Democratic policy organizations--"

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: "--including the Democratic Leadership Council."

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: Then it says, "Message to Democratic insiders. Embracing Moore is one-way ticket back to minority party status."

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah.

BILL MOYERS: Now, that's exactly what they did, didn't they? They--

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: --radicalized Moore, so that his message was discredited because the messenger was seen to be radical.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely. In memos that would go back within the industry — he was never, by the way, mentioned by name in any memos, because we didn't want to inadvertently write something that would wind up in his hands. So the memos would usually-- the subject line would be-- the emails would be, "Hollywood." And as we would do the media training, we would always have someone refer to him as Hollywood entertainer or Hollywood moviemaker Michael Moore.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, just to-- Hollywood, I think people think that's entertainment, that's movie-making. That's not real documentary. They don't want you to think that it was a documentary that had some truth. They would want you to see this as just some fantasy that a Hollywood filmmaker had come up with. That's part of the strategy.

BILL MOYERS: So you would actually hear politicians mouth the talking points that had been circulated by the industry to discredit Michael Moore.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: You'd hear ordinary people talking that. And politicians as well, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely.

BILL MOYERS: So your plan worked.

WENDELL POTTER: It worked beautifully.

BILL MOYERS: The film was blunted, right?

WENDELL POTTER: The film was blunted. It--

BILL MOYERS: Was it true? Did you think it contained a great truth?

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely did.

BILL MOYERS: What was it?

WENDELL POTTER: That we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven in the countries that were in that movie.

You know, we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada. And that if you include the people who are underinsured, more people than in the United Kingdom. We have huge numbers of people who are also just a lay-off away from joining the ranks of the uninsured, or being purged by their insurance company, and winding up there.

And another thing is that the advocates of reform or the opponents of reform are those who are saying that we need to be careful about what we do here, because we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. It's more likely that your employer and your insurer is going to switch you from a plan that you're in now to one that you don't want. You might be in the plan you like now.

But chances are, pretty soon, you're going to be enrolled in one of these high deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is being shifted to you than you ever imagined."

[Wendell Potter is a retired CIGNA executive turned whistle-blower.]

Health Insurance has still to play a more active role for building better better Health care.It should include each and every citizen/family of a country which should be linked with augmentation of health infrastructure and effective health services. Public-Private Participation should be able to do this task.

Prof.Fani Bhusan Das

Health insurance has nothing to do with health care as is painfully evident. For that industry to "build better health care" it needs to be regulated into a set of standards that comply with administering payments to providers, not gaming premiums to benefit shareholders. In fact, if these parasites are to be able to continue conducting business, shareholder profits should be limited. After that, any financial gains accrued through Wall Street should be required to be placed back into the administration of plans. In that way, the insurers might just have something to do with helping provide better care. Let's face it, these corporations aren't totally "private". They get taxpayer revenue to administrate plans AND employee benefits are tax deductible. If these big boys want to play with their own unique set of rules, let them, but then let's take away any taxpayer funded premiums out of their control. Every game has rules. Congress needs to change the rules of the game if they wish to keep these players on the field. 

I agree with Lauren Serven. We are already spoon feeding these guys by offering too many breaks with the idea that it makes it more affordable. That may have been the initial intent. These companies play off of that. Why should the employer be obligated anyway? They already pay us. We as tax payers and medical bill payers already make up the difference already make up the difference for the unpaid over the top bills. What happens when you cannot afford the outragous bills? These hospitals must go on and recoup the losses and write them off. Guess who is paying anyway??? Very good idea. Lets stop spoon feeding theses companies to get them out of control. It should be called health control instead of health care.

 The more that I think about, it it is an outstanding idea.

Health insurance in the U.S isn't health care it isn't even a method of truly delivering health care.  In most cases it's an IMPEDIMENT to delivering health care by how the insurance companies regularly do things like delay or deny care or flat our re-write prescriptions for particular things.  They've even manipulated the system in such a way that it's increasingly frequent that you can't find a doctor to see you as a cash patient without huge deposits (made in cash, not as check or credit card - unless they're able to get the check cashed first or to succeed in placing a hold of the desired amount upon your credit card).  Add to this that they deny their products to anyone with a pre-existing condition, deny long lists of services to people with known conditions (which can simply include being FEMALE) or can deny various service or their product simply due to "risk factors" as absurd as you take an antihistamine.  How anyone can think they're part of a "solution" or could be part of a working reform just blows me away.  They're the biggest problem we have or at least in the top 2-3.  If we could get "health insurance" out of our health care system, we could finally start seeing what it is that works and doesn't work - and what's really driving up prices and causing all this over-specialization - and (hopefully) get honest answers in the process.

Health insurance was a scam from the beginning and it's gotten worse the longer it's been allowed to run.  It's time to end it and to get the truth out about what insurance companies have done to our health care - like how THEY manipulate the system and do all those things we're being told to fear about any potential reforms.  We already have what we fear.  How could reform be worse? Oh yeah, we could leave insurance companies in the mix.

FAO on June 2009, reported that 1.02 million hungry people aroud the world. Some ways must be found out how to provide health care for such unfortunate people. We have to become practical and search for dedicated health professionals who are prepared to go to grassroots level and implement specific health care measures from area to area as it will not be same for all areas. Health care for such people must be integrated with social, economic and livelihood programs. Holistic approach is needed for universal Health care.

Prof.Fani Bhusan Das