I'm sure I saw him in Ringaskiddy...

October 18, 2004 10:48 PM

Now that Michael Moore's chosen to look at the American healthcare industry for his next film, Big Pharma is apparently on red alert for any of his trademark guerilla tactics. On his pre-election tour, Moore has been reading out a company-wide memo that he attributes to Viagra- and Vioxx-pushers Pfizer, warning employees to be prepared (and keep their gobs shut) in case of an inpromptu visit. Pfizer denies the memo exists, but in response, Moore says that the 'non-existent' memo also includes a Pfizer office number to report sightings. Perhaps we should call [phone] during New York office hours tomorrow and find out for certain? Or, alternatively, just mention that a large, unshaven man in a baseball cap has been lurking around any of these locations? (This one was too good to keep quiet about.)
posted by holgate (56 comments total)

(holgate, you magnificent bastard! Hast though unforsaken us?)

This, I want to see. But I thought the October Surprise was going to be the arrest and public crucifixion of Mr Moore....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:03 PM on October 18, 2004

47% of american's believe there is a direct link between moore and 9/11.
posted by quonsar at 11:22 PM on October 18, 2004

american'ts
posted by quonsar at 11:22 PM on October 18, 2004

I bet we (Canada) get to be the good guys again, even though your health care system is the "envy of the world" according to George Bush. Actually, a lot of people here think it's funny that we laud our own health care system so much compared to the U.S. and suggest it's like cheering for yourself when you're tenth our of eleventh place.

It should be an entertaining movie though. Even if he's a little ham-handed, Moore gets the word out to average people and I have limitless respect for that.

american'ts

I call them amerishant's, but I'm sort of a King Arthur type.
posted by The God Complex at 11:40 PM on October 18, 2004

I though Canadaian health care was getting into a bit of a crisis?
posted by PenDevil at 12:00 AM on October 19, 2004

I am anti-Bush and anti-assault weapons, but after having seen both of Moore's movies I'm also anti-Michael Moore. Assault interviews, selective editing, loose fact checking, and extensive sound-biting are....bad. I, for one, can't wait to watch him take a similar dump on the health care system. Argh.
posted by dr_emory at 12:17 AM on October 19, 2004

PenDevil: Canadian health care may be in 'crisis', if you listen to the media. If you listen to me, there are a lot of things that need to be fixed. However, the Canadian health care, single payer system, has a much greater ability to solve its current problems than does the patchwork system in the U.S. As bad as it may be advertised to be ("if you love the post office you'll love socialized medicine") here's what it offers:

1. Your insurance, for which you pay (it varies) something like $50 a month canadian, is *never* cancelled. Got a very expensive medical problem for 50 years? (e.g. MS) You never have to pay out of pocket.

2. If you have a catastrophic medical emergency, or a huge accident, guess what: nobody in the hospital emergency room or otherwise asks you about your insurance: you're treated according to the problems you present and that's it. When you check out of hospital you don't go to the accounting department you just leave. No letters to you or your insurance company; nothing. You just keep paying your $50 a month.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 12:20 AM on October 19, 2004

The healthcare industry, perhaps more than any other industry in America, deserves to be violently savaged by the media. Michael Moore, however, is NOT the man for the job. This one is just too important to leave to him.
posted by Ryvar at 12:42 AM on October 19, 2004

Health care is always in a crisis. There isn't much news up there.

We also spend about 1/2 as much per person, but the system is much more efficient, so it's like spending about 3/4 of what the US does per person. (There was a study on this a year or so ago, but I don't have the ref). Just much less lost to administration.

I'm Canadian, but I'm currently living in the US. I have lived with both systems, known people with chronic illness in Canada, as well as people who studied chronic illness in Canada. You don't know how much better it is up there - it really is night and day. No worries, no bankruptcies. I saw the doctor whenever I neeed to when I was a kid; my American roommate only went in dire emergencies, because her father was self-employed. A few years ago, I had a serious eye condition that could have caused blindness - I was in a opthamologist's chair in a matter of a few hours, no problems. We do need to reduce waiting lists for non-urgent surgery (such as knee and hip replacements), but at least anyone who needs it can get on that waiting list.

(Actually, from what I've heard, healthcare is most messed up in Britain, with it's public-private paralell system. The private system bleeds doctors and services away from the public, shortening waiting lists for those who can pay, but lengthening it for those who can't. Are there any UK people who can confirm, deny or clarify this?
posted by jb at 12:44 AM on October 19, 2004

I just read the linked interview (re Canadian health care) - the man is an ideologue and an idiot. He complains about increasing costs, but then complains about any attempt to budget.

And the poor want to buy insurance? He claims he has a poll, but any poll in "People under $25,000 a year, about half of them want to be able to buy private insurance for their own health care" would be blasted across the news, and I haven't heard of it. Also, who the hell making under $25,000 a year could afford insurance? What world does he live in? They already go without prescription coverage or dental (neither of which are covered by Canadian medicare) - I know, because I haven't seen a dentist in over a decade for that reason.

If you want an honest assessment of Canadian health care, find an epidemiological study. They are often prepared by independent researchers to tell the government what they need to do (I used to work at such a place - they studied the provision of arthritis care in Canada).
posted by jb at 12:55 AM on October 19, 2004

So you guys aren't going to call the number and report a Moore sighting? I just called but it was a generic afterhours message.
posted by mathowie at 1:06 AM on October 19, 2004

The private system bleeds doctors and services away from the public, shortening waiting lists for those who can pay, but lengthening it for those who can't. Are there any UK people who can confirm, deny or clarify this?

In the UK many surgeons work for more than one hospital. Often for a National Health Service (NHS) hospital and they also work for a Private hospital too. We are constantly being told that there is a short fall in nurses, but I have never seen a problem when I have been into an NHS hospital. The system works pretty well. All NHS treatment is free at point of use, but for operations there is often a waiting list. If you don't want to wait you can go Private with your own cash (or health insurance policy, which most people don't have).

My father recently (last month) went in for major abdominal surgery, although the operation was free on the NHS, he actually went into a Private hospital. His treatment was paid for by the NHS under an initiative that forces NHS hospitals to treat people within a certain amount of time. If they can't meet the target, the patient is sent Private at the NHS's expense.

It's a bit of a creaky system, but it does work pretty well. We have had free healthcare in the UK since the 40's. Here we live in a free medical treatment environment, and it seems a bit freaky that in The States one medic will be scrapping you off the road and putting in a line in, whilst the other will be checking your wallet for your insurance!
posted by DrDoberman at 1:06 AM on October 19, 2004

I'm reporting a holgate sighting

welcome back, Nick. you've been missed
posted by matteo at 1:12 AM on October 19, 2004

There are long waiting lists, the private system is bleeding away doctors and services, but, right now, since I'm only paying £6.40 for what would be $90 worth of medication...

I can't complain. I love the NHS.
posted by Katemonkey at 1:50 AM on October 19, 2004

Does anyone have any idea how US hospitals compare with the frankly appalling UK situation regarding superbugs?
posted by biffa at 1:56 AM on October 19, 2004

the frankly appalling UK situation regarding superbugs

Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is worse in the USA than it is in Germany. Help is at hand, although ...a few reported a slight nipping sensation!
posted by DrDoberman at 4:31 AM on October 19, 2004

Haha, I reported a sighting near the Sandwich site in Britain. Fantastic.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:51 AM on October 19, 2004

PG: That is comedic gold...
posted by sexymofo at 6:01 AM on October 19, 2004

I'm not sure what, exactly, Pfizer is doing wrong by instructing their employees not to discuss their business with Michael Moore. He has a predetermined agenda and story line, and is interested only in making the interviewee (and company) look stupid and/or evil. Do you think for a second that even if somoene agreed to be interviewed and gave cogent, persuasive, and intelligent responses that Moore would actually air it? Nope, he's a muckraker -- only interested in the "get." Why should Pfizer cooperate?
posted by pardonyou? at 6:17 AM on October 19, 2004

How can anyone MISS Michael Moore ? He's got an ecological footprint the size of Michigan.

I got the impression - from his last movie - that he travels around in a flotilla of black Chevy Suburbans (hey, he's a big guy and needs the leg room) and, at this point (I wouldn't blame him) probably has a dozen armed guards on hand to fight off assasination attempts.

Moore's an oversize giant of a man with - at this point - a no doubt oversize ego, and the Earth shakes at his mighty footfalls as his shadow looms over the cringing, godless corporate America while he stuffs (per clavdivs) absurdly oversized hamburgers into his mighty maw, and his balled-up burger wrapping casually tossed aside mow down greedy, scheming CEO's like bowling pins.
posted by troutfishing at 6:21 AM on October 19, 2004

He's King Kong, climbing the Empire State Building with Faye "George W" Wray trapped in his savage grip while biplanes harass him and pepper his hide with puny gattling guns.
posted by troutfishing at 6:25 AM on October 19, 2004

Your insurance, for which you pay (it varies) something like $50 a month canadian

No you don't. Why people insist on believing a transparent bit of sleight of hand like that baffles me.

You pay ~$50CDN/month for part of your health care. This appears as a health care premium.

You pay another indeterminate but large amount every month in the form of taxes. They just don't tell you how much of your taxes are going to it -- there's no line next to your income-tax statement saying "$1200CDN is going to health care!" and you don't get a line on a receipt saying that you paid $5CDN in GST and PST, of which $2CDN went to health care.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:26 AM on October 19, 2004

In Ontario, the amount paid per year via taxes for healthcare comes out to roughly $3,000 for someone making around $40,000. Which is far more comparable to American insurance costs. Rou_X is very very correct.
posted by loquax at 6:45 AM on October 19, 2004

I think this best expresses my own feelings about Moore as a journalist.
posted by inksyndicate at 7:10 AM on October 19, 2004

What, like no American taxpayer dollars go into its health care system? Talk about selective statistics. Holy crap.
posted by raysmj at 7:14 AM on October 19, 2004

FWIW, I was at the rally in Madison and the number he gave out then (last Saturday night) was 212-573-1226. My wife called it on her cellphone from the rally and got an answer, but she couldn't think of anything funny to say and hung up.
posted by aaronetc at 7:18 AM on October 19, 2004

Things we pay for with U.S. tax dollars: Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drug benefits for the elderly, as well as the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, the VA, and subsidies for major corproations and tax breaks out the wazoo, etc. You're not even getting into state and local expenses here. Most dollars that come into the U.S. health care system right now are provided by governments, whether or not you count tax breaks as part of the total.
posted by raysmj at 7:23 AM on October 19, 2004

I went to Moore's presentation in Eugene yesterday and he's still giving out that number, in a somewhat coquettish way. Apparently Pfizer has had the number disconnected by now.

I think that Moore is sloppy, egocentric, and not terribly honest. He seems a self-righteous blowhard. Having said that, as one who fervently wants to see Bush turned out of office, and who sees the thousands of students, who would otherwise not vote, turning out for his appearences, I have to say that he's OUR self-righteous blowhard.
posted by Danf at 7:34 AM on October 19, 2004

First of all, those interviews you see in many Moore films where a government official sits down and speaks to the camera are rarely actually with Michael Moore. He gets his staff to do those on the (well-founded) premise that the interviewee will be more open about speaking to "an assistant producer working on a documentary" than to Michael Moore himself.

The healthcare industry, perhaps more than any other industry in America, deserves to be violently savaged by the media. Michael Moore, however, is NOT the man for the job. This one is just too important to leave to him.

Yes, because we all know how much media attention these issues get and how much gets accomplished in America when the important issues are subjected to rigorous analysis by intellectuals! Michael Moore is a filmmaker. I'm not expecting him to come up with a detailed 12-point analysis and plan to fix America's health care system. However, the film will package up the large number of health care issues in a much more tangible way than is done now.

On a related note, per capita spending on health care in Canada is lower than the USA. That $50/month isn't obviously the whole cost, but as a percentage of GDP, no one spends more on health care than the US (and, I might add, looking at life expectancy and infant mortality, we get less bang for our buck).
posted by deanc at 7:35 AM on October 19, 2004

Your insurance, for which you pay (it varies) something like $50 a month canadian

No you don't.

I should have been more clear. My point was not that the monthly premium covers the entire cost of the health care system. Rather, it was that there isn't any individual monetary barrier to being insured, aside from the relatively low monthly premium. You can be unemployed with staggeringly high medical costs due to a chronic condition spanning decades and you are never going to be refused by an insurer or denied treatment.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 7:38 AM on October 19, 2004

I'm pretty sure that Moore will point to Canada's health care system as a beacon of hope. The problem is, Canada's health care system IS in crisis. Our problem is not access, and it can be argued that the system is creaking along nicely enough right now. The problem is that, with an aging demographic (we are poised to see a HUGE number of elderly boomers in the next decade), the costs are going to skyrocket. Very soon. The question we'll be asking ourselves, if we want to maintain the current system, is what will we be willing to give up for it? Education? More of our income?

The Canadian system was built around a relatively young, healthy population. With that clientelle, most of the care is preventive and cheap. When you get into pallitive care, and the costs of newer technology, the whole thing's poised to collapse. Also, anyone who doesn't think we already have a two-tiered system is only fooling themselves. Even my father, who works for one of the big banks goes to a 'private' clinic, paid for by his employer when he needs attention (the banks, like pro sports franchises, can't afford to waste time having their people wait in lines).

I can't say I'm looking forward to the possibility of a new Canadian healthcare system, but I have resigned myself to it.
posted by UncleDave at 7:47 AM on October 19, 2004

He's King Kong, climbing the Empire State Building with Faye "George W" Wray trapped in his savage grip while biplanes harass him and pepper his hide with puny gattling guns.

Trout, don't know if you're subconsciously remembering this, but that was the exact (except it was him reaching in the window rather than already being out atop the building) depiction in a full-page illustration in the New Yorker back when F911 came out. I can't remember for sure, but the version I'm picturing in my mind looks like Edward Sorel.
posted by soyjoy at 7:57 AM on October 19, 2004

UncleDave: your points are all well taken. But for the reasons you mentioned, in addition to the continuing development of new, better, but more expensive technology, costs in every country are going to increase. My opinion is that a single payer system is, at least in theory, better able to formulate an effective and comprehensive strategy to deal with this. This is in contrast to a country like the U.S. in which there are myriad players in the system, each with their own agenda and some not having the interests of patients foremost.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 8:01 AM on October 19, 2004

I don't know, Turtles. I can get behind the idea of remaining as a single payer system. I don't have any health insurance beyond my OHIP, and I would like nothing better than to see my coverage remain as it is. But to say, 'it's a good system, it just needs more money,' seems a little too simplistic. Being a self-employed person, I can't afford much more in the way of taxes. I would much rather see our system remain in place as it is, but support it by having some of those wealthy boomers pay their own way. I don't think emergency rooms should ever be privatized. But fracture clinics? Sure, I can live with that.
posted by UncleDave at 8:34 AM on October 19, 2004

soyjoy - do you mean this image ? Yes, I remember it well.


posted by troutfishing at 8:34 AM on October 19, 2004

UncleDave - "Feed me Seymour! Feed me! Mo money mo money mo money!"
posted by troutfishing at 8:36 AM on October 19, 2004

An old article, but still valid: Canada's Burning: Media Myths about health care coverage.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:06 AM on October 19, 2004

Some slightly dated numbers on Canada vs. US costs per person and total coverage:

Canada insured 100 percent of its citizens for $2,250 per person in 1998 while the United States expended $4,270 per person insuring only 84 percent of our citizens. -- http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0007.marmorsul.html

I'm really glad I don't have to worry about falling into the 16% of people with out insurance. Yes some of those are volunetarilly self insured but I'd bet the majority aren't and would buy insurance if it didn't mean skipping eating.

One personal experience that blew me away was in the states the EMTs ask you which hosptal you want to go to. In Canada if your calling an ambulance you want to go to the nearest hospital.
posted by Mitheral at 9:36 AM on October 19, 2004

Looks like the Washington Monument in that picture.
posted by abcde at 9:40 AM on October 19, 2004

UncleDave: I agree that throwing more money into the system isn't the answer. I'm thinking more of measures that would ensure that the money that is there is spent more effectively. Send home early patients recovering from surgery, but provide a nurse or physician for home care, which will be far cheaper than the equivalent time spent in a hospital bed. That's just one example, and probably not even a great one, but it gives you the flavour of something that could be accomplished fairly easily under our system. I'd guess it would be much more difficult to achieve when it involves negotiation between hospitals, insurance companies, private physicians etc.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 9:44 AM on October 19, 2004

I'm not sure what, exactly, Pfizer is doing wrong by instructing their employees not to discuss their business with Michael Moore.

who said it was wrong? i've scoured the language of the post, and i cannot find even an implication that pfizer is somehow wrong for doing this. what do you know that we don't?
posted by quonsar at 9:44 AM on October 19, 2004

I think this best expresses my own feelings about Moore as a journalist.

you think moore is a journalist? now THAT's funny.
posted by quonsar at 9:47 AM on October 19, 2004

Here's a better example. People trip and sprain their ankles all the time and often visit the emergency room. There the question the physician needs to answer is whether or not there's a fracture. The easiest way to do this and ensure your ass is covered is to X-ray every patient with a sprained ankle. But it turns out that in something like 90% of the time you can rule out a fracture just by asking the patient three questions: I don't remember exactly what they are but something like Were you able walk immediately after the injury? Did the ankle swell up immediately?

With this knowledge in hand, in the single payer system the physicians and the government could get together and say, okay, from now on the policy will be that we only X-ray if it's indicated on the basis of these questions. That's the policy, it will save a lot of money, and no physician can be sued for following these guidelines.

Contrast this with the private system: dollars to doughnuts everybody--physicians, hospitals, insurance companies--is going to be covering their ass and performing every test under the sun to rule out the ankle fracture to make sure they can't be successfully sued for missing it. A marginal increase in the number of fractures caught, but way, way, more expensive.
posted by Turtles all the way down at 10:07 AM on October 19, 2004

But..but..what if Michael Moore doesn't hold up the Canadian system as a shining beacon of hope?

Interesting thread. The progression is priceless. A false assumption interspersed with rants for and against Moore, and a big money industry trying to hold its cards close to its vest.
posted by mygoditsbob at 10:25 AM on October 19, 2004

who said it was wrong? i've scoured the language of the post, and i cannot find even an implication that pfizer is somehow wrong for doing this. what do you know that we don't?

Well, for starters, I read the linked post, which called this an "anti-speech attack," and asks readers to "prepare to swell with rage as you read this report, detailing the attempted silencing of America's most upstanding and tumescent intellectual" (althought that last bit certainly seems sarcastic).

Naturally, I concluded that the invitation to call Pfizer and report false sightings was intended to be an act of disobedience to "punish" it for having the temerity to avoid Moore. I'm glad you've corrected me, quonsar.
posted by pardonyou? at 10:31 AM on October 19, 2004

interesting assumption. i didn't read the article, but i read holgates suggestion as humorous. i guess i lose. neener on me.
posted by quonsar at 11:16 AM on October 19, 2004

To put Turtles all the way down example in reality try to find a doctor to deliver a baby in the US and Canada. Much easier in Canada and that is at least partly because we're all on the same team working together vs the half a dozen teams trying to stick it to each other and avoid any possible blame.

Regardless of how slanted, inaccurate or plain misleading Moore's film turns out to be at least it'll get Americans talking. From experience it can be a real eye openner for Americans to be exposed to a different system ( Canadians too).
posted by Mitheral at 11:58 AM on October 19, 2004

quonsar, way to go. I wish more people around here had the guts to admit it when they make a mistake.
posted by caddis at 12:11 PM on October 19, 2004

The question we'll be asking ourselves, if we want to maintain the current system, is what will we be willing to give up for it? Education? More of our income?

For starters, the government could learn to control itself. They Spent over half a billion dollars on three "fast ferries" from Vancouver to Vancouver Island, but had to run them at less than optimal speeds because they disrupted the eco system. They were garish and only cut the time from about 1h 35 min to 1 h 20 min. Then they broke down and were sold for around sixty million.

Recently they spent 800 million dollars on twenty-year-old submarines from Britain, a move which resulted in a disaster at sea and cost one crew member his life. Why do we need submarines? Helicopters or other vessels that can be used for other, more practical, duties would be fine, but let's not pretend we're going to have a glorious military attack on all three fronts if it ever comes to that.

If government were more efficient, paying for health care might not be as big a deal, and then my kids (whenever I have them) would be able to grow up without having to worry about getting sick. As I mentioned earlier, Canada needs to start looking to other European nations that have health care that far surpasses our meagre system; we need to learn from them instead of being happy that we're better than the inept Americans.
posted by The God Complex at 12:48 PM on October 19, 2004

A tumescent Michael Moore? I'm pretty sure I want to avoid thinking about that.

Hell, TGC, at least the ferries and subs had some semblence of a purpose. Try that frigging adscam for a true waste of megabucks. Grrrrr.

In an ideal world we'd have Paul Martin and Tommy Douglas working together as a team. Fiscal responsibility and social responsibility nicely balanced.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:00 PM on October 19, 2004

I don't claim to know everything (or even much) about the Canadian vs American health care system, but I do hear news broadcasts regularly on CKLW and CFCO (stations out of Windsor, Ontario) about Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital in danger of closing due to lack of funds, or sending non-emergency patients to Chatham or other cities, due to lack of funds, etc.

My mom recently spent three days in the hospital (we're on the *other* side of the Windsor Tunnel), and three of the nurses she had during that time were Canadian (they had the telltale accents and manner of speaking, so I asked, in case you wonder how I knew their nationality). All three of them still live in Canada and commute to the US every day, because there are no full-time nursing positions available in the greater Windsor area. So they told me.

Socialized medicine is not the answer, in my opinion, but what is? Obviously US health care is in need of reform, as our population gets greyer, and costs continue to skyrocket. We bear the burden of higher Rx costs because so many other nations have caps on their prescription charges, so pharmaceutical companies make up the difference with their US consumers. Some insurance companies are shaving costs so much that often times major surgeries (such as modified mastectomies) are considered "outpatient" in order to save the cost of an overnight hospital stay. Something has to change, but I sure don't know what.
posted by Oriole Adams at 5:12 PM on October 19, 2004

Pharmaceutical companies do not "make up the difference" by screwing over US Americans. Big pharma is massively profitable, to the point they can afford to spend most of their money on marketing, little on research, and still come up with multimillion dollar-cost new drugs.

There are similar reasons for US American health insurance companies running mastectomy patients out the door the moment the surgery is finished.

All in the name of capitalism, maximising profits, and neglecting the human side of it all. What fun!

IMO, anyone who says "socialised medicine is not the answer" simply doesn't know any better. Corporate-controlled, profits-first medicine can not work. There must be controls, and the only way to do that in any consistent, fair, and consumer/citizen-focused manner is to do it through government. Socialised medicine is the answer.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:47 PM on October 19, 2004

...little on research...

I'm not sure where you come up with this but pharmaceutical companies spend a helluva lot on R&D trying to continually out maneuver and beat competitors to the punch. According to the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Researchers of America it costs $500 million just to develop a single drug and in total they spend almost 21% of sales on R&D (which is more thany any other industry). Whether this is more ore less than marketing I can't answer but 21% of sales is by no means little.
posted by PenDevil at 1:09 AM on October 20, 2004

It is far less than they spend on marketing, and is on that basis I call it "little."
posted by five fresh fish at 8:54 AM on October 20, 2004

Interesting article from the Saturday Evening Post about international price caps on pharmaceuticals and their effect on US Rx prices.
posted by Oriole Adams at 12:55 PM on October 20, 2004

I'm supposed to put any sort of belief into an article that makes the assertion "For one thing, Canadians are poorer than Americans (by about one- third); as a result, demand is lower, not just in drugs, but in consumer goods."?!

That's just stupid.

And this: "drug buyers in Canada are much like wait-listed passengers for airlines, few in number and profitable to sell discounted tickets to in order to fill the plane"

WTF?! A pill is like an airplane seat? Not likely. A drug company can control how many pills it stamps out in a batch. An airline doesn't have the freedom to shrink or expand its jetsize on demand.

Then it quotes the Frasier Institute, which is a far right-wing mouthpiece that's full of shit more often than not.

"For now, Canada's best hope-and ours-is that the United States never adopts a Canadian-style system, which would make the Great White North's own sorry healthcare system a frozen wasteland."

Oh, for heaven's sake. I hope you didn't spend any time actually googling this crap: it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:52 PM on October 20, 2004