Several years ago I pinched a nerve In my back. Anyone who has had one of these know how painful it is.

Last week I awoke with a pain in my back and chest. Well those are the symptoms of a pinched nerve Id felt them before but never quite like this. As before I laid down and was sure it would remedy itself within a day or two.

Four days later I WALK to the emergency room because the pain is so bad I don’t trust myself to drive. It actually isn’t that far from me I only had to stop five times along the way.

Because I have chest pains in addition to the back pain they take me right away. First they hook me up to a heart monitor and my rate is way high. So then they give me a ekg. This whole time they are strapping all this stuff on me I am trying to explain to them that it is a pinched nerve and I just need something to help me get to sleep. They don’t listen to me. They draw blood, not one vial but 5. Then give me some morphine into the I.V. line that they have put into me. Then I get taken down for chest x-ray’s. The whole time I’m thinking I had a heart attack or something, but it’s been four days surely I would be dead by now.

All this BEFORE I am asked if I have health insurance. Then they ask. Guess what. Yea you guessed it. I have none know what happens next?

The doctor comes in and says I she may have to send me down to their Medical Imaging for a MRI. There might have been some small vien or something in my heart causing the heart problems I’m having. Then they take more blood, and give me more morphine.

That’s right this big greedy corporation after finding out that I have no insurance is going to run more expensive imaging on me, run more expensive tests on me and give me more drugs to ease the pain I’m in even though they know they might not get paid. Now that’s evil.

They are getting ready to transport me down to their MRI and the doctor that has been attending me appears. I am not having a heart problems. I have an acute pancreatitis, which is just as serious just takes longer to kill you. She informs me that I am going to be admitted to the hospital for treatment.

I spend 3 days there poked prodded and infused with bags full of stuff that my pancreas should have been making for my body. At one point I am even moved to a private room so I am not disturbed by another fellow in the shared room that I am in that is very noisy. I need my rest the nurse says. Over the stay I find out I also have elevated liver function enzymes, hyperlipidemia and a slight curve to my spine.

I’m discharged and dreading the bill.

I relate this story to a friend of mine from England. Telling him the whole time I have no idea how I’m gonna pay for this.

He tells me this. “At least your alive to worry about the bills. In England they would have looked at the symptoms (a pinched nerve in your back and pancreatitis have the same pain symptoms) listened to what your history assumed it was your back problem given you pain killers. You wouldn’t have felt the pain went home and died They would have done their best to get you in and out, tell that to Michael Moore”

My parents went bankrupt because of their medical bills.  I’d much rather receive the world’s best medical care and go bankrupt that receive the same level of shitty care that everyone else receives, simply out of some sense of egalitarian proletarian “fairness.”

The first article deals primarily with Moore’s assertions about the nature of Cuban health care, and then goes on to thoroughly fisk Moore’s depiction of European socialized systems. I highly suggest reading the whole article, but these quotes in particular jumped out at me. Be warned - the pictures shown on these links are both graphic and disturbing. Nevertheless, they are certainly things people willing to swallow Moore’s story about the glory of Castro and his socialist health care system need to see.  On the nature of Cuban health care:

I don’t believe Michael Moore is a mere liar. He’s quite well aware that Cubans aren’t as lucky as him to receive first-class treatment when they need it, but he doesn’t care at all, as his everyday sport is going after his native country and get the applause of silly Euro leftists. What “Sicko” purposely didn’t tell you about Cuba is that, other than being a Gulag police state, there are very few—if any—functioning health centers. The rest, as can be seen in these photographs taken and sent in by a non-governamental journalist, are collapsing structures that resemble recently-bombed buildings. This is just the exterior side. Entering a Cuban hospital may be an appalling experience. Hygiene is pratically non-existent, excrements and roaches can easily be found everywhere on the floors and medicines are rarely available for patients. I challenge Moore to support his claims about US healthcare with graphical evidence, but I doubt he’ll be able to find any picture comparable to plenty of others showing the third-world decay of Castroite health. To figure out which side of Cuba’s dual system Michael Moore experienced, you need to scroll down this page from “The Real Cuba.”

Another interesting paragraph from this piece breaks down the actual number of uninsured Americans - a number which is, again, vastly different from the picture Moore paints. These are figures I had been meaning to write about for some time which are appearing in more and more articles that are critiquing Sicko. See for yourself:

As an European fed up with socialized medicine, I would like to express my deepest admiration for American healthcare. Although not perfect and needing more effective free market reforms, the money factor—which “Sicko” lashes out at as source of all imaginary evils—is what keeps it innovative, competitive and efficient. We hear a lot about 45 million citizens who don’t have health insurance. But just who are they? The US Census Bureau couldn’t be clearer:

--38% of the uninsured (17 million) live in households earning over $ 50,000 in annual income

--20% (9 million) reside in households earning over 75,000 a year

--Over 18 million (40%), between the ages of 18 and 34, spend more on entertainment or dining out

--14 million ( 31%) are elegible for health government programs like Medicaid, but choose to opt-out.

So, how many are truly uninsured? Only 18% of Americans.

The second article is a short but again detailed fisking of Moore’s depiction of European health care. According to this journalist, it’s not all roses and sunshine in England and France as Moore would have us believe:

Moore interviewed a physician in the British National Health Service about how wonderful free health care is in Britain, and how satisfied the physicians are in the NHS. He forgot to mention that more than one third of physicians working for the NHS buy private insurance so they don’t have to rely on the “free” care, and that more than 6 million British citizens also buy private insurance for the same reason. He did not mention that this year the health minister admitted that one in eight British patients still wait for more than a year for treatment. He neglected to say that Britain has had to import more than 20,000 physicians in the past three years – chiefly from Middle Eastern and Asian countries – because so few of the British, after sixty years of experience with the NHS, want to enter or stay in the profession.

While praising the superiority of French medical care and the fact that French doctors make house calls – almost as an aside while praising the superiority of every element of French society compared with America’s – Moore forgot to mention that 13,000 Frenchmen died of heat prostration and dehydration during a heat wave in the summer of 2003, when most French physicians were on summer vacation and did not show up in emergency rooms, let alone make house calls.

Beautifully stated. I encourage everyone to read these articles in full and, once again, ask yourself - why isn’t Michael Moore telling us the whole truth?

Meanwhile across Europe, efficiency in health care has plummeted. Whereas private-sector competitors have an incentive to adapt new technologies and reorganize, state-sponsored monopolies have no profit motive driving them to seek greater efficiency. So the taxpayers get less and less for their money.

In 1975, for instance, most Swedish doctors averaged nine consultations per day. Today, that number has plummeted to four. Much of this drop is the result of burdensome administrative tasks, as doctors now devote 80 percent of their time to paperwork. Needless to say, this greatly impacts the availability of care.

Doctors and health care staff across Europe also receive far less in pay than U.S. medical staff, as salaries are paid by the state and therefore used as a tool to cut costs. As a result, the United States attracts the world’s most competent doctors.

Further, European governments ration drugs to cut costs. Between 1998 and 2002, for instance, 85 new drugs were introduced in the U.S. market. Meanwhile, there were only 44 new drug launches in Europe.

In other words, European governments haven’t figured out a way to deliver health care for less money — they’ve simply figured out a way to ration care.

Ration care.  Hmmm, where have I heard that concept before?  Why, it sounds like a huge HMO, doesn’t it?  But don’t worry.  The Europeans have found a novel solution to their healthcare woes:  capitalism.

nterestingly, as U.S. policy-makers and presidential candidates propose more government involvement with the U.S. health care system, Sweden and other European countries are slowly moving away from their leviathan states.

In many nations, competition from health care entrepreneurs is now allowed. And consequently, an increasing number of people are buying private health insurance and receiving treatment at private clinics. In Sweden, the government is making it easier to start health care companies and is even set to start selling public hospitals.

America’s health care system is far from perfect. But when compared with Europe’s centrally planned monopolies, it is far better equipped to deliver the medicine its citizens need.

Just what we’ve been saying all along.

In this post by Artmonkey, he mentioned that Moore said anyone who claimed he spoke to Roger Smith was a “fucking liar.” Moore tried to downplay the conversation we can prove he had as not useful, but you can judge that for yourself.  The folks at Premiere sent me this link that contains a transcript of the conversation Mike had with Roger.  As you can plainly read for yourself, Moore asked some serious, detailed questions and received real, serious answers in return.  This was absolutely essential to Roger & Me, and yet is was left out.

One has to ask why.

Next, it’s Free Market Cure Their “mission statement” sounds right to me.

Free Market Cure is dedicated to correctly diagnosing the problems with the U.S. health care system and promoting solutions which preserve and extend individual liberty.

Now, I see which way the wind blows.  I know we will get some kind of “universal” coverage, and probably before whoever wins in 2008 is out of the White House.  But.  BUT.  I want whatever we get to be the plan that costs the least, helps the most and gives us as much freedom and liberty as is possible while still improving the general health of the population.  Places like Free Market Cure (and Moorewatch) will help to hash out ideas and keep the system honest.  We hope.

Moving on...Want to see absolute evidence that Moore is glorifying Castro, Cuban health care as a system and at the same time demanding single-payer ONLY in America?  Look no further One of the highlights:

It’s a very poor country, as you know. And I was very impressed. And, you know, with what little they have to use with their healthcare system, they end up living longer than we do. They have a better infant mortality rate than we do. On a number of issues, they’re the same or better than us.

Yeah.  Castro sure worked Moore good, didn’t he?  I can almost see Fidel’s hand up Mike’s ass, moving the lips.

Speaking of murderous Cubans from history that are glorified by the American left, take a small peek into Che Guevara’s past.  Note also that while Moore did not in any way use Che directly to bolster any point in the film, he did use Che’s daughter, which as we all know, will get you instant street cred in Berkeley and San Francisco and any other place where the far, radical left runs the streets wearing communist dictator tee shirts and flashing peace symbols, completely unaware of the contradiction.

Why note that she’s Che’s daughter?  How does that improve the content of what she’s saying?  Can her credentials not stand on their own?  Why use the name of a mass murderer?  I’ll tell you why: because as I said, it gives him cred on the loony end of the left, but most people wouldn’t even notice it flash by.  In fact, neither DonnaK nor Lee saw it when they watched Sicko.

Lastly, don’t forget to read this post by DonnaK about Moore lying when he says he never intended to go to “Cuba proper.” We’ve been productive here at MW lately and I didn’t want that one to scroll away and be forgotten.

That’s it for now.  At least the “Blog this at Moorewatch!” folder is empty now.  :)

I like #1.  Makes sense.

I like the second sentence in #2.  I agree that government would make a horrible, bloated, expensive mess out of a single-payer system.  I disagree with the blanket (and rather simplistic) proclamations in the second half of #2.  I am starting to think a basic package required by all is a smart idea.  It works for car insurance, there is an economic model from which to begin.  I know - health is not driving.  But it is a model, or an idea, from which to begin.  Government doesn’t manage to screw that up too badly, and there’s no evidence in the National Review article to suggest that it’s absolutely a given that such a system would fail due to lobbying.

We could of course kill all the lobbyists.  But that’s a whole other discussion.  :)

I get #3 in theory, but we do not live in a pure libertarian fantasy world.  We’re required to carry all sorts of insurance for all sorts of reasons.  Health care in this country is a big burden on the federal coffers.  With some level of basic care that CANNOT be removed by an over-zealous insurance adjuster, general health in America would improve over the next generation or two.  Healthier people produce more, grow the economy better and cost the government less in the long run.

I feel like #3 is a pure libertarian’s “We shouldn’t have a standing army” or “The IRS is illegal and I’m my own country now” fantasy.  Some kind of system that gives basic care to all WILL happen, and we need to find out the smartest, cheapest and most effective way to make it happen before someone slips a single-payer system past our noses.  If anyone thinks that a bill like that couldn’t be passed without huge public outcry preventing it, may I remind you about Moore’s discussion of the USA-PATRIOT Act?  It might be the only real true thing in F911: No one read the damn bill.  Regardless of how you feel about it, we barely heard a whisper about it before it was law, and it was passed without anyone reading it...it was that complex and confusing.  Anyone think special magic universal coverage for all will be any less of a boondoggle?  Also, as far as passing things no one wants, can I call your attention to the current amnesty sham in Congress?  Americans are vehemently opposed to this bill but the kings and queens on Capitol Hill are bound and determined to do for the peasants what they won’t do for themselves.

If #3 is to be remotely possible, a person would have to demonstrate either remarkable health, or the means to pay the bills on their own in order to opt out.  Otherwise we’d be right where we are now: A system where the poor decide not to get any coverage and instead rely on hospitals and emergency care facilities and then don’t pay the bill.  Or, they go on Medicare or Medicaid depending on age.

I’m all about #4.  We need pilot programs all over the country to experiment with systems and learn how to provide the best care possible for the least amount of money (and stress on the patient).

Something Cato forgot to add as a possibility: We could try to reform the industry we have, find out EXACTLY why it’s so ridiculously expensive and find ways to reduce the numbers, while at the same time closing some of the loopholes that insurance companies use to deny necessary and needed care to patients.  That may not work in the end, but it is an idea worth exploring.

And dat be my $0.02.

..the first would be a system where the insurance companies will be required to give reasonably-priced coverage to all, the way they do with car insurance.  There will be a minimum standard that meets the basic care someone would need, with some provisions for catastrophic situations.  If you want to and/or can afford it, you may buy more coverage.

I envision it something like this: HMOs negotiate with clinics, big pharma and publicly-owned hospitals to get the rock-bottom lowest rates.  Everyone in the basic pool goes to these places for almost everything.  If you buy a higher tier, you get to choose your doctor, hospital, etc.

Of course this would also have to accompany reforms in the industry so that an insurance company would be forced to abide by the contract they signed if you go into a higher tier.  No more of this “looking for a reason to dump you” crap.  In fact I would propose that if they take more than six months of premiums from you, even if they find out that you had seventeen STDs between the ages of 12 and 20 that you never told them about - tough luck.  You tooks the money nows ya takes yer chances.

Also, obviously, the initial “assigned risk” tier that everyone can buy is issued to all, at any time, pre-existing conditions do not apply.  Suck it up, HMOs. :)

I’m quite sure there are massive flaws in that plan, so let’s hear ‘em.

Plan two, and I don’t know how this would be implemented as a law compelling the HMO industry to comply.  I think it;s rather more of a “new product” kind of thing, a service that an HMO could offer that takes from the way the NHS was presented in Sicko.

The idea here is that there is some kind of incentive in the system for reducing a person’s health risk.  Like in Sicko, a doctor, a clinic a hospital would receive more money for healthier patients.  Get a patient to stop smoking?  Get a bonus.  Lower the bad cholesterol in 78% of your patients?  Get a big bonus.  Improve the ratio of patients who recover fully with little-to-know complications due to mistakes or hospital-spread infection?  Your hospital gets a free fancy new whosiwhatsit machine to further improve the level of care.

Obviously the flaw here is how the hell do you make this work outside of a single-payer system?  I don’t know, but it seems like an idea worth thinking about, so have at it.

Tell me exactly where I’m crazy, why something won’t work and why it’s too expensive.  Then, think of an alternative that will work with a privatized system.  The more solutions we can come up with, the easier it will be to stave off yet another massive government agency doomed to failure by red tape and a desire to consolidate control and power.