Be careful what you wish for: Sicko and insurance companies

[ProfessorPlum]

It’s a classic case of overreach: In the act of trying to become even more powerful, the odiousness of a powerful entity becomes visible and unbearable. Only the unchecked excesses of the monopolies and corporate barons at the last turn of the century could have brought about the muckraking and reform which followed. Only the draconian policies of the deranged (and probably chemically poisoned) King George III could bring about open revolution, followed by the crafting of a government with a severely checked executive. Only the naked aggression of Hitler dragged an extremely war-weary Europe into yet another continent-wide conflict.

The bulk of people just want to work, have a place to live, spend time with their friends and families, raise their kids, have a little security, and not get hassled. Most people aren’t fire-breathing radicals who want to challenge the system. They’ll tolerate quite a bit of petty corruption and interference by the various powerful forces in their lives, as long as the interference and outrage aren’t too awful.

For decades this country has put up with the for-profit health care system. And for decades, the for-profit health care system has been tolerated by the citizenry. It encouraged insurance companies to try to cheat people, but because of reasonable regulation by the government, and the ability of the insured to challenge the companies’ policies in court, it held up reasonably well. Of course, there were always people falling through the cracks of the system, and the courts have always been off limits to the truly poor, but health care got along well enough that people could put up with it to get by.

But that wasn’t enough for the insurance companies. They had to keep pushing the rules to the limit: cherry-picking their members, trying to expand the list of “pre-existing conditions”, denying service, creating mazes of paperwork, and slow-stepping claims. And worst of all, when they found that their avarice was not slaked within the boundaries of the law and regulations, they latched onto the tide of corporate ownership of government to effectively ignore regulation. Now they could charge exorbitant fees, and because of the war against government regulation, and the fact that they owned large portions of congress, they could use every trick in the book to try to screw their customers. Who was going to stop them? The government? The people? Mwah hah hah hah!!

But like every overreach, there is only so far that people will stand for it. With millions upon millions of uninsured, with the US government paying more per capita for healthcare than even countries with single payer systems, with people who have insurance getting the runaround, with access to healthcare going down and down, eventually the people have to react. And spurred by events in their own lives and sparked by Michael Moore’s film “Sicko”, react they will.

Moore’s been making the promotional rounds for this film, and recently issued this challenge to Democratic presidential candidates:

It’s not going to be in enough in the next twelve months just to say, ‘I believe in healthcare for everyone.’ That’s not enough. That’s not enough! You’re going to have to tell us very specifically what you are going to do to remove profit and greed from the system and put the system in the hands of the people of the United States of America. That’s what we want to hear, and that’s what we expect.

The poor, naïve millionaires who have been hearing Moore talk about his film can barely believe that Americans are getting a raw, and deadly, deal. David Letterman, hearing a story about a baby dying of fever while its mother tried to get it to an “in-network” hospital, could hardly believe it, bless his heart. Quoth the bubble-encased, gap-toothed Croesus,

In the back of my mind, I’m thinking, surely someone with some humanity in that circumstance would not let that happen . . . I’m just saying, “Really? Somebody could look at an infant with a 104 fever and say ‘Nah, you want the, the, that’s down the street, you wanna get down there if you can’”. They wouldn’t step in and say ‘here, we can do this.’?

What Dave doesn’t realize is that many of the people with “some humanity” have been removed from that equation. Likewise, Moore was able to penetrate the wealth-cocoon of Oprah long enough for her to admit,

I have to honestly say I hadn’t thought about it because I’m one of those people “I’ve got mine” so I wasn’t thinking about who didn’t have theirs.

Americans could have been content to let this rotten system continue on forever, probably, with some small level of government regulation to keep them from becoming completely derelict in their duties and morally bereft greed-heads. But like all overreachers, they had to kill that government oversight and may succeed in killing the golden goose. Let’s hope so.

[Fridays Child]

1. Oprah said that?

I don't know if I'm offended or amazed. Maybe both.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. I have to kind of give her credit for admitting it on national TV

though I was thoroughly gob-smacked when I heard it, too.

[Fridays Child]

3. Well, credit for the admission, yes but...

...Oprah's stock in trade is her perceived connectedness to the misfortunes of others. For her to reveal a genuine "entitlement of the wealthy" mentality was surely unintended. I would have been gob-smacked, too.

[Auggie]

5. Oprah is a billionaire. How connected can she truly be?

[tblue37]

9. Not really. She was replying to the context of his film clip,

which specified that it was about people who supposedly HAD full coverage, but who discovered that their "full coverage" would actually let them die by denying treatment or footdragging as the company tried to deny treatment.

She then commented on how the 250,000,000 people who HAVE insurance would be made more fully aware of the situation, "So that the 250,000,000 who, like me, are thinking 'I have mine' and are not thinking about the other guy. . . ."

You see, it was not the sort of comment it has been characterized as being. She was lumping herself with the many who have insurance and who therefore are not thinking precisely about the full reality of the situation. She was not saying that as a wealthy woman she was not concerned about the situation faced by others who had no insurance.

I get frustrated at the way language is used and comprehended in our country. It is used almost gesturally, like pointing and grunting, rather than with attention to precise meanings.

[Fridays Child]

10. Thank you for the clarification.

[ProfessorPlum]

16. to defend my quote, and Oprah a bit, too

She was mostly positive and receptive to Moore's message while she talked with him - and I accept your interpretation of her quote. I think something like that is also what she meant, though she was having a hard time expressing herself clearly.

The seeming callousness of her statement was immediately picked up on by her audience, which made a disapproving moan, and she threw it back at them, saying she didn't think they had 'thought about the other people' either.

It could be she was just trying to pick up on what Moore's purpose for making the film was - to show people who hadn't thought about it what was at stake - and was trying to embody that by saying it herself. But there have been so many stories like this - of insurance companies and HMOs letting people die for lack of care. I remember reading them in my local paper as far back as 2001 or so. If she really has been unaware of what's going on, then that maybe isn't so surprising, her being a billionaire. If she was just faking it for effect, it still made her seem like an out-of-touch billionaire, which was the point of my quoting it.

I've no idea whether her cluelessness about this issue was because of her wealth or some other reason (probably just the suppressive effect of these wealthy companies on some of the coverage). I applaud her for having Moore on - she treated him with respect and treated the subject with the proper attention. But that quote still stands out, coming from someone who will never have to worry about health for lack of money.

[roseBudd]

17. An R would frame this as a culture of life issue, and highlight the needless deaths

Low income people die as a result of our employer provided for profit healthcare

[katsy]

4. How many of us know of someone suffering...

because of this corporate/government collusion to deny people the basic human right to healthcare, and profit from the people's misery?

I know of one family with 2 very young children. The husband's job outsourced, the mom's job brings enough revenue to not qualify for any aid... but it barely covers living expenses. They have health insurance and the last time the children had to go to a doctor (one for strep throat & one for a leg xray), they had to pay $400 of the $800 or so charge. The children are soon scheduled for the dentist. These people have no disposable income and will use credit cards for the bills. The mom cannot go to the doctor, hasn't had a mammogram, has dental problems with an infection and recently 2 hard lumps appeared in back of her ears and she's dizzy often. They buy natural food for the children to keep them well-nourished, but she doesn't eat it in order to save money. They cook at home. She never shops for herself but has one small pet expenditure... a small life insurance policy that would stabilize the family finances if something happened to her. Giving up the policy would not help her family as the premium is small, but the benefit is pretty good. She thinks her family would be better off if she died.

The insurance companies probably would think the same.

[colbertforpresident]

6. The insurance industry sucks

I too have been denied insurance due to an existing condition. Due to a clerical error and a late payment my insurance company will not renew my insurance. I have Lyme disease. When they were covering me they barely paid for anything. Most treatments weren't approved and the ones that were they only paid what they considered reasonable and customary charges.

[katsy]

8. Horrible.

Profits over people.

I hope Sicko will begin a change in attitude.

Unfortunately, many of us will fall through the cracks in the meantime.

[Prophet 451]

7. I honestly don't understand...

...how this is not the issue in every election of recent times. You're the only industrialised nation without universal healthcare in some form and you pay the most for it too.

Here, we have universal healthcare, free at point of delivery, funded by taxes and supplemented by an assortment of private insurance companies. Is it perfect? No, the French leave us standing but I can assure you that if Blair or Broon tried to abolish the NHS, there'd be full-scale rioting in the streets.

[maggiegault]

11. The United States is a lot larger than England is, and our for-profit system hopelessly entrenched

Unfortunately it isn't as easy for us. There is much to abolish and much to establish, and most Americans care more about what Simon Cowell says than what our politicians lie about.

[nealmhughes]

12. The CIA Handbook has the current UK population at just shy of 61 Million, v. 300 for the US.

That of France is about the same as that of the UK, and Germany about 82 Million. . .
That is not a tremendous order of magnitude when comparing them to the US population, when contrasted with say, the UK or US to the Bahamas or Luxembourg.
Everyone in France and the UK together make up about a quarter the US population. Canada has about 1/10th our population. Now if they can do it, why not us?
It is obvious that the country's best interests are not in play with continuation of the current system. Why should we tolerate the business as usual? Because the Congress is bought and paid for by ___ (insert favorite corporate industry here).
As long as "Pay to Play" continues to be the norm in electing officials, we have only ourselves to blame, that and the blanket noncuriousity of the public who accept the radio and TV talking points as "news" and honestly believe that if it is in print, on the internet or said on the airwaves, then it is by definition true and definitive.
What is amazing is that the Congress give themselves one of the best medical insurance plans in the world and do not have to go out and find a policy for themselves. Ain't that special? It rather reminds me of a former boss who raved at people who read the morning paper while waiting for a work assignment and yet ranted when his NYT was not on the receptionist's desk at 9 am!

[maggiegault]

13. Because in order for it to work, it would require a complete and total overhaul

with 300 million people, greedy bastards running the show, 50 states, god only knows how many lobbyists, pharmaceutical companies...

...if they can do it, why can't we? I'll tell you why. We WOULD have done it, we WOULD be doing it, if we had the brains and inclination to do so. So, despite a lot of lip service about the issue, the song remains the same and we remain the singers.

They're a lot smarter than we are, in France, England, and Canada, in case you haven't noticed.

[eridani]

15. No, just better informed

I think raw smarts probably doesn't differ too much.

[TrogL]

18. Failure to access basic health care affects intellect

[tomreedtoon]

14. I sympathize completely.

I've been saying for decades that people in primary and secondary education who had humanity "have been removed from the equasion." The ones that are left, if they're not out-and-out child abusers, want to dominate and traumatize their charges. But no, teachers are "wonderful," they're "self-sacrificing," they couldn't be a bunch of bastards...

So yes, I understand how people can have what the Catholic Church calls "invincible ignorance." They don't know the truth, they can't see the truth, they can't understand the truth. That it applies to health care and education and so many other public areas is no surprise.