Could Michael Moore be right?

Maybe -- you'll not get anymore agreement from me on that. I try hard not to do anything that supports anything he does. He's pompous, arrogant, self aggrandizing, prone to flights of fancy (even out right lies). He's also right that our current health care system needs a lot of help.



My wife is a school teacher, and she pays nearly a $1000/month for our family plan health care (that includes the 2 months in the summer she doesn't get paid). That's more than some people get paid in a year. There are people she works with that work only for the family health insurance (the spouse earns the money the family lives on). The coverage is not as good as it once was, but is apparently still better than some folks get. My wife is stuck at that job until she retires, because of the health care -- she has rheumatoid arthritis, my son has hydrocephalus and other brain disorders -- we couldn't get on with another company. So like everyone else, we're concerned about health care too.



Michael Moore thinks the government should take it all over -- the same outfit that oversees Walter Reed Army Hospital. OK, maybe that's not completely fair -- I've heard some very positive things lately about local VA hospital care, so maybe Walter Reed was just a shameful fluke. As a former Corpsman I spent some training time in Navy Hospitals -- aside from a noticeable lack of privacy, the care seemed more than adequate. But Moore wants to go with the UK model which is OK for all but the most rare of cases. Take Dandy Walker Syndrome as a for instance, that is what my son was born with. Over here, my wife went over to St John's hospital, they took care of her and Alex, and have pretty much followed along with him periodically since he was born. In England, we would have been strongly advised to have aborted him. How do we know? Because that's what British parents on the Internet boards said they were told to do -- so they came over here to have their children taken care of (unless they couldn't afford to, then I guess they followed the doctor's advice). So far, Alex has not been any more expensive of a child than any other preemie would be - of course, preemies are discouraged in government run health care systems too...

We find that we receive the best, and most cost effective care at non-profit hospitals. We will drive 50 miles away rather than visit the big for-profit hospital in this town -- we got tired of the outrageous bills from them (Alex had RSV shots his first 2 years -- $100 for the shot, $400 for the "Outpatient Room" they made us wait in each time!). I know the arguments for for-profit hospitals -- it pays for research -- OK, maybe that's the only argument for them. I know that Alex's care at the non-profit St. Johns was excellent, and when it came time to settle the bill, they took the pittance that Blue Cross/Blue Shield was willing to pay, and wrote the rest off.

Alright, do I have a point? When it comes to the health of my family, I would rather not let the government, or profit motive decide my fate. Is that a practical solution to medicine? If I knew that, I'd make a movie...