Michael Moore's Slanted "Sicko"

Before I left on vacation a few weeks ago, I read an excellent review of Michael Moore's latest piece of video trash, "Sicko," in the Thursday, 28 June Wall Street Journal.

Dr. David Gratzer, a practicing Canadian physician, took Moore's movie, and position, to task in a piece entitled, "Who's Really 'Sicko'."

Among the more revealing passages in his article are,

"'I haven't seen 'Sicko,'" says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.

In the U.S., 83 House Democrats voted for a bill in 1993 calling for single-payer health care. That idea collapsed with HillaryCare and since then has existed on the fringes of the debate -- winning praise from academics and pressure groups, but remaining largely out of the political discussion. Mr. Moore's documentary intends to change that, exposing millions to his argument that American health care is sick and socialized medicine is the cure.

It's not simply that Mr. Moore is wrong. His grand tour of public health care systems misses the big story: While he prescribes socialism, market-oriented reforms are percolating in cities from Stockholm to Saskatoon.

It's compelling material -- I know because, born and raised in Canada, I used to believe in government-run health care. Then I was mugged by reality.

Consider, for instance, Mr. Moore's claim that ERs don't overcrowd in Canada. A Canadian government study recently found that only about half of patients are treated in a timely manner, as defined by local medical and hospital associations. "The research merely confirms anecdotal reports of interminable waits," reported a national newspaper. While people in rural areas seem to fare better, Toronto patients receive care in four hours on average; one in 10 patients waits more than a dozen hours.

This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.

With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics -- some operating in a "gray zone" of the law -- are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.

Canadian doctors, once quiet on the issue of private health care, elected Brian Day as president of their national association. Dr. Day is a leading critic of Canadian medicare; he opened a private surgery hospital and then challenged the government to shut it down. "This is a country," Dr. Day said by way of explanation, "in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years."

Market reforms are catching on in Britain, too. For six decades, its socialist Labour Party scoffed at the very idea of private medicine, dismissing it as "Americanization." Today Labour favors privatization, promising to triple the number of private-sector surgical procedures provided within two years. The Labour government aspires to give patients a choice of four providers for surgeries, at least one of them private, and recently considered the contracting out of some primary-care services -- perhaps even to American companies.

Other European countries follow this same path. In Sweden, after the latest privatizations, the government will contract out some 80% of Stockholm's primary care and 40% of total health services, including Stockholm's largest hospital. Beginning before the election of the new conservative chancellor, Germany enhanced insurance competition and turned state enterprises over to the private sector (including the majority of public hospitals). Even in Slovakia, a former Marxist country, privatizations are actively debated.

Under the weight of demographic shifts and strained by the limits of command-and-control economics, government-run health systems have turned out to be less than utopian. The stories are the same: dirty hospitals, poor standards and difficulty accessing modern drugs and tests.
Admittedly, the recent market reforms are gradual and controversial. But facts are facts, the reforms are real, and they represent a major trend in health care. What does Mr. Moore's documentary say about that? Nothing."

Dr. Gratzer's piece was so well-written and informative that I have reposted much of it. I had not intended to, but it contains so much important factual information, that it seemed necessary.

The point is, Moore carefully avoided the facts which do not support his conclusions. He's attempting to move America backward, while even our more socialist neighbors- Canada, Britain, and Sweden- have had it with a universal healthcare system, and are headed back in our direction.

Is America's healthcare system perfect? Absolutely not! But socializing it, and, as I wrote here, recently, requiring mandatory membership in a totally socialized healthcare system designed and run by mediocre government bureaucrats, is inviting disaster, as well as robbing us of our personal liberty to choose.

Let's hope that, along with misguided policies on the faux-issue of global warming, and cowardice in the face of terrorists in Iraq, Congress' Democrats publicly declare on this issue, the better to be either: allowed to try to implement universal healthcare nationally, and be routed in a subsequent election, or; be seen for the morons they are to try this, and be voted out before they further impair an already badly-functioning US healthcare system.

Yes, American healthcare needs to be fixed, but not this way. We should move toward more individual responsibility for payment, policy choice, and personal healthiness and fitness.

Tailpipe Johnny's New Carbon Tax

Never in my wildest imagination did I ever think I'd be writing a blog post in praise of John "Tailpipe Johnny" Dingell, the aging mossback Democratic Representative of Detroit, Michigan.

But, in keeping with the ancient proverb of "confusion to our enemies," I am taking fiendish delight in seeing Tailpipe twist Frisco Nan's knickers into a knot over his inclusion of a carbon tax in the new House energy bill.

As a recent Wall Street Journal article (10 July) so well described, Tailpipe is forcing Nan to put her money where her mouth is. He knows that a carbon tax will raise gasoline prices and send voters screaming to the polls to oust the party responsible for it. But he also knows that Nan's approach, which is to just set high CAFE levels so she and her San Francisco hybrid liberal friends, can feel exonerated.

As the Journal piece notes,

"This week's prize for honest liberalism goes to Michigan's John Dingell, who is having fun with his fellow Democrats while also making a useful point about the politics of global warming. The venerable Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee -- first elected in 1955 -- has announced that he plans to introduce as early as this week a new tax on carbon emissions.

Now, that's the way to clear a Capitol Hill hearing room. Americans are already miffed at paying $3 a gallon for gasoline, a fact that has the Members assailing oil companies on a daily basis. So the last thing Democrats seeking re-election want to do is pile on another dollar or two a gallon in taxes -- especially in the name of "saving the planet" from the speculative danger of global warming 50 or 100 years from now. Their voters have to deal with the more immediate danger of missing the mortgage payment.

Mr. Dingell knows all this. His point is to force his colleagues -- and the voters -- to be more honest about the cost of their global-warming posturing. It's one thing to pay 100 bucks to hear Madonna at the "Live Earth" concert, or impress your girlfriend by wearing an "I reduced my carbon footprint" T-shirt. It's quite another to accept that energy prices would have to rise by many multiples to make even a degree's worth of difference to the world's climate. "I sincerely doubt that the American people will be willing to pay what this is really going to cost them," Mr. Dingell said on C-SPAN last week."

In fact, the article notes that Europe has violated its Kyoto-accord carbon limits, and that 1970s-era CAFE regulations didn't stop US gasoline demand from rising, either. Later in the piece, the Journal notes,

"Regarding such a tax, Democrats already have some hard political experience. In 1993, Vice President Al Gore convinced Bill Clinton to propose an energy tax on BTU (British thermal units) usage. That would have added about 12 cents a gallon to the price of gas. House Democrats walked the plank and passed it, only to have Senate Democrats kill it. As much as anything else, that vote cost Democrats control of the House in 1994. Now Mr. Gore has embraced the carbon tax once again -- though we still haven't heard him endorse a direct tax on gas or consumers."

You really have to love our Founding Fathers for constructing a political system so complex that even someone like Tailpipe Johnny eventually finds it worthwhile to take on his own party's House Speaker, in defense of his voters. Despite my dislike for Tailpipe, I truly respect him for forcing the Left Coast liberal hypocrites to now step up and vote their conscience on this faux-issue, while possibly losing their seats...nevermind their asses....in the bargain.

Yet another reason why I believe the 'human-sourced global warming' position is unproven, and dangerous to believe otherwise, for economic reasons. Tailpipe obviously agrees. He also clearly feels the current Speaker has not 'led' sufficiently well on this, or other issues, and is using his committee chairmanship to register his disappointment in Frisco Nan's "leadership."