MTV's Disinformation About "Sicko" (Updated 6:05 PM EST)

Kurt Loder from MTV has already started the shameful task of attempting to falsely discredit Moore's assertions in the movie "Sicko".  He audaciously states:

"His cherry-picked facts, manipulative interviews (with lingering close-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18 million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools."

Kurt Loder uses this lie to unload an entire article attempting to portray "Sicko" as a "heavily doctored" film.  What a freakin’ dichotomy.  WHAT A SHAM!    

Michael Moore never stated 18 million people.  Michael Moore said 18,000 people. Way to go Kurt Loder.  I could see if he wrote 18,000,000 vice 18 million, and meant 18,000.  But he actually spells out 18 million.  So this is no typo Kossacks.  What a farce.  

So let me get this straight.  In an effort to discredit Michael Moore for using "blithe assertions" (actual facts that are backed up by the Institute of Medicine), Kurt Loder uses lies and false assertions to support his argument?    

IOM's site states: "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States"

UPDATE (I just watched it again and took notes).

Another example of Kurt Loder's cursory and deceptive ruse is this:

"There's a woman whose husband was prescribed new drugs to combat his cancer, but couldn't get their insurance company to pay for them because the drugs were experimental. Her husband died."

The woman that Loder is talking about is Julie Pierce and he failed to use the facts of her story.

It was not drugs that her husband (Tracy Pierce) was denied.  It was a bone marrow transplant! Their insurance company stated that the transplant was an "experimental procedure."  So, after searching for a matching donor and finding one (his youngest brother), First Health denied the procedure because it was considered "experimental".  So even though her husband’s doctor was encouraging this, and bone marrow transplants have been proven to be effective in treating cancer, it was denied and stated that a proven procedure was experimental.  IMO, that is homicide.  

My point is Kurt Loder did not even have enough respect for these people to get their story straight. The example he used was not about experimental drugs, it was about a proven method of treatment (bone marrow transplant), PROVEN!

I am thinking that Kurt failed to even see this movie.  How many other "news" stories are out there like this?  

•  Kurt Loder has a point!

  LINK

  According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases.

  Not what Moore implied, he made it seem like 18,000 die because they don't covered when they should.

  Check it out. Moore distorted some things and left them out of context, but it happens. Overall, its accurate as the article alleges.

  by bobbyd100 on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:19:58 AM PDT

  •  Ummm....

    You get screening and preventative care for chronic disease...if you have access to health care.

    If you don't have access to health care then you don't get those things.

    It's actually pretty easy and logical to make the connection.

    It's the whole point!

    by Rex Manning on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:30:34 AM PDT

    •  Even if you

      have health care you don't necessarily get screenings. I cancelled my health insurance precisely because they refused to pay for my colonoscopy after my mother died of colon cancer. They undoubtedly figured that by the time I might actually get colon cancer I'd be some other insurance company's problem. Anyway, now I can use the $12,000 each year as my own medical savings account. So far, in the past 5 years since cancellation I used those premiums to pay off my mortgage.

      by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 05:04:00 AM PDT

      •  The point of insurance

        is to insure against bad things happening - a hedge.  If you are willing to risk not having a fall back position if faced with catastrophic health issues, then your choice makes sense for you.

        However, as a matter of public policy... what happens when this catastrophic health issue occurs?  Not that it will to you necessarily, but statistically it WILL happen to someone who has made the same choices, and that 12K in a health savings account will be gone in less than 24 hours.  What happens then?  They will lose everything, but will still get some level of care paid for by the fed (eventually), i.e. society at large.

        All states require that everyone have auto insurance for pretty much this reason - without it, everyone else would be left holding the bill.  The car insurance thing is a bad analog for implementation of health care funding, but the rationale is exactly the same.  

        by Ugluks Flea on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 06:35:09 AM PDT

        •  A bad "bet"

          The point of insurance is to insure against bad things happening - a hedge.  If you are willing to risk not having a fall back position if faced with catastrophic health issues, then your choice makes sense for you.

          Well, can we have a choice about how we make that bet?  I'd rather pay higher taxes and have a single payer system in this country, and the majority of Americans agree.

          All states require that everyone have auto insurance for pretty much this reason - without it, everyone else would be left holding the bill.  The car insurance thing is a bad analog for implementation of health care funding, but the rationale is exactly the same.

          I like Moore's analogy:  If your house catches fire, do you want to call the fire insurance company to ask permission for the local fire department to be called?  And to know they may say "no"?

          by altoid on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:00:13 AM PDT

          •  Single payer

            funded by taxation makes the most sense - in terms of fairness and, yes, efficiency, in terms of dollars spent on care vs. dollars spent on admin - therefore the US will stay as far away from it as it possibly can.

            Americans are worse than the French when it comes to doing things their own way just for the sake of doing it differently.  Vive la Difference!

            by Ugluks Flea on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 11:34:16 AM PDT

        •  Not any more.

          The point of insurance now is to be profitable to the companies' shareholders.

          by vivens fons on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:14:23 AM PDT

          •  This is THE point to make

            It's not news that for-profit, publicly-traded insurance companies are bad for America's health, at least not news to anyone on DKos. But it's the strongest point to make, one that is admittedly soooo partisan, but that is soooo compelling and incontrovertible. It's not inherently the profit motive that screws up health care; it's that the fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value is at some point at odds with the health care system's responsibility to treat patients, to cure ailments, to keep people healthy. This is not opinion, but fact; the point of contention would be in where exactly does profit and health come into conflict.
            Sorry to ramble, but you made the perfect point here. Just wanted to embellish it.

            by teachergonz on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 11:22:41 AM PDT

      •  A paid off mortgage is a drop in the bucket..

        if you get cancer.  We lost our 4 year old in 2004 to rhabdomyosarcoma after a year and probably $500,000 in medical bills.  Mercifully we had good insurance, and when my husband's company changed insurance companies 2 years ago we opted for the most expensive and extensive insurance.  He was diagnosed last August with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and is going to MD Anderson next month for a bone marrow transplant (to the tune of $250,000 because mercifully his brother is a match...for a non-related donor it is $500,000).  Once again, thank God, we have good insurance, but after seeing SiCKO on Friday night we are both ready to move to Canada.  His disability payments through his employer will be taxable, the $10,000 benefit for travel and lodging from the insurance company is taxable...so we are looking at a 40% decrease in his income...still all taxable, travel and lodging that will be way in excess of $10,000 since he will need to be in TX for 4 months...we will be on very unsure footing financially and we have good jobs, top notch insurance, no debt except our reasonably small mortgage and $10,000 in savings.  That is CRIMINAL...all so that insurance companies can get rich and return huge dividends to their stock holders!!

        So don't be so smug that you have put $12,000 a year in a medical savings account and paid off your mortgage...as long as you or a family member can still get cancer your FUCKED!

        by angelmom on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:55:23 AM PDT

        •  Sorry

          Just re-read and it should be "you're" fucked...and I also apologize that I seem to be lashing out at Halcyon, I'm not.  It has been a miserable 5 years, and seeing SiCKO on Friday was really very difficult for my husband and me.  

          by angelmom on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:00:55 AM PDT

          •  No need to apologize.

            I hope for the best for you and your husband.

            by Scout Finch on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:29:48 AM PDT

          •  (((((((((((((((((Angelmom and husband))))))))))))

            You and your husband are in my thoughts, and prayers if desired. I am so sorry for your loss. I am so glad that your husband's brother is a match for the transplant, and hope that everything goes as easily as possible.

                Gentle and healing hugs,
                      Heather

            by Chacounne on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:04:11 AM PDT

          •  What part of my comment didn't you

            understand? $12,000 per year in premiums and they still refused to pay a crummy $600 for a colonoscopy which I obviously require on a once-every-5-years basis, to prevent ~$500,000 colon resection, radiation, chemo, etc. Would you trust such a company to pay for an expensive treatment protocol if you got cancer? Lucky for your family you actually have good insurance. And you have a big company to back you up. The reason my insurance was so expensive (it was $1,000/month in 2001) was because I had individual insurance. I was an easy mark. I'd have to hire a lawyer to get them to pay.

            You fail to realize that I now have the entire equity in my home as my insurance, whereas had I not made my choice, I'd still have junk insurance and the bank would own my home. Of course I took a risk, and I won the bet, but I also paid for my own colonoscopy and other health care myself for a total in 5 years of less than two months' premiums.

            Some of us can't afford to carry junk insurance just in case it might actually pay for needed treatment. You apparently haven't seen SiCKO or been reading nyceve's diaries.

            by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:45:09 AM PDT

            •  Your point is a good one,

              but ease off. She said she's seen SiCKO; believe her. I've seen the name around, so she's probably read "death by spreadsheet." You two are making different points, though they seem equally valid. What is important (and what you both agree upon) is that neither your model nor hers for how to navigate the American health/insurance landscapes is going to work for most Americans. Yours because it was a huge gamble to hope for good health and to bank the money that would have gone towards premiums. Hers because so many people don't have the benefits of solid, dependable, we're-here-to-keep-you-healthy insurance. There is only one solution, and quibbling over the relative (de)merits of the crap-tastic options available is going to benefit no one.

              by teachergonz on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 11:30:01 AM PDT

              •  I read her comment as telling me I'm

                stupid to not pay for health insurance, and then she bragged about how much her family's cancer cost her insurer. She probably had cheaper premiums than I did for all that treatment. Good for her. Why would I throw my money away on a shyster 'death by spreadsheet' company? Why would I trust them to pay, or even authorize treatment?

                by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:11:14 PM PDT

                •  "Bragged" about how much cancer cost?!?! PAHLEASE

                  Halcyon - I had the decency to say I was sorry if it sounded like my comment was being critical of you.  I really don't understand the venom in your responses.  I'm I really the enemy in all this??  My point was that in this ridiculous joke of a healthcare system we have to live with equity in your home, assuming it isn't of the $12 million variety, is not going to buy you much if you have catastrophic healthcare issues like we have.  Not that junk insurance may help either...bottom line if you live in the US and have enormous medical expenses there are very few people who will get through that financially unscathed, never mind the emotional toll it takes.

                  So please back off...no insult intended.  And thanks so much to everyone else who took the time to post a comment that was supportive and kind.  It means more than you know.

                  by angelmom on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:57:55 PM PDT

            •  Geting Rid of Junk Insurance is SICKO's Point

              Sounds like we're all masking the same argument - individual health insurance policies as currently available in these United States are in essence insurance fraud.  They take your premiums while you're well, and cancel the policy (or raise the premiums to unaffordable levels) if you get an expensive ailment.  

              This is why I call it fraud - the insurance companies claim they'll be there if you suffer a catastrophic illness, but have no intention of living up to their side of the bargain.

              And trust me, I know exactly where you're coming from on the "why buy a policy that they'll cancel if I fall ill" choice.

              by RepubAnon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:24:55 PM PDT

              •  I haven't seen Sicko yet, but I thought

                that its point was that for-profit insurance (not just individual policies) was the problem. The other big problem in this country, which I understand was not the subject of Sicko, is that in order to have any kind of reasonable coverage at all you have to have a job that comes with a generous benefit package (or be the child or spouse of such a person). It is a nonsensical system that says only employees in big companies/government should have access to medical care.

                by Alice in Florida on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:15:09 PM PDT

          •  Angelmom, now I understand your username so well.

            Thank you for sharing your story. My ganddaughter died four years ago last month. She was only three. I knew the first year would be tough, but the succesive years have not gotten easier. Every anniversary is haunting. When the time came that she should have been starting kindergarten, it hurt so much. I suspect we'll remember all those things she should have lived to experience.
            I can guess at your pain because I see my daughter. The stress they went thru could have destroyed her marriage. I am so proud of my daughter and my son-in-law that they pulled together instead of apart.
            They too are fortunate to have had decent health insurance. The resulting financial strain may have been that extra push.
            I pray for your strength to get you thru this. I pray for your husband and his brother. My mom used to repeat that god doesn't give us more than we can handle, but sometimes I think god overestimates me.

            by madgranny on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:47:42 AM PDT

          •  Angelmom, you don't owe any apologies

            I am terribly sorry for your loss and will pray for your family.

            by St Louis Woman on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 11:09:47 AM PDT

        •  I am so sorry for your situation.....

          MD Anderson is an excellent hospital and I hope for the best for your husband.  

          If you can bear to, your story would make an important diary.  The actual bills for the chemo and biological treatments, which are lifesaving for some, are astonishingly high.  My spouse was paing $30,000 per treatment cycle for 8 cycles.  Fortunately the treatments were effective and he is 3 years in remission now.  We had good insurance, but still large deductables.  Try not to get sick over two plan years if you can help it.

          by murrayewv on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:45:01 AM PDT

          •  So glad to hear your husband is in remission

            We have a maximum out of pocket that is about $2500, but they get you coming and going, and copays don't go toward that total.  We did a healthcare reimbursement account, but that hurts too when he has to go on disability.  Thanks for the encouragement to do a diary.  I have been thinking about it, but have only done one other, although I have been a lurker for 3 years.  I am going to think about it more...

            Best of luck to you and your husband.

            by angelmom on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:54:14 AM PDT

        •  cost of chemo

          in India at a luxury medical clinic $2500
          cost in US..min. $25000

          cost of triple bypass heart operation in US: $125,000 (not including meds afterwards)
          in India by good, experienced (many trained and educated in the US) doctors: $12,000

          If a surgical room is staffed with 4 specialists making $600/hr (specialists making well over a million a year) with an additional 6 support people making $100/hr (any surgical room nurses making that?) and a person requires a 6 hour operation.  That operation should cost $18,000.  But 'magically' in the present system such process winds up costing a half million.

          If the cost of the operation/medical service doesn't bankrupt us the cost of meds will...they get us coming and going.

          When the total cost of all war and war machine for all this crazy 'keep us safe' crap of the past 6 years becomes $1.5 trillion or more.  That money could have built over 5,000 (avg 100 per state) public funded hospitals at $300 million a pop.  No one is keeping us 'safe' and it is all sick

          by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:13:55 AM PDT

          •  quick question

            Is there a source on the internet for these facts?  I would love to read more.
            Thanks :-)

            by MissInformation on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 02:20:36 PM PDT

            •  I don't have internet sources

              offhand.  I read about it, in a newspaper or some other article a couple of years ago.  A manager of a mobile home park in florida was told he needed the operation, the cost would wipe him out (nearing retirement).  He found out about the costs in India and flew out there for the operation.  On top of that, he stayed at a luxury resort during his recovery where at least six nurses made sure he was comfortable and whatnot.
              A woman was discussed in the article who did the chemo thing.

              It seems to be one of those little known truths out there.  So it is hard to find substantiating information, but we all know how popular the truth is in the US don't we? snark

              by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 05:57:03 PM PDT

        •  Oh wow

          I am so sorry to hear about the horrible years you and your husband are weathering through.  I cannot imagine.

          And I agree that 12k a year and a paid off mortgage is really nothing compared to the cost of paying for any cancer treatments on your own.  Most rounds of chemo consist of, what, 4-5 sessions?  Each session costing $13k on its own?  Any money saved would be gone instantly with no further insurance to fall back on.  My mom is going through chemo right now following a lobectomy and I am astounded by what I see when I look at her medical statements.

          Good luck to your and your family, angelmom.  

          by Bailey on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:57:23 AM PDT

        •  Universal health-care

          in the horrible situations you describe may or may not be better at saving lives, but it removes so much stress!  The financial worries are a huge stress, even for you in your relatively comfortable economic situation.

          Americans who haven't lived under any other system, probably can't even conceive of the difference.  I had a scary lump on my throat a couple years ago.  Specialist appointments almost once a week for a couple months, and every second day in the painful period.  Assurances that they'd let me know as soon as they could say for sure it wasn't cancer.  That is stressful enough!  Plenty!  Since I live in Norway, I didn't have to have a single thought about the expense, and even so I was quite scared.

          Just before Christmas the specialist called me at home.  Barked my last name and birth year, sounding military.  Just calling to tell me it wasn't cancer and was almost certainly nothing at all dangerous.  What a relief!

          People should not have to have the economic fears in addition!  

          Hugs and best wishes to you and your husband!!!

          by DSPS owl on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:28:56 AM PDT

      •  You're either rich or crazy.....

        One illness requiring hospitalization will wipe you out......unless you're rich.

        by Bush Bites on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:47:41 AM PDT

        •  My insurance company wouldn't cover me even

          if I paid my premiums. Just like SICKO illustrates, I'd still be wiped out, but at least I now have my home as collateral, whereas if I'd thrown $12,000 away at health insurance company for the past 5 years I'd have nothing, and the bank would still own my house. Of course i took a risk, but I think I made the right choice.

          I had individual insurance. Without a large company to back me up there's no incentive for the insurance company to honor  its commitment, because it's only me, and I'd have to hire a lawyer to force them to pay. Those, like angelmom, who tell us how great their insurance is are the exception today.

          The only cancer in my entire family is colon cancer, which is preventable. I grow my own organic food and rarely go off the farm, so I don't have a risky lifestyle. At this point I doubt that I'd trust any health insurance company.

          by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:03:00 AM PDT

          •  Though I sincerely hope your choices work out for

            you, I don't think you have to pound Angelmom with your point.  Sometimes when people don't agree with you, it's not because they don't understand what you said, they just don't agree with you.  Chill.

            by St Louis Woman on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 11:11:54 AM PDT

          •  I still think you should look for high deductible

            Well, I still think you should look for some kind of high deductible coverage....strictly for catastrophic coverage.

            I mean, I can't really blame you, I know the Insurance Companies are all running a scam, but you might be able to find a high-deductible policy that is cheaper but will still protect you from anything major.

            But, either way, I hope it works out for you.....

            (And make sure you get regular colonoscopies. Don't believe that BS about not worrying about it 'til 50 or whatever...it can develop at any time.)

            by Bush Bites on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:56:58 AM PDT

      •  Meanwhile

        My mother is dying of colon cancer, I have a very good HMO, and I get colonoscopies because they KNOW I'm at risk.

        What's your point ?

        by murphy on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:28:49 AM PDT

        •  The point is that my health ins. co.

          refused to pay for a colonoscopy for me after my mom died of it (my grandma and uncle had also).  Isn't the point obvious? If the co. won't pay $600 (at the time) to prevent a known risk, then how could I expect them to pay for cancer treatment, which is far more expensive? So I now pay for my own health care out of pocket.

          by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:06:01 AM PDT

          •  What I meant was

            you're paying off your mortgage when it seems to me that, depending on where you live and/or work, better health coverage might have been available. I don't know. I have a high sense of frustration about this.

            I do see a lot of people around me "choosing" health care insurance options that make no sense. Literally, since I work for an entity that gives employees a "cafeteria plan" approach with several different options for coverage, one has the choice of several plans which range from pretty damned good to "huh ?" And the premiums aren't all that different, especially when you consider what could happen if it's YOU that has that heart attack, car wreck, or whatever.

            If I pay off my mortgage, but I don't have money for a colon cancer surgery, what's the point ? Do I borrow against the house ? In a declining housing market, that may not be possible anyway-- and who wants to loan to somebody who is having such a serious medical problem ? Don't think they know ? WellPoint knows ALL ! And tells your prospective lender, don't bet against it.

            Meanwhile, I want everyone to have the kind of high quality single-payer coverage here in the US which we could have if there was a will to (1) stop wasting money on senseless wars, and (2) stop pandering to the "private" health industry/Big Pharma which is really nothing more that state-supported terrorizing of our populace.

            Maybe I should just say that, having had excellent HMO coverage almost all my life, I guess I'm spoiled. I go to the dr., including specialists, when I need or want to, have tests of all sorts whenever called for, and get the medications I need for a modest co-pay. My parents, who are well into their 80's, have had this coverage as well, and have had numerous events which required its use, including several serious surgeries.

            It's as close to "socialized medicine" as exists in this country, and it works for most of the members most of the time. Oh yeah, sometimes they f-up, big time. Sometimes they even kill people when they make a mistake. Doctors are only human. And no one with a brain will represent to you that doctors who aren't with HMOs never make mistakes, or even that they necessarily make fewer mistakes than HMO doctors. And I would be the first to state that some, perhaps many, HMOs are not very good.

            But if the model is really "health maintainance" instead of "managed care" you are likely to get better outcomes. In fact, when the term "managed care" came into vogue, starting in the Reagan administration, "health maintainance" started to take a back seat.

            This is getting really long for a comment, but  when there's a profit motive involved, as in most of American health-care, the odds are stacked against you in ways that make the whole thing very frightening.

            by murphy on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 11:25:04 AM PDT

            •  I won't ever need a colon resection

              because I pay for my own colonoscopies, which is the entire point of my comment. If the ins co wouldn't pay to prevent colon cancer, I don't trust them to pay for surgery. They'd probably blame me for not preventing my cancer with colonoscopies: catch 22.

              You get great care. You'd be crazy to opt out. I got screwed: they took my money and then denied the 'maintenance' my genetic heritage required. And there is no other better option for me, especially now when we know they deny you coverage if you've ever had a hangnail. I choose to boycott the crooked system.

              by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:06:38 PM PDT

              •  All which only goes to say

                Michael Moore is right, and we need to get out there and work our butts off for a decent health care system in this country that doesn't leave folks paying for medical care that should be free.

                I hope anyone in your situation is getting the really thorough colonoscopies, btw. Some people don't seem to realize the importance of this, although you no doubt know all about it.

                If the dr. doesn't go all the way through the entire thing, there could still be something lurking. My grandmother had colon cancer, and my mother, so I am pretty sensitive on this issue.

                by murphy on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 01:44:01 PM PDT

                •  Yes, MM is right, and I posted my

                  comment as yet another personal example. It seems most of the response I got was from people who haven't experienced getting shafted by the fraudulent insurance companies, or who are in positions of leverage, whose contracts the insurance companies honor. It's clear to me that the Ins cos cherry pick those who they think they can easily get away with defrauding. My demographic puts me in that category.

                  My ma's cancer was at the appendix scar (from her appendectomy), so chances are a colonoscopy might not have been thorough enough to find it. But colonoscopies were only just beginning when she was diagnosed. I wonder if the scar was predisposed because healing involves rapid cell proliferation. I'd be curious if there are data showing that cancers tend to develop at sites of prior tissue trauma.

                  I don't think health care should or could be free. But it's definitely worth being taxed fairly for it so that the system is equitable for all. If you think health care should be free, why not food? I'd be happy to pay a fair price for my health needs, since I could afford that, in order to provide care for those who can't pay.

                  by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 02:04:53 PM PDT

                  •  Supported by taxes, of course

                    "Free" in the sense that no one is turned away.

                    by murphy on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 02:34:33 PM PDT

      •  Wow, You really screwed up

        You skipped insurance coverage to pay off your house. You may as well have painted a target on your back and walked down the worst road in Baghdad without body armor with a Star of David on your sleeve.

        If you have any accident or sickness of substance at all. That $12,000 savings will be gone plus you'll owe more than you can pay...ever. Why?

        1. You are now paying Retail Prices. Procedures that would cost 20% of retail prices if you had health insurance of any kind will zoom up 300%-500%.

        2. If you file Bankrutpcy or even if you don't , the hosital will come after that house that you think you were smart enough to pay off. They'll get it too. Nothing can protect you from it thanks to the new bankrutpcy laws unless you have lived in a house In Texas or Florida more than 720 Days prior to filing.

        All other states have either their own very low exemption levels or use the feds which is also low.
        So it will get sold one way or the other and you will be homeless.

        How will that feel especially if you have family that depends on you? You are the prime target of those banruptcy laws. A  person with a paid off house and a Income. Let's say you are above the median income of poverty in your state and you have a simple procedure that costs the health insurtance company $30,000 and you $300,000. Your House covers $200,000. You are over the median income. So you not only get to lose your house but you'll spend the next 5 years learning to live on $1400 to $2200 a month in attempt to get the Hospital and any other creditors back 100% of what you owe.

        ( But you saved $12,000)

        My advice is to take out a loan-  re-mortgage- on that house. Buy health insurance with some of the proceeds just to protect your assets. Or leave the country. At worst, all they can do is file a lien if you don't have enough after you take out a 2nd.

        Those are the rules we now have to live by. Thanks to the new Bankruptcy law.

        Did you all notice how the D's focused on this becuase the wanted to avoid impeachment so they could focus on legislation? Did you see all those bills coming through.

        lol

        by Dburn on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:36:59 AM PDT

        •  You just don't get it.

          Have you been reading the horror stories where people's health insurance companies don't pay for their treatment, after taking their premiums?

          As for paying 3-4 times the rate, I'm aware of that, and I bargain down. Some states have laws against price-gouging the uninsured this way. And a good lawyer can knock the price down more than her fees.

          It's MY choice to make. And I have no intention of ever getting cancer treatment, anyway. I have no dependents, except my pets, so my life is expendable. I choose to spend my $ my way, not throw it at scumbag insurance executives.

          by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:54:11 AM PDT

          •  I admire your attitude, Halcyon.

            Not sure I would make the same decision, but I admire your attitude just the same.

            by Winnie on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 11:07:40 AM PDT

          •  That's just the point

            If you can't pay then we all pay. That's why people are forced to buy auto insurance. Your choice effects everyone. I'm willing to bet though you haven't run into anything but normal cuts and bruises of life. It's fine if you die fast. But the test will come when it's your decision to die fast or contain the disease. Then the bill comes down on all of us once your assets are no longer adequate to pay a lawyer.

            It's that type of selfishness that is part of the problem too unfortunately. People will forgo insurance while they are healthy as a trade off to a better lifestyle for them and then expect society to pay the bill when they get sick.

            That's fine if we had universal health care, but I imagine you would also be the first to be bitching about the tax increase becuase you were doing "fine" without health insurance.

            Also with Cancer History in your family. Unreal.  

            by Dburn on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:38:11 PM PDT

      •  Your $12K is gravy

        UNLESS something bad happens to you.

        I used to see things your way.  

        Then I watched a VERY wealthy friend lose everything
        supporting his cancer ridden child.

        Lost his child,
        lost his assets,
        lost it all.

        Millionaires aren't safe from 'healthcare' abuse.

        .

        by slowheels on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:38:34 AM PDT

        •  Great Point

          There is no amount of savings, unless you are one of the very few that have liquid assets of 8 figures or more, that can protect you from the retail pricing scheme they hand to the uninsured who have money. Chances are if you had that much you would have a financial adviser who would tell you, don't be a frickin idiot.

          Smart wealthy people will buy minimal coverage so even if the treatment is denied they can still get the wholesale price on the services which could mean millions.

          It's only the people who have done know research who think they are getting over until the day of truth comes. We all Die. Maybe the $12,000 guy will get lucky and get hit by a truck. But chances are there will be a period even before death where "heroic" efforts to save him will be undertaken.

          So even if he dies, the bills are part of the inheritance he passes on to his beneficiaries. With Colon Cancer in the Family and being at high risk, there is just no excuse not to get educated and leaving one's self open like that much less a family even if they are not immediate.

          What's worse is to brag about it. It's like saying...gee...look how I set myself up for the ultimate take-down.

          by Dburn on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:50:02 AM PDT

          •  I pay for my own colonoscopies.

            I'm not stupid enough to forego that.

            And Im not bragging. I'm pointing out that having insurance doesn't mean you're covered. Unlike you I don't value my life so highly that I think I deserve heroic, costly efforts to save my life. I'm not selfish. I've had a good life, and I now consider myself a 'useless eater': an American who uses more resources than the planet can sustain. I can afford to set a broken leg, or other simple quality-of-life stuff. Terminal illness? All the treatment does is extend one's life by months, and cause great suffering. Just keep me comfortable, is all I ask. And my best friend is a private-duty nurse who will see to it.

            by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 11:01:32 AM PDT

      •  How long will $120,000 last for Colon Cancer?

        If your Mom got colon cancer, you're likely to get it as well .  It isn't guaranteed, just a higher probability.

        However, the "Gee, I'll save enough on premiums to pay my own way" theory is self-deception.  You may save $120,000 over 10 years, but if you hit the jackpot and get colon cancer, you'll burn through that "health savings account" in a few months.  Surgery + chemo = Big Bills.  Not to worry, though, after you burn through the health savings account, you'll be forced to sell your house and all your other assets to pay for the rest of your care.

        Oh, and do those "occulted blood in the stool" tests every 6 months as well as the colonoscopies, they help detect the polyps before they go malignant.  

        by RepubAnon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:16:10 PM PDT

        •  I pay for my own colonoscopies.

          Therefore, I shouldn't get colon cancer. In my family all 3 relatives were diagnosed with colon cancer at age 85. Maybe by the time I'm 85 we'll have single-payer. Or maybe the USA won't exist. In any event I should be OK as long as I can afford to buy my own colonoscopies.

          by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 01:01:00 PM PDT

          •  I think the reason everyone's jumping on you

            is that you said the magic words "health savings account." I wonder if people see those words (the Bushco answer to health insurance) and think you're advocating pay-it-yourself healthcare instead of regular group insurance (which I take it you don't have because you're a farmer?)

            by Alice in Florida on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:36:44 PM PDT

            •  Aha! Thanks for pointing out my lousy

              framing! I hadn't meant to imply anything like a 'health savings account' as in the political boondoggle. I had looked into that at the same time as my 1st colonoscopy, and noted that you could only qualify for one after buying traditional insurance. What a rip!

              I'm for single-payer. My insurance was through the farm bureau, which is also a boondoggle. I can't find a link, and I can't remember where I heard it (though it was in June; probably on public radio), but the farm bureau makes a lot of money selling insurance.

              Thank you Alice, for clarifying the backlash to my comment. I was forced to pay-go my own health care due to the fraudulent practices of the health insurance industry. I was wise enough to recognize the fraud in 2002 and cancel my policy. I was in no way advocating a libertarian-type policy of bootstrapping. I was only describing the choice I was forced to make.

              While weeding, watering and hand-picking Japanese Beetles this afternoon, I was trying to understand why I got so many finger-wagging replies. It seemed to me that those who were telling me I'm a fool to not have insurance had never been defrauded by their insurers and just didn't believe that my insurer (Blue Cross) had done what they had done. I also felt that the repliers were not accepting the evidence in nyceve's diaries, and Michael Moore's SiCKO.

              I was flabbergasted that I was being told by Kossacks that I should pay for health 'insurance' after being shafted by it. It's a disconnect. The people who scolded me seem incapable of recognizing the difference between their good coverage, versus all of the 'murder by spreadsheet' evidence out there. They scolded me, telling me I'm a fool because I could be bankrupted without insurance, if I get sick. But my personal experience is that I would be bankrupted quicker with insurance, because I'd be $12,000 poorer each year, for nothing. After all, my deductible was such that I was paying for all of my regular check-ups, etc. And my policy had no prescription coverage, which is my only real health care expense, for two prescriptions I require year-round.

              For millions of Americans, this choice is not even voluntary.

              Another thought: The presumption of most of the replies to my comment was that all are entitled to every possible, 'pull out all the stops' heroic procedure to preserve or prolong life, even for only a few miserable months. [My mother's colon cancer odyssey lasted 14 months from diagnosis to death. The chemo was so debilitating, and within a month after its completion there were spots on her liver, that it's my conclusion that it wasn't worth it, because she had no quality of life, just vomiting and chemo-induced dementia. (She had been razor-sharp before her chemo.)] I don't know how many of my comments in this thread you've read, but I take a more naturalist approach to my life. I'm old enough, and, lacking dependents, I recognize that my life isn't worth extending via outrageously expensive protocols. I'm content to hope that I can afford to pay for such as setting a broken limb, or curing an infection via a course of antibiotics. Anything really majorly terminal........that's nature. I've had a very privileged life, as an American.

              by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 05:12:33 PM PDT

          •  I understand your point

            Some here seem to think that just the fact of having ins is going to save them from catastrophic loss due to illness. It won't.

            Look at your policies, see if there is a limit, I'm guessing there is. It will look huge, but that limit can be reached in months.

            When my late brother in law had numerous strokes following knee surgery he had medicare, a great medigap, and veterans coverage. He died a little less than two year from the first stroke and my sis filed for bankruptcy owing millions of dollars. She's 67, working to suppliment her SS of 700 a month and will have to work till she dies.

            One accident, one debilitating illness, all your ins. in the world becomes useless. I've seen it happen.

            by high uintas on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 03:42:17 PM PDT

            •  Yes, that's my calculation.

              $12,000 is a drop in a bucket, compared to the cost of healthcare. I understand one commenter's point of having the insurance just so that I wouldn't be price-gouged, even though I'd still, in all likelihood, find myself owing. But my point is that I can spend the $12,000 on my current quality of life now. Later, assuming I wind up sick and owing enormous sums of money, a mere $12,000 out of hundreds of thousands of dollars owed, will be meaningless. Whether I can't afford to pay back $400,000, or $4,000,000 won't mean a difference to me. And I won't have enriched some a$$hole serial, woman abusing, high-roller 'insurance' executive.

              by Halcyon on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 05:33:18 PM PDT

    •  Uh, that's not a scientific logic leap -

      This is a nation that raises a stink when you pass motorcycle helmet laws or require safety locks on guns.  Its as if the right to die needlessly and stupidly is wrapped up in the First Amendment somewhere.  Preventive care and screenings are an anathema to a broad cross section of Americans.  Perhaps the insurance industry has created the culture of "toughing out" medical problems, but I suspect there is an element of good old fashioned American machismo in there somewhere. A LOT of people with insurance wait until they are sick before darkening the door of a doctor and by then it is too late.

      Anyway, without a bit more supporting information, its not an honest assertion to assume that those 18,000 people who died did so because they lacked access.  The point of the IoM's finding is not only that people need access, but also that this country needs to change its behavior when it comes to prventive health care.

      With all that said, 18,000 is a GROSS undercount of the number of people without insurance who die each year for lack of access. In the middle of the night in a Miami hospital, I took my wife to the emergency room. There must have been 20 people there rotting in the waiting room for hours (most of whom spoke no English) who were not long for this world due to a chronic illness. One after another, they said they had no insurance. That's in one hospital on one night.  

      by Dillonfence on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 05:40:11 AM PDT

      •  its not just insurance that makes us tough it out

        its the culture of work work work....or you will lose a job or not do your job correctly because they have piled too much work upon your head.

        I am thinking here of teacherken and his dental problems- something he neglected. but why?  Some of us neglect these things and we are onl stealing from ourselves.  We should take the time for preventive care if we can and have the insurance, and even if we aren't insured, we should try and speak out for access.

        by murrayewv on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 08:48:11 AM PDT

      •  Good point.

        Tho Americans seem to be coming 'round on the subject, there does seem still to be

        an element of good old fashioned American machismo in there somewhere.

        by DSPS owl on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:35:14 AM PDT

    •  Typical right-wing response

      They stick to the very letter of the statement without considering how it applies in the real world.

      And I wonder why they do that.  They would benefit from universal care the same as anybody else, but they don't seem to realize it.  Only insurance company CEOs and major shareholders benefit from the current system.

      Saw SICKO opening day and can't recommend it enough!

      by CoolOnion on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 06:07:45 AM PDT

      •  More typical of the MSM

        If the media had spend one-tenth the effort fact checking Bush's rationale for war as they do Moore's plea for health care ...

        by Bronxist on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 06:31:32 AM PDT

        •  Great point, one we can use

          Whenever you see reviewers "cherrypicking" SICKO, be sure to include that statement.

          by CoolOnion on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 06:36:07 AM PDT

        •  Great point.

          The insurance companies will probably spend alot of money to stay in business. Maybe give kickbacks to MTV? (puts on tinfoil hat)

          by Little Red Hen on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:02:24 PM PDT

        •  Do you really think the MSM is fact-checking?

          Once again, they are just parroting the big pharma talking points that they have been shoveling out for weeks now in anticipation of SICKO's release. The HMO PR blitz uses all of the resources of the Repubs, who have been aiding and abetting the "healthcare" insurance industry's fraudulent activities for years.

          by carolita on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 01:37:03 PM PDT

  •  Loder is full of shit.

    Those 18,000 die of untreated diabetes, heart disease and treatable cancers.  Moore is absolutely correct, they died of neglect.  And needlessly.  There is no deception on Moore's part.

    Bobby, put the bong down and change the channel to some news programs.  MTV rots your mind.

    by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:34:19 AM PDT

    •  he probably did

      unfortunately, the "news" programs he picked were all on Fox"News" aka America's PRAVDA.

      by alizard on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 01:19:02 AM PDT

    •  who's Kurt Loder...?n/t

      by merryberry on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 06:43:58 AM PDT

      •  You might know him by his full name

        Kurt Pants Loder.

        by Ghost of Frank Zappa on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:49:44 AM PDT

  •  No, IOM's site states...

    that "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States."

    Here is the link

    by flipflopper on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 12:39:16 AM PDT

    •  You're right.

      Curiously, the CNN article bobbyd100 links to, in the comment you're responding to, says:

      Whether it's dollars spent, group coverage or Medicaid income cutoffs, health care goes hand in hand with numbers. Moore opens his film by giving these statistics, "Fifty million uninsured Americans ... 18,000 people die because they are uninsured."

      For the most part, that's true. The latest numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say 43.6 million, or about 15 percent of Americans, were uninsured in 2006. For the past five years, the overall count has fluctuated between 41 million and 44 million people. According to the Institute of Medicine, 18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases.

      Given that you, flipflopper, quoted IOM word for word, I am left mystified by the CNN "fact check" article.  CNN writes: "As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film."

      "Digging deep", for CNN, doesn't include google, cut and paste, and few minutes, apparently.

      by LithiumCola on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 04:45:27 AM PDT

      •  Time out! Add some numbers to those.

        I know anedotal evidence means nothing to the stats geeks, but those unemployment/uninsured numbers everyone is quoting are from 2005 and 2006. There are no 2007 numbers yet, even though the story says "the LATEST numbers." What's today, the beginning of the seventh month of the year, right?

        And I am here to tell you that I am among those added to the rolls in 2007, and I'm about to drop off the "unemployed" list -- not because I found a job, but because my unemployment compensation is almost exhausted.

        How many OTHER people are there like me, ghosts right now who won't be added to their numbers for a year, but still going without work, insurance, and, by extension, health care? I know the situation has only gotten worse, and the numbers have undoubtedly risen -- perhaps they have even risen greatly.

        by Brooke In Seattle on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:46:02 AM PDT

        •  And I'm wondering if the lower uninsured

          numbers are because more people have slipped into poverty, and qualify for Medicaid.

          by MasonMcD on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 09:07:30 PM PDT

      •  Follow the money

        Whether it's the coal industry, AHIP or PhRMA, CNN is the premiere outlet for corporate propaganda campaigns.  The health industries are currently touting warm-and-fuzzy commercials about how wonderful SCHIP is (the threadbare governmental insurance program for uninsured children).  This is totally about blunting attacks on them for not insuring kids.

        It's not in CNN's interest to be seen by these propagandists as playing too fair; they might take their money elsewhere.  

        by Dallasdoc on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 07:53:39 AM PDT

        •  Then talk to parents who can't get SCHIP

          because they make too much to qualify for it, but too little to pay out $1,000 per month for conventional family insurance....due to finances or that the parents have a chronic conditions and are uninsurable for any price.

          by JDWolverton on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 10:33:01 AM PDT

    •  My email to CNN

      I put this statement in the "comment card" accompanying the article, using their own words about "investigating claims" in Michael Moore's film to challenge the accuracy of their article:

      I investigated some of the claims put forth in your article and found that your numbers are mostly right, except for this paragraph in which you quoted the Institute of Medicine as stating, "18,000 people do die each year mainly because they are less likely to receive screening and preventive care for chronic diseases."  The actual quote from the IOM website is, "Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States."

      Then I gave the link to the IOM website.  Get ready, everybody, we've got a fight ahead of us, first to challenge every single inaccuracy we find in reviews of SICKO; then we have to browbeat our members of Congress and Senate to give us universal health care.

      by CoolOnion on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 06:24:56 AM PDT

  •  Are You Related To Loder?

    The man is critical of Moore for accuracy while confusing 18,000 for 18,000,000 in his criticism. That is hysterical. That is legend. Moore was right. The 62 year old Loder should retire in shame.

    by HL Mungo on Sun Jul 01, 2007 at 01:42:47 AM PDT

    •  He's 62 ?????? Seriously??

      what's an old guy doing on MTV?

      b