a healthcare rant, with thanks to jimmy kimmel

By now, many of us have seen the video of Jimmy Kimmel talking about the birth of his son, and the heroic efforts of the health care professionals at Cedar Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles and Children's Hospital Los Angeles.  I cannot imagine anyone who saw the video who was not touched by it.

On second thought, I can.

The talking head shows on all the cable stations showed the salient features of Mr. Kimmel's electrifying monologue discussing his anguish in learning his newborn child, only hours old, required immediate open heart surgery in order to save his life.  On each station, hankies were everywhere, even in the hands of those who thought it was a great time to debate whether or not the present legislation pending in congress should or should not include coverage for pre-existing conditions.  One after another, these disgraceful excuses for moving and talking, but not thinking protoplasm argued over each other, as they usually do, without listening to anything the others were saying, each claiming the high ground by starting off with their hearts going out to the Kimmel family.  It was topped off by the congressman interviewed by one station, who after dutifully sending his "heart" out to the Kimmels, immediately switched gears and announced that this "clearly" shows that "the former president" doesn't get it.

I beg to differ. 

Those who have no hearts cannot send theirs out to the Kimmel family, let alone anyone.

Those who have no brains or common sense have no business mentioning their hearts and the Kimmel family in the same breath.

Yes, the immediate issue was the health and well being of little Billy Kimmel, and the health and well being of Billy's family.  Mr. Kimmel took the occasion to address the big purple elephant in the room, making a point that none of the talking head jerks or any of the congressmen interviewed on television have yet to grasp, or worse, did grasp, but do not care.

"No parent should have to decide if they can pay for their child's life or death".

The congressman and the talking heads went on to debate not only if insurance should cover pre-existing conditions or if the pending legislation does. or does better than the existing law.  Hint -- it does not.  It is yet another sop to for profit insurance companies, but that is a discussion for another occasion. 

What all these jerks failed to grasp is that the debate and Mr. Kimmel's point was not about whether or not we are entitled to pre-existing coverage in our health insurance, or whether or not we are entitled to health insurance at all, as that vacuous boob, who somehow got elected to congress claimed.  The debate, which should not even be a debate, and which Mr. Kimmel clearly stated, yet nobody in front of the cameras got, is that we the people are entitled, or at least we should be entitled not to health insurance, but HEALTH CARE.

Let me say that again.

I do not give a damn about health insurance.  We, the People.  We are entitled to HEALTH CARE.  We are entitled to the right to appropriate medical treatment as determined by our own doctors when we are ill or injured, not the right to contribute to the profitability of health insurance companies.  The argument being conducted in Washington, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. is the red herring that never goes away.  

Do I want a government bureaucrat telling my doctor whether or not he can treat me the way he sees fit?  Of course not.  But tell me how this is different than a dweeb in an insurance office denying my treatment, even if my doctor says it is the appropriate course.  

Think it doesn't happen?

Those of you who live in states like New York, where we have no fault insurance, know that eventually, patients are sent to "independent medical examinations" where doctors are paid to examine the patients and report back to the carriers whether or not the patient requires more care, or more insidious, if they are truly injured, but have reached the point where further care would not achieve anything, referred to in the business as "maximum cure".  Who pays these doctors?  The insurance carriers.  Some of these M.D.'s which in this case refers to "medical disgraces", make a living pretty much doing nothing but these "independent medical examinations".  At least the guy who examined me once told me at the outset that his job was to tell the carrier I did not need further treatment and my job was to convince him that I did.  Apparently, I failed.

Then there are the carriers who send their patients to doctors who so clearly have no business seeing some patients that the mere fact that the carriers sent them there in the first place amounts to bad faith both on the part of the carrier and the doctors themselves.  A member of my family whom I love with all my heart hurt her back so badly in an on the job accident, that she is in constant pain, has been for two years, and requires extensive surgery on her back to prevent further permanent damage.  The doctor she was originally sent to by the insurance carrier agreed and even offered to do the surgery himself.  The carrier's response?  They sent her for a second opinion.  This doctor issued the report that those of us who deal with these cases directly or even peripherally in the legal profession have come to expect.  Yes, she is not faking her injuries, and yes, she is seriously injured, but no, the surgery will not do any good.  The carrier, of course, immediately used the report to deny authorization for the surgery.  The original doctor then called this charlatan to find out how she would have treated the patient, and was told that she has never handled anything like this in her own practice, because she is a gynecologist an has no experience treating patients like this.

This deserves to be repeated.

They sent her to a gynecologist, who had never treated a patient with a spinal injury to get an opinion as to whether or not my family member should be approved for spinal surgery.

So, think about it this way.  When a government employee denies a medical procedure, who benefits?  When a for profit insurance company denies coverage, wanna take a guess as to who benefits?  Can you say "conflict of interest"?  Wanna take a guess as to why the cost of medical care and of medical insurance coverage continues to go up?

I do not give a damn if insurance companies make a nickel of profit.  The fact that they make any money at all off our health is obscene.  The fact that they have incentive that they use to deny service we are entitled to is more than obscene.  It should be criminal.  And then somebody thought it was a great idea to allow these companies to be publicly traded, which further incentivizes denial of claims in the name of profit.

Jimmy Kimmel is absolutely right.  

No parent should never have to make a decision as to whether or not a parent should have to decide if their child should live or die based upon whether or not they can afford health insurance.  Not in supposedly the greatest country in the free world. Not in any country.  No person should have to worry about whether or not they can see a doctor -- even for a freaking mosquito bite.

The health insurance model does not work and will never work, because regardless of the platitudes the companies put out claiming they are there for us, their interests will always be to spend as little as possible for you, and to line the pockets of their shareholders and themselves at your expense.

Jimmy Kimmel is right.

When will the rest of us listen?