IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Did someone say that our present healthcare system works?


Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Photo special to the COURIER
The movie, Sicko, hit the theaters this week bringing to the forefront healthcare issues. Directed by Michael Moore, lef, it showcases a controversial case about Maria Watanabe who had a brain tumor. Claremont lawyer, Scott Glovsky, helped provide background information for the film as well as played an acting role.


CLAREMONT LAWYERS EXPOSE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM
Claremont lawyer Scott Glovsky hits big screens across the country while appearing in Michael Moore's latest film, Sicko, which opened in theaters over the weekend. The controversial documentary maker takes on major health insurance companies with the aim of exposing what he sees as a corrupt healthcare system based on maximizing profits rather than helping the sick.

Sicko depicts a healthcare system where insurance company-employed doctors are rewarded and promoted based primarily on their denial rate of policyholder's claims for medical coverage. The more they deny - the more money the company saves.

Mr. Glovsky was approached by the filmmaker nearly two years ago because of his expertise in healthcare insurance bad faith.

The case featured in the movie was about one of his clients, Maria Watanabe. Her health care provider, Blue Shield of California, repeatedly denied her necessary medical attention, such as an MRI and a neurological consultation, despite the fact that she was suffering from classic symptoms of a brain tumor: dizzy spells, blurred vision and occasionally blacking out.

Ms. Watanabe finally was diagnosed while on a trip to Japan to visit relatives. Her family insisted that she see a specialist who immediately identified the tumor after an MRI was completed. After successfully removing the tumor, her primary care physician recommended that she see an ophthalmologist. Again, Blue Shield denied the recommendation.

"That's when she decided it was time to call a lawyer," Mr. Glovsky said. "From the beginning, Blue Shield did not want to give up even the most basic documents about the case. We found that her denial forms were being stamped by a clerk who had no formal medical training. He stamped the name of a doctor who had never even seen anything about her case. Finally after two years, Blue Shield was found to be in breach of contract."

Mr. Glovsky continues to take on big insurance by representing people who have been wronged by their medical care providers, he said. He is currently pursuing a case against Magellan Health Services, Inc. for expelling a 26-year-old anorexic patient from hospital care against the recommendations of her doctors. The woman, who was 67 pounds at the time, later committed suicide.

"I certainly hope that it does [make an impact on the health insurance industry]," Mr. Glovsky said. "I believe it will stimulate a lot of debate about not only abuses in healthcare system, but also the larger debate of whether we should have a system of universal healthcare in this country as they do in many developed countries around the world, including Canada, the United Kingdom and France."

Another Claremont-based lawyer, William Shernoff, also played a key role in the making of the film. Mr. Shernoff has spent the last several years battling health insurance companies in court on behalf of clients who were dropped from their insurance policies after they got sick and filed claims for reimbursement on their medical bills.

The reason, Mr. Shernoff said, was because the insurance companies would scrutinize policyholder's medical histories only after they were faced with the possibility of paying off policy-holder's medical bills, an illegal practice called post-claim underwriting.

Although he is not featured in the film, Mr. Shernoff said that Mr. Moore came to him about two years ago, and he provided him with "tons" of background research for the movie.

Mr. Shernoff's next impact on Hollywood will be a film produced by Sony Pictures about him and fellow attorney, Lisa Stern, and their landmark case against major insurance companies in the United States and Europe which ended with billions in settlements to descendents of Holocaust victims. The film, On Moral Ground, is still in the early stages of development.



?- Tony Krickl

Advocate, We know it's not working when our country spends a great deal more than other countries on health care, but we have about 47 million Americans withouth health insurance. It's broken. Somebody with the smarts to understand all the different ways to cure this problem will be a hero to all Americans; it's probably a combination of all the universal health systems already in place with some "adjustments" to meet our special needs without destroying the best healthcare in the world.

Quite interesting graphic from Wikipedia (sources at link):

Walter, Your chart showing the percent of health care cost by government tells the whole story. Our country spends too much on "defense" and not enough on medical care for our citizens. After all, the taxpayers should be the beneficiary of government expenditure, and not trying to bring democracy to another country that doesn't want it. It's about right priorities; not about some crazy president's wet dreams.

Walter's chart is pretty dispositive in this matter. For instance, by a considerable margin, we have the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality. This is despite spending by far the highest percentage of GDP on healthcare.

I agree that we spend far too much on defense. We spend more than the next 26 countries combined.

Advocate, you can't be serious to cite a Michael Moore movie as credible evidence concerning this issue?

okie, FYI, Michael Moore's movie is more credible than anything you can say about this issue. Try to challenge anything in the movie that's not true? We'll wait for your answer.

Moore has been accurate in all his films. Sure, he can be nitpicked, but overall he has been on the mark. Do you dispute this?

There's always a problem with anecdotal evidence (even though you, if I remember correctly, are a strong defender of anecdotal evidence).

Have you seen the movie, though? It seems that the reviews of the movie were quite positive, across the media. For example, here's the FOXNews review of the movie.

But I agree that looking at the data would be more convincing than looking at some isolated cases. And the discussion on universal health care should maybe not be exclusively based on a movie.

(However, all the data seems to confirm that the US health care system is not really in such a good shape.)

I plan to see the film soon.

I am not a strong defender of anecdotal evidence. I agree that the film is essentially anecdotal. Moore is a showman who has to amuse and shock. He serves a good purpose by bringing attention to bear on the problem. Certainly, no decisions would be made based on the film.

It is unfortunate that the general public does not read. A big percentage get their news from comedy shows. Since the film is a comedy show, its message may get through to the general public, who, hopefully, will demand action from our leaders.

For the simple reason that I know Michael Moore's film is biased only to project his message, I will not see his "movie." I didn't bother with his other movies, because of his bias-prone message.

I'm an advocate for universal health care, but I want to know both sides of this issue; the pros and cons from the same source; balance.

Moore did bring out facts in his films that most of us did not know. Thus, the films are more than just biased comedic exercises.

I never considered Moore's pictures as "comedic," only one-sided. I'm sure his movie tells a good story about our need for universal health care, and sells it very well. I still believe "balance" is needed.

I'd like to see health insurance, that's afforable for everyone.
Will we ever see that day?

Moore's reporting is one-sided. he stresses what is right with other health plans in other countries, but does he say anything about what's wrong with them?

Does he really think that it's just to expect American MDs to take a 67% reduction in their salaries?

Yes, why wouldn't it be?

Cycloptichorn

Nobody argues that Moore's films present scholarly studies. They are one-sided polemics that are entertaining and instructive.

BTW, physicians took major cuts in compensation due to the actions of insurance companies and Medicare in the '90's, and yet those seeking entry into med schools soared.

One of the best universal systems is that in Germany, and that system served as a model for defeated Hillarycare.

I lied: our friends called us last night to ask if we'd like to join them to go see "Sicko." It was "entertaining," but also very instructive. It is biased, no question about that, but the overall truth of universal health care in other countries were also eye-openers. Many in our country who talks about a) decline in quality by having universal health care, b) we have the best health care in the world, and c) socialized medicine will damage our health care system are all lies. Anybody who believe these lies should go see the film.

First hand interviews with Canadians on their health care was all "positive." Their waiting period for an appointment was 15 to 20 minutes, not months - as often portrayed by the naysayers.
In France, they all get "free" health care. Many Americans interviewed in Paris couldn't say enough good things about their medical care in France. Finally, Michael Moore took people from across America to Cuba, yes Cuba, to get free treatments that American health care system would not. We're talking about people who helped on 9-11 as volunteers, but were refused any medical care after they learned of their health problems. One lady who needs drugs to help her breath has to pay over $100, and she was able to get the same med in Cuba for .05c. In England, they get all their meds free - whether it's one of 100. That's right; free. Their hospitals don't ask for "insurance" or payment before they are treated, because they don't have a billing system; it's all free. As a matter of fact, each hospital has a "CASHIER," but it's to give money to patients for transportation. That's right; they get money from the hospital.

All those countries with universal health care has better health and longevity, and their infant mortality is lower than in the US.

I've always advocated for a universal health care system in the US, and this film confirms why. We have hospitals in the US who take indigent patients on a taxi ride to get rid of them; some are mental patients. It's about money, not about good health. Go see "Sicko:" it's entertaining, serious, and you'll learn something.

CI, our rightwing posters here will have a tough time with your post (and the truth). Thanks!

Advocate, I'd like to see those right-wingers challenge anything portrayed in "Sicko." The only legitimate challenge will be "it's biased."