politician says something stupid, must be another day

"I wonder what the good governor would say to the French, who drink more, smoke more, eat more cheese and still live longer than us despite paying less for health care?"

Huckabee is the 'good governor' here in question. Since he's not a legitimate candidate, he gets to say things that might be considered relevant, if they were in fact useful. Once in a while, something slips though. He decided to bash Michael Moore, somewhat indirectly, by saying that Americans should take more control over maintaining healthy lifestyles rather than depend the more expensive route of seeing the doc as they become sickly and fattened. In reply, one of Moore's producers shot back the previous quoted line. To which I have some things to say.

"who drink more". This is true the French consume more alcohol per capita. However it's mostly wine and it is not true that the average Frenchie is an alcoholic guzzling down wine glass after glass. (this will be the only time I'll defend the Frenchies, it has to happen sometime). Wine, if anyone cared to research before they blast away, actually effects health in a positive manner, unlike beer (the American drink of choice). At least in moderate doses, which is all most people would drink at one time. Beer is usually just empty calories and must also be consumed in higher quantity to achieve the level of punch that wine has. Good all around.

"smoke more" - I'm guessing this is a characterization, otherwise, it's really the only line that has any weight behind it.

"eat more cheese" - This is really stupid. What's wrong with cheese? Eating it by the wheel would be pretty unhealthy, but outside of Ron Burgundy's Baxter, I've never heard of such a thing. The French also eat their cheese and drink more milk in its rawer states. Which means to us, it tastes better too. We on the other hand have to sell real milk with the label of 'artificial', because it hasn't been chemically (read: artificially) blasted to prevent bacteria from forming when it sits around for a few days.

"pay less for health care" - someone is still paying for it, in their case the taxpayer. If they're reasonably healthy, which the above 'problems' do very little to imply any serious health risks of the general population and do not at all note any positive measures that the French do employ which we do not (portions are smaller, people tend to have more vacations=less stress, food is fresher and better prepared, etc).

I'm not going to go to total war against universal health care. I suspect the proper course is to create better standardization between the various insurance companies to cut the ridiculous overhead down to size. Hospitals, according to the insider perspective I get from doctors, do much to encourage people to come in here in America, when they often don't need to. Concurrently, our population is pretty much out of shape and vaguely resemble a sniveling clod of human ailments. And our drug companies want us to feel that way (watch the ads, go get some drug that you have no idea what it's for).

As usual, Moore makes a few quick hits but fails to really notice what's really at stake here before proceeding to a quick prescription to the problem and dismissing his critics as heartless bastards. Drug companies in other countries have to supply a good deal more information than sound bytes and possible side effects voiced over a suddenly happy little round clod. I have no problem with our own having to compete within this framework instead and having to compete with international drug companies, thus ameliorating the price considerations by limiting advertising and creating more credible competition. As far as UHC, I'm not convinced on the basis of the greed and infidelity of private insurance companies that we need to nationalize our system. That seems like the bazooka hunting the mosquito approach. Besides, not all of them are corrupt bastards (perhaps more than most for now, but there's way too much money involved here anyway, we're bound to get screwed). I believe that market forces do eventually force companies to behave. Films like Moore's tend to produce enough public outcry to force internal regulatory effects. If whatever lacking for credibility or accuracy (generally of omission of facts), the sensationalism does produce stark contrasts that people can easily grasp and run with politically. Where the problem lies is in his scripted result. Essentially Moore makes a film in order to prove his already held opinions and ignores objective data standing in the way of it. Along the way a few useful points are made and then buried under a political agenda. Do we and should we take issue with the way health insurance is handled in this country. Indeed we should. Should we take offenses to the way drug companies behave and influence public policy (along with unethical docs), yes we should. Should we consider the advantages of other countries health care systems? Yes. But what are they really? Is the advantage that the health care is 'free' and readily available? Probably not. I suspect the advantage lies in other factors, in the proper relationships between doctor and patient by practicing general medicine more effectively and availably. Here we're farmed off to a specialist or a surgeon before we've even finished signing all the forms. It's hideously more expensive that way for one thing. And on the list could go here. I'll not bore us any longer with the ideas of health care reform, because there was a larger tidbit that needs addressing.

The problem here is not merely limited to health insurance and drug companies; virtually any lobby carries more weight in DC than the public. Maybe we should start by simply making a movie focusing on the overall damage of corporate lobbying and the successful inroads it has on public opinion as a whole, as well as the outright bribery and influence peddling it does. I think we would understand with greater clarity that there are two major necessities of this disease. One. We, the people, must become better informed and activated in our political duties. This does not mean that we should do one or the other. We must do both. And two, we must not tolerate corruption, graft or other underhanded dealings involving influence. I view it personally as akin to treason, but with a view to private benefit rather than some other state. China just shot one for this reason, maybe that's the starting point. Public servants must be selected with an eye toward the public good, rather than a public sound byte. Of the various candidates for president 08', I've yet to hear anyone outline anything with great seriousness. It's mostly sound bytes and broadly arched plans for the future. Give me some specifics and quit firing broadsides at each other. Or else we're going to need something like the Reign of Terror to clear the room. At least the French came up with some interesting ways to publicly execute people.



For the record, Huckabee's an idiot too. I just happened to like something that was said in the sense that it gave me something to write about.