The Medical Freedom Channel

If you own a TV or radio, read magazines or newspapers, surf the Net or even just get e-mail … you’ve doubtless been inundated with advertising from the “male enhancement” industry. Most of it’s about FDA-sanctioned Big Pharma concoctions — the “little blue pill” and its fellow agents of artificial priapism, each designed to restore youth and vitality to the most flaccid of male appurtenances. However, alongside these approved “medical” options, there are countless other things being advertised, ranging from the stuff that fills up our SPAM filters to that “natural” item that puts the goofy smile on the face of “Bob” (and his lady-friend, neighbors and everyone else he meets on the street).

Back in the day, there used to be a televised Public Service Announcement from some well-intended source called the American Social Health Association about venereal disease, featuring the following jingle (thank you, Google!):

VD is for everybody …Not just for the few
Anyone can share VD …With someone nice as you
VD is for everybody … Darlin’ have no doubt
That anyone can get VD … That’s what it’s all about

Considering how much ad-space is currently being taken up with pitches for one remedy or another for “erectile dysfunction,” and how many hit songs from every genre have been turned into ad-jingles (That Elvis rendition of Viva Las Vegas has lost its appeal forever!), it’s perhaps surprising they haven’t grabbed this one yet. The message being presented does seem to imply that this “lack of firmness” issue is not only widespread, but generally based on some horrid string of physiological and biochemical symptoms requiring a “cure” from the medical establishment. We are thus confronted with an array of options, most featuring a roster of these Big Pharma “cures,” and all making cautionary promises about such “abnormal reactions” as “erections lasting longer than four hours,” should prompt immediate contact with your physician … and all that stuff.

Why is this such an issue to this editor? Full disclosure requires me to confess a personal stake in this one: Having recently taken up a new relationship, with a delightful (and very desirable) woman, to whom I’m both emotionally and spiritually attached, I sought to also reawaken my rather long-dormant physical component, in order to better share myself with her. (Note: It had been about two years since my last non-virtual relationship, whose intricacies had in themselves left me a bit “short” near the end, anyway.
Read the rest of this entry »

The day-job’s at an end – suddenly and abruptly. Suffice to say that the combination of working corporate, and reporting early for extra hours at holiday-times, proved to be my undoing. Back to the drawing-board, but at least there’s a small cushion and no overdue bills outstanding.

Perhaps it’s a good time to comment on some more things I learned in that venue, about how the current ethos of “entitlement” will surely be our undoing, unless it is reversed very soon. Full disclosure: The gig I just left, not entirely of my own will, involved processing Medicare forms, and the experience has only strengthened my already-adamant opposition to any ideas being circulated about expanding that benighted program as a model for nationalized health insurance!

As noted in previous columns, the practices of medical professionals and their administrative staff, in complying with the intricacies and absurdities of the Medicare reimbursement system, are apparently driven far more by redundancy and inefficiency than by what would normally be considered good business procedures (were it not for the incentive from the IRS systems to waste resources in printing, mailing and such). Meanwhile, the impetus toward what Arnold Kling at the Cato Institute calls “premium medicine” often leads them to look at a patient’s ailment as a chance to try out all their new expensive diagnostic toys (CAT scans, MRIs, biopsies, etc.), rather than just identifying and treating the illness or malady as simply as possible, and sending the person back into the world.
Read the rest of this entry »

The temporary day-job continues to enlighten your editor. This week, a new insight: When in doubt, blame the IRS!

Let me explain: The other day, while engaged in my current duties of opening envelopes, pulling staples and prepping paperwork for scanning and further processing, I came across something that almost made me laugh out loud. In one batch of mail (whose source, identity and type shall remain undisclosed) I found about 50 envelopes, all from the same return-address, with ONE two-page enclosure in each — all involving the same subject, though concerning different cases — and each one bearing a first-class stamp.

Alongside these were perhaps another 30 or 40 envelopes, all from that very same source, containing TWO such submissions, and each also with a stamp attached. Only now, in addition to the extra two sheets of paper (still easily weighing in under the single-stamp barrier), there was stapled to the first page of each submission a small slip of paper containing the following message:

We have enclosed two [forms] since we didn’t receive envelopes for every [form].

These were done on lavender paper, carefully cut into strips (with wide top/bottom margins, as shown by the occasional thicker strip, with space above or below the message). This was obviously the result of a brainstorm (or other suffix?) on the part of some clerical worker at that facility, perhaps even with the okay of the proprietor. Apparently, the thought of stacking all those requests for further consideration (identical in each case, except for the specifics of particular cases), then placing them all into ONE ENVELOPE (with appropriate and much-cheaper postage for the package … never occurred to these rocket-surgeons.
Read the rest of this entry »

This editorial has taken a while to write — not because the motivation wasn’t there (though that was certainly a minor factor), but because your esteemed editor was a bit concerned about the “security” issues involved.

You see, for the past two weeks (and expected to be well into the immediate future) yr. obt. sert. has been engaged in a full-time job, back in the conventional workplace for the first time in nearly a decade. Since his skill-set, though highly esteemed in some circles, is a bit harder to demonstrate out there in corporate meatspace, he’s taken on a data-entry/clerical position in order to get some bills paid.

However, even in only two weeks of observing and training, he’s repeatedly noticed a number of common errors committed, by those submitting official forms for processing. (Note: Further details of the place of employment are neither relevant nor properly disclosable; suffice to say it involves government paperwork servicing the healthcare industry.)

As a result of this newfound knowledge, he considers it only fair to pass along some tips on how to streamline the process of getting the desired effect from such transactions (assuming that desired end to be the efficient handling of the question, reimbursement or contract fulfillment involved). If your livelihood involves (even in a small part) communicating with a bureaucratic entity, be it governmental or corporate in nature, there are undoubtedly forms to fill out and mail, fax or otherwise transmit to some agency or office – one which probably has hired a staff of clerical workers and supervisors with the sole mandate of opening, sorting and directing each missive to its proper destination.

Assuming your intention is to get prompt responses, your best bet is to follow the often-convoluted set of instructions for filling out such forms … to the letter. Most folks do this fairly well, but they also often seem to forget how such a mass of paperwork is handled, even before it reaches the actual processing stage. The people who first handle your transmissions have specific rules to follow in opening and routing for processing, each day, several thousand individual envelopes. As a guide to getting your request processed more effectively, herewith, one of those “top ten” lists so popular on the late-night talkshows:

Read the rest of this entry »

With all the claims from nationalized healthcare advocates, about the huge number of “uninsured Americans,” and how their socialistic panacea is going to cure all of this, it’s easy to overlook the fact that even the vast majority of those of us who DO have health insurance policies are often also playing Russian roulette about our wellness, anyway.

Fortunately, there’s at least one “progressive” writer who addresses this issue head on, rather than hiding behind the “statistics” about the alleged nearly 50 million Americans who “lack” health insurance. In a Boston Globe column this past week, Boston University professor Laurence J. Kotlikoff advances a rather interesting plan for healthcare reform.

Titled “We are all uninsured now”,” the piece presents a rather intriguing perspective on how poorly even the folks who HAVE health insurance are faring under the current system. And it is here that he makes his strongest case, just as Michael Moore did in SiCKO on the same issue (despite that film’s many problems and inaccuracies on other aspects of the question).
Read the rest of this entry »

The battle should be over by now, but it’s not. Congress has still not passed the bill that revises and reconstitutes the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), since it recessed for summer vacation – umm, excuse us, constituent services travel – before reconciling the House and Senate versions of the legislation. However, as a final step in at least attempting to insulate this impending legislation from simply becoming another clandestine step to nationalized health insurance, the Bush administration has added what Reuters called “new standards” to limit the applicability of that healthcare subsidy to truly low-income recipients.

If a state wants to offer subsidies to families with incomes above 250 percent of the poverty-level, they must first prove that they have already extended the offer to at least 95 percent of those families earning below the 200 percent amount, providing for those children through either Medicare or the child health program. (There are other conditions, but this is the one raising the most unwarranted controversy.) Since none of the 50 states have thus far come anywhere near that level of coverage for the truly indigent, the expectation is that efforts to raise the bar will now be considered to be in violation of both spirit and letter of the SCHIP authorization.

Why this is exactly wrong somehow … well, that remains to be seen. If the intended beneficiaries of a “hand-up” program (aiding the children of poor families) are not being served adequately, it’s hard to argue that funds aimed at that target population should somehow be diverted to helping those who are somewhat less hamstrung by their economic status. The charge that advocates of such a “middle-class handout” are merely using the SCHIP reauthorization to promote their intended socialization of healthcare seems pretty valid. But immediately following the news of the Bush regime’s rule-change, the barrage began.
Read the rest of this entry »

The lead news story kicking off this week’s editions of Medical Freedom Channel is an Associated Press news-analysis entitled, “Pain medicine use has nearly doubled.” As noted in the editor’s note on the blurb, the most significant fact in this account is that this account is based, not on studies and surveys performed by physicians and other health professionals, but on “statistics from the Drug Enforcement Administration.”

In other words, the focus is on “drug abuse” by those who misuse painkillers (presumably illegally), rather than on the prescribed recommendations of pain management physicians and others caring for those afflicted with chronic ailments, involving constant or acute physical agony, for whom such substances as are in existence should (in a humane society) be readily available to ease their distress, by any means.

Well, that’s the conclusion we should be drawing, were we living in any kind of sane culture!
Read the rest of this entry »

We already have socialized health care in the US – it’s just disguised under a needlessly complex system of regulation, in a combination of mercantilism (which is another form of socialism) and taxation. We’ve also had that socialized medicine system since the mid-sixties – oddly enough, from about the very time costs started soaring through the roof.

Meanwhile, consider this: The people who invariably give out grades for the best healthcare are mostly diehard proponents of socializing medicine (along with everything else, for that matter).

And a third point for your consideration: socialized systems are parasitic on private systems, and cannot exist for long without their host/victim. Without a private system in existence, there’s no way for the socialized system to have any idea how to set prices or what services to provide. Instead some moron somewhere sets a quota, with no conception of what this should properly be, even were there justification for doing so.

I note that all the proposed schemes for nationalizing healthcare intend to leave a remnant of the private system in place, so they’ll have some clue as to what to do and what to charge.
Read the rest of this entry »

The battle over the “chip” continues – not the V-chip of parental TV control, or the imbedded hardware of national ID threat … but the S-CHIP of children’s healthcare. In each case the main excuse is that it’s “for the children,” but there the similarities disappear.

SCHIP (the State Children’s Health Insurance Program) has been operating for many years now, with the stated intention of providing a “safety net” to ensure that “children” will receive necessary health and wellness care, regardless of their parents’ impoverished financial condition. This was clearly a laudable goal, and for the most part it was the primary justification for maintaining such a program.

Given the fact that children are not born into the families of their own choosing (except under certain spiritual tenets), and are not granted any sort of autonomy and choice by our society (such as declaring their own emancipation), it only seems right that at least some guarantees might be in order, so that the particular circumstances of their upbringing do not hamper their physical well-being and growth into functioning adults. (While libertarians will be quick to point to private and voluntary means for providing this support, it must be admitted that of all the things government does do, this might be among the least heinous uses of present-day taxpayer dollars.)
Read the rest of this entry »

The rather glowing review in this space, of Michael Moore’s latest film, SiCKO, has gotten far less response than we would have expected. Nevertheless, it seems time for some “leavening” of the bread. Herewith, a consideration of some of the criticisms of the work, from a couple of other sources. One is a respected free market thinktank, while the other might be charged with the label of “industry flack screed.”

The first voice is a familiar one, for regular MFC readers. From the blog of John Goodman, the self-proclaimed “father of health savings accounts” and President of the National Center for Policy Analysis, comes a June 29th entry, archly entitled “Michael and Me.” Goodman begins by charging that “Michael Moore didn’t want me to see SiCKO … [and] If you know anything about health care systems, he didn’t want you to see it either. At least, not at first. In the beginning, the only people allowed to view the film were reviewers who knew nothing about the subject. The apparent theory was: get it reviewed by people unlikely to spot all the errors and omissions before you open it to more discerning viewers.”
Read the rest of this entry »