michael moore is an asshole, and so am i

i watched the last 1/2, maybe 2/3 of bowling for columbine recently; been close to a decade since i'd seen that.  and while mr moore was doing his thing, parading the 2 columbine kids around k-mart headquarters that were shot up, looking for a refund on the bullets in their bodies, i felt overwhelmingly that he was an asshole, using these kids and their suffering for his purpose, and knowing that he may not have a purpose beyond making a stink about something to someone, because he can.  (i felt a kinship with that brand of assholeness, and shortly thereafter i issued an apology to my friend M, knowing it could appear that i was using her in some ugly divorce-like proceedings between mommy and daddy, or summit and me.  she was cool; seems she even enjoyed being newsworthy).

then, kmart relents, ostensibly, saying they'd ban the same of handgun ammo at their stores.  kmart received feel-good press, and michael moore had a feel good ending to his movie.  cue the tears.  i think i did shed a few there, as the camera held on the 2 victims.

meanwhile, watch out for that wording, that exact wording, because it seems many handgun and rifle bullets are interchangeable, so the self-same ammo that was lodged in the bodies of the boys, marketed as rifle ammo, would remain on some shelves, probably based on market research about which area turns a solid profit on ammunition, and some other areas dropped ammo sales.

okay.  fuck michael moore.  and fuck corporate america.  and the man.  etc etc.  that's 1 little lesson anyone can take away.  what i was more intrigued with in the columbine doc was the inclusion of universal health care in the discussion about homicidal countries.  below are the stats moore included in his movie for most murders per country - i presume the list is for industralized, "tier 1" countries.

1. United States - 11,127 (3.601/100,000)
2. Germany – 381 (0.466/100,000)
3. France – 255 (0.389/100,000)
4. Canada – 165 (0.484/100,000)
5. United Kingdom – 68 (0.109/100,000)
6. Australia – 65 (0.292/100,000)
7. Japan – 39 (0.030/100,000)

out of all these countries, the US is the only 1 w/out universal health care.  out of 33 "developed"
countries, the US is the only one w/out universal health care.  

i know there are other factors that even moore didn't touch, like gangs.  clearly the US trumps the world in terms of organized gangs and gang warfare, unless you count certain countries that are basically run by armed gangs.  but that's a mindfuck to quantify:  would sudan count?  russia?  if russia, why not the US?

i bring up the health care topic because it's huge - and huge that norway has had universal health care since 1914, full on 100 years before the US will attempt to implement their 1st and hopefully, worst, concoction of universal health.  and i'm not going to cite this that and the other thing in this brief talk about heal care.  i will talk from my insides.  

since i left university in 1999, i've had more time w/out health insurance than time with it.  i've had a huge surgery bill i had to pay out of pocket.  it dramatically altered the course of my life at the time.   the lack of insurance alters things.  i was less likely to do physical activities, knowing injury is on me.  pick-up football games - out.  basketball - less.  riskier activities that i grew up doing and are just what i do - less.  until now :)

with health insurance?  it's akin to that feeling of invincibility.  hurts and pains and breaks can be mended, healed, fixed, and with little to nothing spent out of pocket.  

the billion dollar insurance companies didn't become billion dollar+ revenue and profiteers by cheaply and freely offering medical services.  no, not so much.

i had a knee injury at summit achievement a couple years back.  worker's comp covered it up through an mri, at which point they called the injury a strain, and i was told all is or would be well.  okay.  well, no.  3 years later and knee pain regularly, i looked to revisit that claim.  the case was reopened and i was allowed to seek treatment again.  then denied. then almost allowed again.  then denied.  reason being?  i'd reached the mmi, or maximum medical improvement.  interesting, considering no treatment was ever given.  and considering there was a diagnosis of ligament strain from my last visit, how does that qualify as maximum improvement?  wouldn't the maximum be a lack of said strain?  who's interest is the worker's comp company serving by denying a person that's supposed to be covered by them?

mmi in this case seems to refer to "maximum monies issued," unless lawyers get involved.  why dish out money - profit, unless it leaves then account where it's earning interest - when some bureaucratic term can be invoked, another little guy gets left by the wayside, but the ledgers look nicer when quarterly numbers are released.  why does this type of system make more sense than allowing medical treatment for everybody, or at least all citizens?  40+ million americans w/out health insurance, and silly money/profit ideologies tell people that's a-okay.  the way, the best way, and so on.

i could keep on keeping on on this topic, and i'm sure i will.  after all, it's a topic in my book and a topic that weighs heavily on the USA 'n world.  there is a direct correlation between the older i get and the more i find myself attracted to heavily tattooed females.  i wonder if some of these tats going forward will be "tattoos" from people performing surgery on themselves because they couldn't afford the ability to use a real doctor.  maybe i'll find one or a couple of them in latin america, where i gotta believe medical treatment is loads cheaper than we find it here.