Michael Moore is a fat bastard.  He should move to Canada or England, or even France, where he could receive weekly or even daily care from doctors who could help him become healthier.  Instead he lives and works (mostly) here in the U.S. — where he hopes to make a difference.  He does this at risk to his own life, considering the health insurance he no doubt pays dearly for minimizes how many times he can see a doctor or how long he can stay in a medical facility before enormous out-of-pocket costs kick in.

Normally, I would hope that would be enough to encourage him to get the hell out of this country he so unfavorably compares to Cuba,  however I am for once extremely glad he's still here.  I can't quite believe it myself, but Moore and I see eye-to-eye (or close enough) on at least one thing: Health Care.

Sicko, Moore's latest film, attacks the healthcare system in the U.S. — and in true Moore fashion, it does so with no-holds barred.  Unlike previous Moore films such as "Bowling for Columbine", Sicko actually has a clear message.  And unlike other Moore films such as "Fahrenheit 9/11", that message holds true even after you disregard any of Moore's trademark distortions of the truth, some of which, assuredly, made it into the film.

Without question, the healthcare system in this country is disturbingly skewed towards a lack of health care.  Private companies are, after all, determined to increase profits — and the way health insurance companies do that is by denying claims.

Corporations that have been around a long time find it harder and harder to keep their stock prices going up — but the shareholders won't hear of their investments leveling out, so go up they must.  Companies like GM do this by laying off thousands of workers.  IBM slashes benefits, Dell outsources to India and Coca-Cola tries to get Americans and then people in third-world countries to consume their product 3-meals a day without almost criminal disregard for the health of the people they are trying to sell ever-increasing amounts of product to.

And companies like Vitra, United Health Care and Oxford — along with essentially every other U.S. health insurance carrier in existence — disallow coverage for an ever-increasing number of procedures and medications.

Now, I'm a capitalist, so don't get me wrong.  I run my own business and I like making money, but there is only so far you can reasonably take it before things start to get ugly, like they have at many U.S. companies. When it comes to healthcare, it's entirely unacceptable — not just because of how important it is, but because there is proof right in front of us that it doesn't have to be this way.

In Canada, England and even France the citizens all have universal healthcare.  They can choose their own doctors, go to any medical facility they like and they don't have to wait any longer than we do to get the care they need.  There are no deductibles and no co-pays. They are not drowning in taxes (most of you have health insurance payments coming out of your paychecks anyway!) and the doctors are not underpaid — in fact the doctors still do quite well.

Plus, everything is covered, all the time.  100% of your surgery, hospital stay, ambulance, everything.  There are no denials for experimental treatments or name brand drugs (although in England you do have to pay a 6-pound, 65 (roughly $11 US) fee every time you pick up your prescription — if you're between the ages of 16 and 65, otherwise it's free). They even believe in preventative care — many U.S. insurance companies won't even pay for drugs to help their policy-holders quit smoking!

You might be wondering, if all this is true then where did all the extra money go?  Clearly, there is something missing from this equation, because the math does not add up.  You're right, it doesn't.  There are two things missing from this equation:

1) Health Insurance Companies: The government may not be as efficient as private industry, but they're not driven to maximize profits or please shareholders.  Therefore instead of money going into the pockets of corporate executives and already-rich investors, that money goes to pay for someone's MRI or surgery.

2) Drug Companies: You may have heard something in the last few years about cheap drugs from Canada?  That talk was quickly squelched, but the skinny is this: U.S. drug companies sell their name-brand (and generic) drugs to every other country in the world for cheap.  They have lobbied successfully to maintain U.S. laws preventing importing those drugs back here, allowing them to price-gouge in the U.S. market.  So senior citizens in England get their pills for $11 while those in the U.S. suffer.

It doesn't stop there, though.  In 2003 they managed to get a bill passed that was hailed as "historic legislation" to help seniors pay for their drugs.  In fact, it sealed the deal for the drug companies to continue charging exhorbitant amounts per-pill but have U.S. taxpayers foot most of the bill!  On top of that, while the percentage out-of-pocket technically went down, because of the higher drug prices many senior citizens actually ended up paying more for the same medications.

By eliminating the pocket-lining that's been going on at the Insurance Carriers and Drug Companies, the government-run healthcare system actually can cost taxpayers roughly what they're already paying for their health care, but have better actual Health Care — for everyone — with no co-pays, no deductibles, no denials, no out-of-pocket expense except perhaps some small fee for medication.

It can actually work, because despite what we've been led to believe (and outright told by certain politicians), it already works in most other western nations.

The U.S. likes to think of itself as the land of democracy, where all are equal.  We like to think of ourselves as leaders on the world stage, setting the pace for other nations, but the reality is that countries like the UK outlawed slavery long before we did.  Women had the right to vote there before they had it here.  And every citizen in the UK started getting free health care in 1948.

On this one, we're further behind the times than ever before.  It's time for free universal healthcare, by the taxpayers, for the taxpayers.

- one

Well, Kevin Federline has finally done away with the farce and thrown his good-husband costume in the trash. First he demands large alimony payments from former wife and superstar singer Britney Spears, then he demands custody of the couple's two children.  Right.  The only way that will happen is if he has a four-hour sex tape to blackmail Britney with.   Oh, snap!  He does?

While many speculate whether or not such a tape exists, I think it's safe to say that despite K-Fed's unconscionable level of stupidity that he understands the threat doesn't have a chance of scaring Britney into giving him what he wants unless she actually believes him, so it would be a rather poor negotiating tactic if she knew she'd never done any such thing.

On the other hand, perhaps it's actually a clever ruse to stir up media attention around himself.  Personally, I think this is unlikely because frankly he's had plenty of media attention and he's still got no money.  Even Kevin Federline is smart enought to figure out the math there.

Whether he is smart enough to understand the pre-nup he signed is likely a much more pertinent question.  Britney's lawyers reportedly put together a pretty hefty pre-nuptial agreement and normally issues like privacy receive extensive coverage — which would legally prevent poor K-Fed from ever releasing said tape and making money from it.

Of course, this isn't to say that the tape might become "stolen" and at least he could have a bit of revenge on the evil ex-wife who wouldn't give him millions of dollars he didn't earn or remotely deserve. If his brilliant plot to do a gender-reversed divorce coal-raking backfires, as seems likely, "Someone else" could release the sex tape on the internet, an act which Mr. Federline would have no control over.

Sadly, in this case I feel compelled to back Ms. Spears fully because Federline is just really such a pathetic loser who needs to be put in his place.  However little respect I have for Britney, at least she earned her money and  if there is one thing I dislike more than stupid people it's people who think their "entitled" to special treatment, extra rights, or other people's money.

Mr. Federline, go earn an honest living. Please.

- one 

Almost by definition, right?  Seriously though, I find it absolutely disgusting to even think about how so many voters went out last election to vote against gay marriage in every state that had a proposition on the ballot.  It sickens me to think of how many are going to go out this November to do the same thing in states that weren't proactive enough to have their bigotry put down into legal-speak in time for the last election.  Frankly the only people doing anything to expand "equal rights" in this country are the judges, and they're doing it with one hand tied behind their back while being beaten with the "Activist" stick and thrown into a boiling cauldron of "Un-American".

Most people don't realize this, but legally gays are not entitled to equal rights in any specific way.  There are three tiers of discrimination that are illegal in the United States: It is absolutely illegal to discriminate by race, it's fairly illegal to discriminate by sex and it's kind-of illegal to discriminate by age.  Sexual orientation is fair game. The judges who are ruling in favor of gays' right to marriage are doing so in spite of this, meaning that despite the fact that you're legally permitted to discriminate against gays (at least they can still sue and win) they're still entitled to the same rights and priveleges as Joe Homeless Guy and depending on the actual language of the law in particular states, that often includes the right to marry.

Some states do in fact refer to a man and woman in their marriage laws, but many just specify two parties without referring to gender (or, ergo the need for opposite genders).  Seems kind of cut and dry: Bob is legally allowed to marry Jim and Mary can marry Marie.  Of course then come the whackos who insist this kind of legal ruling is going to set precedent so Frank can marry (and consumate with) his dog and Father Brian would be able to marry little Timmy (if Catholic Priests were allowed to get married. Hey, maybe that's part of that problem right there?)

Yes, the Christian fundementalists of this country would like you to believe it, and the folks over at NAMBLA are dying to believe it themselves but frankly anyone who is standing a little further from the edge should see quite clearly that gay marriage will not impact their daily lives and, in fact, the illegalization of it has the potential to lead to the government stripping ordinary citizens of other rights down the road.  So anyone who cried havoc about the Patriot Act, but isn't supporting the gays on this issue should reexamine their priorities.

Enough said, I hope?  Seeing that I just wrote about weddings a few days back I find myself wondering about the wedding logistics of a gay marriage.  Is buying engagement rings customary? I suppose you either just get all bridesmaid gifts or all groomsmen gifts.  You probably have to get a lot of cheap wedding favors because you'll want to be nice to all the religious nuts who crash your reception.  Of course, a couple of gay guys is sure to have some close women friends… how do they include them in the bridal party?  All right, I give up. Planning a gay wedding has got to be really, really hard.  Just remember to use bird seed or wedding bubbles.  No rice!  Don't want to kill the little birdies.

- one