Full disclosure: Michael Moore gave me a scholarship to college from his profits from the excellent but largely unknown film The Big One because I was born and raised and attended grade school in the Flint area, and he's often thinking of his home town. Then again, so did Target, and I don't shop there anymore, so I don't think that I'm any less objective about him than the next liberal. If you want another perspective on this film, though, there's a good review here too.
I spent last weekend in the mountains with my family and a dozen of our GenX Mensa friends, and on Saturday night, some more conservative members of that group and I got into it about politics (oops). I argued that one of the core problems with this country is that fiscal arguments - that is, what would be best for the shareholders - often trump every other consideration. We measure our nation's health by our GNP rather than by human indicators (such as literacy, infant mortality, etc.), even though, literally speaking, our GNP does not indicate our country's health (or lack thereof) as well as - well, as well as Sicko does. [I just love me a bad pun.] They demanded an example of what would be better determined by the human rather than the fiscal indicators. It was 2 a.m. I blanked.
But this Saturday, two of the other participants in that conversation sat on my left while we watched Sicko in Tempe. (Two more liberal friends of mine from that weekend sat on my right.) At the end of the movie, I turned to my left and said, "Remember that example that you wanted on Saturday night? There it is."
Michael Moore has made another right-on film that gets to the heart of the issue(s) without really leaving out anything - from oppositional perspectives to nuanced considerations of causes and effects. Many members of the audience laughed frequently, but more often than not, I was too heartsick to do so myself. I was upset with those who laughed when he described Hillary Rodham Clinton (whose maiden name I refuse to drop) as sexy, which I don't think that he meant to be taken as sarcasm. (He went on to point out that it was because of that characteristic, among others, that folks couldn't handle her - and that's also right-on.) The only objections that I could raise are:
- that the movie was probably constructed in some ways to create fear in its viewers, which was the approach that he criticized in Bowling for Colombine - and rightfully so.
- that he didn't quite answer ALL possible questions as completely as he could have, for instance, by actually comparing the effective tax rate in France with that in the U.S.
- that he didn't make his argument as cogent as he could have by pointing out, as my dad did after seeing it a few days early up in Flint, that Americans could save a lot of money on premiums, deductibles, and other medical expenses now more or less pulled from their paychecks by paying higher taxes to have universal health care - which would also de-corporatize it and thus keep its costs lower in the first place.
As for what my husband (a fiscal conservative) has seen others criticize, I don't think that anyone with a brain would mistake the medical care shown in Cuba for that which every Cuban citizen actually gets. Moore makes a point of saying that he asked them to treat these folks like everyone else, though, so it's hard to say. But it's also very probable that, like many of the other non-Americans depicted in this film, they were both curious and sympathetic about the awful situation of American health care, which explains a good deal of their close attention. They also probably appreciated the opportunity to give Americans a little bit of an idea of how their country really operates in some ways, since the government allows us nothing else. As Moore points out, maybe that's why we're fed such a negative image of France (one of few nations with which we've never been at war) - because otherwise we might want to try out some of their good ideas for ourselves. Thus what I most liked about Sicko was that (unlike Fahrenheit 9/11, which offered little new information to those who had read Dude, Where's My Country?) I actually learned something from watching it: that, like the negative hype about Cuba, which to some extent this movie, as above, serves to at least call into question, the negative hype about so-called "socialized medicine" that gets bandied about in the U.S. is - well, more government/media spin that probably falls somewhere between misrepresentation and mind control. Even I forget to be suspicious sometimes.
The opening clip, by the way, is one that made the rounds on the Internet a little while back. I have it posted with some other video clips on my MySpace page.
See the movie. Comment on my article. Vote. :)
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 49
We have to realize that the medically uninsured and under insured cost us plenty in terms of lost productivity and welfare and other social safety network costs. My main concern right now is that even if we had universal healthcare there wold simply not be enough doctors, nurses and other professionials to provide the care.
This discussion is all about the large amounts of money a small group of people currently earn and the possibility that they would have to give up some of their earnings if we provided even basic health care to everyone.
Ty, too bad you didn't provide anything solid to support your position the way the others have.
I prefer the equal opportunity to be unequal that America provides and places like Cuba do not. I like being able to put myself among that "small group of people" earning "large amounts of money" that Duane seems to think should pay for everyone else's healthcare.
And why aren't there more doctors? Because what used to be a comfortable living was turned into a financial nightmare by medicare & ambulance chasing lawyers.
"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow - and they will win."
Its sad to know that any American would be rooting for a bunch of terrorists over American soldiers.
Michale Moore said the US was partially responsible for 9-11, and that we partially deserved it.
"We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."
Where the men, women, children, and the families of those who died on 9-11 responsible? Would they agree with him? He also fails to mention that the US is the greatest humanitarian force the world has ever known. We give more money and food and supplies to the world than any 2 nations combined.
Michale Moore said that Americans are stupid and gullible.
"There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled."
THose of you who see and agree with his movies are living proog of this.
He says there is no threat to this country
"There is no terror threat in this country. This is a lie. It's the biggest lie we have been told."
I'm sure Americans at Fort Dix, at airports, Iraq, Afghanistan, and New York would agree with him...
Michael Moore is only famous for saying outragous things. His "documentaties" are nothing more than liberal propaganda films. Again, how I do miss the Committee of un-American activities.
This is one movie I plan to see... if it ever gets shown in my neck of the woods. It seems controversial films do not get equal opportunities here. We might just have to drive to the Big City to see it, just like we've done before when independently marketed films do not get to visit our town.
My father had a bad experience with kidney stones while visiting the UK. A doctor came to his hotel room and treated him--no charge. Keeping this in mind, some would argue that you can get better health care as a visitor in another country than as a citizen of our own country.
A reply to this remark Ty:
"Were he born his his favorite nations of Iraq or Cuba or Iran or some other dictatorship, he would have been executed or imprisoned years ago. "
He probably wouldn't have been executed or imprisoned, because he would not have grown up knowing that he was free to speak his mind. That's one thing about this wonderful freedom that we have--sometimes people are going to say things that we do not like and we have to respect their right to do so.
I believe that the government should provide healthcare to those who are not insured. But to those who are insured or they can afford to be insured should not recieve any government benefits. The private system we have is one of the best. It provides great care to those who can afford it. Government run healthcare tends to be of a little less quality, and it is completly un-American. It destroys competition, it destroys choice, and forces more tax burdens on the people.
Of course, they've got so much cash stashed away from all those insurance companies, I'm sure they can easily afford their own policies.
Last year, Missouri stopped covering vision, dental, and even CPAP machines (the CPAP is used to prevent sudden death from sleep apnea). The government essentially told my mother to die because they couldn't be bothered to pay for her to be able to breathe at night!
Complete idiocy.
Thank you for your review, maybe this movie will get someone to listen. I know I'm going to have to check it out. +10
And why aren't there more doctors? Because what used to be a comfortable living was turned into a financial nightmare by medicare & ambulance chasing lawyers.
AMen craig ! Michael Moore needs to do his research and stop hiding behind insults and scare tactics.
I would bet good American money that he nor anyone related too him holds an MD, nor do they understand the what an MD in the US has to pay in order to start his or her own practice.
They are two sides to every story and the "US citizens are once again being lied too", is getting pretty old.
During the "glorious" Reagan years, I was a divorced mother on Welfare and received health benefits for my children and myself. The doctors and nurses who provided health care to my kids were fantastic people. They had an outstanding dentist. As an adult, I received adequate care and dirty looks from the clinic staff- so I only went when it was an extreme situation that prevented me from work or taking care of my children. Going to the doctor made me feel worse and battered my self-esteem.
When I finally got a fulltime job that provided health insurance, I rarely went to the doctor because all the nurses and staff did was complain about the fact that my insurer didn't pay its claims. I received health care that was comparable to the care I received while on Welfare. And I was paying a co-pay for it!
Since being laid off and working parttime for nearly 3 years, I've had ONE bad ear infection that cost me $100 to see a doc and get antibiotics. Seventy dollars up front just to get in the door!) The doctor barely had time to examine me, argued with me about the medications he wanted to prescribe (he wanted me to take a med I'm allergic to) and I was screamed at by a nurse because my blood pressure was high. (Like that helps.) Thank goodness there are herbal remedies.
I've noticed an improvement in my overall health since going to parttime work. No stress headaches. I don't get the flu and bugs that the fulltime people pass around because they're in constant contact with each other. I spend more time doing things I enjoy around the house. Maybe the French, with their devotion to a 35 hr. work week and leisure activity, are on to something!
But I do live fully aware of the reality that a stroke or heart attack or serious illness or accident- conditions that have fixes in modern medicine- are more likely a death sentence for me. And though I wrote a check to the IRS this year for taxes on an income of less than $15,000, I know I'm not considered valuable enough by my employer, my government or even my fellow Americans to received health care no matter how beneficial it would be.
It's sad that we measure the worth of people by their earning power and not by the fact that we're all human and subject to the whims of fate. What kind of statement do we make to the world and to ourselves when we don't consider food, shelter and health care as basic human needs?
Chip, Jared, Liz, Sandy, Duckie, Andrea, Kryistina, thanks for the compliments.
Micky, I don't consider auto insurance particularly affordable, and unless we have a contract with the health insurance companies saying that if we just get "out of the way of the free market" they'll "offer us affordable policies" - AND we can determine that they're trustworthy - I don't think we can predict what would happen if such a future came about. The problem with the argument that people would take care of one another if they weren't resenting the government for taking their money to take care of one another is just that: they wouldn't resent the government if they were really interested in taking care of one another. People take care of themselves and their own first, and when it comes to others, they always want to put restrictions on the "care": You only need how much I say you need, not how much you think you need, and certainly not as much as I think I and mine need. You can only have what you need if you believe what I believe and/or look like I look. You can only get from me what you can give to me, and only at the rate that I think what you can give to me deserves, which is of course less than the rate that I think that I deserve for what I can get. There is no historical evidence that those with power and money (as redundant as that usually is) will take care of those without in an appropriate manner unless they are forced to do so by some governmental system that involves those without to an equal degree as those with (i.e. the same number of votes for each person with power/money as for each person without).
Duane, thank you for contributing in your daily life to the improvement of this country. I can never do as much in my way as you are doing in yours.
Ty, your shockingly hateful and violent attitude is the greatest weakness that your arguments have. You can't tell me that you respect someone's right to speak his mind when you go on to say, repeatedly, that you think that he should die. Here are the other weaknesses, which a comparison of your evidence and the conclusions that you have attempted to draw from them easily bring to light:
- Just because he thinks that the Iraqi insurgents will win the war does not mean that Moore thinks they're the "good guys." The good guys don't always win, Ty. Real life ain't like the movies, I'm afraid. He's just trying to point out how they probably see themselves, and that's good perspective for many self-absorbed Americans to gain. We're not known for our empathy - except in our own eyes, evidently.
- Just because he points out - and rightfully so - that the U.S. is culpable in committing "acts of terror and bloodshed" in other countries does not mean that he thinks that any act of terror is justified, against us or against anyone else. He is again just pointing out how we look to others, especially since our government does a lot more pointing fingers at others than it ever does at itself. So what if we giveth when we also taketh away? We're not God.
- Pointing out that someone has a "gullible side" is not calling them gullible and stupid. That's just outright misreading on your part. And it also suggests that you've bought into the notion than any criticism of the American people equals hatred of the American people. Would you want to associate with someone who thought that he was always right? Not me. I prefer those who can admit to their own shortcomings. That's the only way that there can ever be any improvement.
Craig, if you see the movie, you'll see that one of the points made in it - and not by Moore directly, incidentally - is that if you are under the burden of poverty, you're not free. In the movie there was a man who cut off two of his fingers whose first thought was how he couldn't afford the medical bills that would come from a trip to the hospital. If that's your first thought at a time like that - if you're not free, in other words - you don't have equal opportunities. And honestly, with the condition of most urban schools and many housing districts, health care is not the only area in which many people in this country do not have equal opportunities with the rest. The movie also makes it clear that providing for everyone does not mean providing the floor - for the patients or for the doctors. Having universal health care would not make us a socialist country either. You can't make a slippery slope argument if I can't (regarding, say, abortion, for instance - not to make any assumptions about your other political opinions, but that is the way that the cookie seems to crumble these days, as odd as that seems to me).
Randy, I am sending good thoughts your way. Please note that I have asked no one to shut up. Rather, I have asked quite the opposite. It's dialogue - inter-party, inter-culture, inter-everything - that is necessary to make progress. And compromise. I wish you the best.
I myself am a beneficiary of government assistance. My parents got good educations, the benefits of which they passed on to me. Then I got a great public school education in an upper middle class community. I went to an incredible public university and got some grants from the government for my last year of college as a single mother. Medicaid paid for my son's birth and health care for several years. We got a couple of years of food stamps benefits as well. And I'll never forget any of that, which is why I have no problem paying my taxes, and I want to help everyone else get the same benefits that I needed.
However, the fact that people like Craig and Jennifer see America as a place where we have "an equal opportunity to be unequal" - and celebrate that - is telling. You are absolutely right, MJ. My best to you as well.
Yes I am an awful individual, I will be the first to admit it.
I believe that if you go to school, get a good education, recieve a good job, work hard and live by the golden rule. That you are deserving of health care and to live in a nieghborhood where your kids do not turn out like Gangsters. If you start to give hand outs to everyone, you end up with a nation of underachievers.
Equal Opportunity- absolutley
Unequal opportunity - that is up to the individual
Just putting in my 2 cents worth. I'll continue to read and think about it all.
Oh so Moore mentioned in his movie how illegals cost the system billions of dollars every year Jessica?
While I'm here, thank you for the compliment as well, Sheila. That's how people are everywhere, I'm afraid. Best, j
If you "think he might actually mention illegals" it's probably a safe bet that if he does mention them it's barely and he doesn't give much time to discussion of that problem but rather just uses the movie as a tool to browbeat the drug and insurance companies.
If you "think he might actually mention illegals" it's probably a safe bet that if he does mention them it's barely and he doesn't give much time to discussion of that problem but rather just uses the movie as a tool to browbeat the drug and insurance companies.
Collin A., I actually feel sorry for you. I'll keep my fingers crossed you never lose your job, trust fund or whatever it is that makes you so confident you'll never be in need or as you view it, "Weak." Stuff happens - just view the film and that's clear.
And if you want to address the treatment of illegals (spoiler alert!), then what about the 9/11 rescue workers that were treated in Havana? Were they in Cuba legally? Did the Cubans doctors turn them over to the Cuban government for trespassing?
Our system is not perfect, but looking at many government run programs, I am sure it would end up being more expensive and less responsive if it was government run. Look at how much a doctor gets for seeing Medicaid patients.. I believe one physician told me he receives about $12 for spending almost an hour with a patient. That $12 is supposed to cover office overhead, nurse and doctor salaries, malpractice insurance and other costs. And people wonder why the doctor spends so little time with the patient... he needs volume to cover costs.
The free market works best when the person that pays for the service is the one that receives the service. Our system disconnects this relationship with the use of insurance. Yes, the individual pays for the insurance, but he does not see the true payment the insurance company gives the service providers. He may use the more expensive services (like going to the ER when an office visit would suffice). So, demand for higher priced services is artificially higher than it should be. Higher demand leads to higher prices. It is a vicious cycle. However, I do feel insurance is a necessity.... people need to be more aware of the true cost of services.
I particularly liked the part about the scare tactics used to try to convince us that "socialized medicine" is sooooo evil. I guess if they could figure out how to make squillions of dollars putting out fires, they'd be convincing us that "socialized firefighting" is evil, too.
Once again he gets his message across -- that when profits are more important than people, it not only hurts individual people, but it hurts our society as a whole.
I'm aware that Canada has a criteria for treatments like dialysis. I took a medical ethics course in college and we had to come up with a screening process for a treatment so we looked at other models to help us decide. It was not an easy process but lack of ability to pay was not an option, as it shouldn't be in real life.
Pen pals in England have assured me they can usually see their doctors the same day they make an appointment. I'm halfway through a 3 1/2 month wait to see an optomitrist. I was told it would take 6 weeks to get an appointment at a clinic for an earache. And that's with me paying out of pocket. If I had more money, I could go to a doc in the box or an emergency room but I don't. I really don't see how the free market is condusive to a healthy population.
There are many other models of universal health care out there. We wouldn't have to start from scratch creating one. If you think libraries, police departments, fire and rescue services and pubic parks are beneficial socialized services, why is it so difficult to believe that a decent socialized medical service is impossible?
It's a good thing Andrew Carnagie, a great capitalist of his time, saw the value of accessible learning materials and education or there would be a lot less libraries in the U.S. I gladly pay taxes to support a library system that was started with Carnagie's grant money because it works. Now why can't we develop that attitude toward public accessible health care?
Excellent article, and I enjoyed the comment discussion as well!
It's not unpatriotic to criticize America, and those of you who attack Michael Moore for his criticism -- or anyone else's on this post -- should have been educated well enough to understand that. It's a real shame that you weren't. Maybe your next rant should be aimed at education.
However, my real point is this... wake up America. Look how rapidly support for this administration and its goals has declined. Those of us who knew the crap going on before the first election of "W" are finally seeing some gratification in his slide downhill. Michael Moore is a liberal and shares his views, agree or don't... I don't support all of what he says either. But, what we should support is the fact that he keeps people on their toes (or attempts to). We blindly trust too much these days.
We may be the most humanitarian nation in the world, but we almost have to be considering that we have a military presence in about 90% of the countries on the globe. We think we belong everywhere, and yet people suffer here.
Oddly, I am a capitalist at heart. I am not for supporting people who don't even try to support themselves. I have a strong work ethic and continue to work diligently at anything I try. Just realize that there is far more going on in America than the vast majority wants to admit. Our freedom allows us to question and speak out. We need to now more than ever.
Anyone who actually believes that we have "free market" health care in the U.S. needs a lesson in economics. We have a very skewed and distorted market that is doomed to fail by it's design. That's why people are screaming for change.
Right now people with insurance are already heavily subsidizing the unisured by paying higher rates. The only way we would have a true "free market" health system is if hospitals and emergency rooms left patients who could not pay to die at the curb.
Unfortunately, that makes for bad video on the 6 O'Clock news. Therefore, hospitals keep passing on costs of uninsured to the insured, and fewer and fewer people can afford the insurance. The system is destined to collapse in a never ending spiral if increasing costs.
I repeat, we do NOT have a free-market system in teh US, and it will eventulaly collapse because of the way it's designed. Mark my word.