My wife, son, and I went to see Michael Moore's Sicko last weekend. While I have generally agreed with most of Moore's positions over the years, I have not been a fan of his modus operandi. His prior films have depended largely on cheap shot humor and guerrilla or predatory journalism. While Sicko includes some of that, overall it depends far less on those tactics than Moore's prior work.
I liked this film. Some of it is funny. Some of it is poignant. Approximately the first half of the picture is spent illustrating the limits and shortcomings of the current American health care system. Much of the remainder of the film focuses on health care systems in other countries including Canada, England, France, and Cuba. Yes, Cuba.
I have read a number of the reviews and other discussions of this film. Detractors are quick to point out how the film tells only partial truths, ignoring good things about American health care and passing over the bad aspects of the systems in the countries noted above. I don't doubt the truth of many of these charges. As with his previous works, Moore doesn't claim to be unbiased. He doesn't even claim to be fair.
The fact is that no health care system anywhere, especially those of countries having relatively large populations, is perfect. Not even close. However, the question remains: Which system or systems are the most equitable, the most workable, resulting in the optimum health care for its citizens?
I am certainly not prepared to answer such a question. But it is impossible to ignore the glaring shortcomings of the American system which for the most part remains a "for profit" industry. Therein lies the core of the problem. As long as medicine and medical care — all aspects of it from individual medical practices, outpatient and emergency care, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, drug manufacturers, and purveyors -- remain in the private sector, with pretty much all of it concomitantly under the thumb of insurance companies and HMOs, with the primary focus of their efforts being a positive bottom line and paying dividends to shareholders, medical care in this country will continue to be second rate for many, and effectively unavailable to many more. As with so much in this country, profit is the holy grail. Everything else is secondary — even life and health.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Arch Conservative
I haven't seen the film so I'm just curious......
Did Moore give any real attention to the fact that illegal aliens cost the American healthcare system billions of dollars every year?
Did Moore mention the problems that other nations have with their systems such as the long waiting lists and limited resources they have in Canada or did he just paint every system but our own as the ideal model?
2 - Baritone
Arch,
Moore did none of those things. As I noted in the article, the film was, as all Moore's films have been, totally biased and unbalanced.
But the point of my article was not so much to discuss Sicko as to use it as a launch point for a discussion of the health care problems in this country.
I see damn few comments supporting our system from people who have inadequate or no medical insurance or some alternative means to gain access to health care for themselves and/or their families.
Many supporters of the status quo are those who have such access and/or are connected to the medical industry professionally and/or have a stake in the industry via stock holdings and the like. There are also those who may not fall under the above categories, but nevertheless harbour the fear that if the hated liberals successfully alter our health care system, they just might turn their attentions elsewhere in a sort of domino effect reigning socialist evil across the land.
I wrote and submitted this article prior to reading Don Hall's fine piece also concerned with the health care with references to Sicko.
His is a superior work to mine I must admit. But in reading many of the often angry comments to his article, I found they illustrate my predictions regarding typical conservative response.
We all know the shortcomings of many of the various nationalized health care systems. However, that is no excuse for the intransigence of those who support the status quo here. It demonstrates the highest regard for profit coupled with a contempt for those who are victimized by the current system. Just the fact that we refer to medicine as an "industry" pretty much tells the tale.
I do believe that in what is supposed to be the greatest and richest country in the world that good health care should in fact be a right, not a privilege. The farther you push the have nots down, the more likely they will eventually rise up and bite you in the ass. But at least you can go to the doctor and get it stitched up.
Baritone
3 - Dave Nalle
You can oppose the status quo and still not support nationalized healthcare. There are alternatives to the corruption, inefficiency and expense of a single-payer system which would work perfectly well, including systems which would continue to be reasonably profitable for the insurance companies.
I haven't seen sicko yet - no way I'm getting the kids to go. But I suspect that Moore found it difficult to go into detail on practical solutions customized to the American market. It would have been much easier for him to just present examples from other countries. He's nothing if not a lazy filmmaker and always goes for the easy, cheap shot, and I doubt that's changed with this film.
Solving the problems with American healthcare starts with better regulation and should primarilyu focus on providing service to the uninsured without reducing the quality of care for the majority who are currently insured. We need to preserve the best of the current system while filling in the gaps.
Dave
4 - bliffle
The high taxes of more socialistic countries include other benefits besides UHC, such as pensions.
I argued, successfully, apparently, since no one has yet refuted it, that the net burden to US society under the current for profit system is higher than it would be under UHC. We are paying a premium for the privilege of punishing 40 million US citizens with poor health and death. We spend billions every year just so that those people can suffer. What's the point?
Consider this: gross operating margins of for-profit health insurance cos. is about 40%. For gov medicare it's about 3%. Therefore, there is a 37% premium margin to private ins. cos. About 40 million US citizens are uninsured, about 15% of the population. therefore the 37% of unnecessary premium can easily cover 15% more people, all things being equal, and still leave , say, 22%, which would result in a net reduction in healthcare costs to the US public.
We pay a lot of money every year just for the joy of seeing poor people get sick and die.
Of course the drug scams are another burden on US citizens, operated for the benefit of a peculiar congeries of beneficiaries starting with the pharmas (and the politicians who greedily suck at that teat), the insurance companies and even foreigners like those damned canadians and even Frenchmen! Yes, folks, US citizens subsidize the drug benefits of foreign nations. Those foreign governments only allow pharmas to take a fair profit markup for drugs, but US citizens must pay whatever markup the pharmas choose because they have an extraordinary monopoly enforced by the US government. So we pay much higher prices for drugs, even though they were developed with taxpayers dollars at, say, the NIH.
Yes, next time you hobble down a Toronto street, bent over, coughing and spluttering, unable to afford the expensive US drugs you require, just be happy when you see canadians happy, smiling, perhaps speaking French, healthy because of the cheap availability of the same drugs. Your tax dollars at work.
Just don't try to buy any of those drugs at cheap canadian prices while you're there, because that's a crime, and you know how hard the current administration is on law breakers! Why, I bet that if Scooter Libby had done something Really Serious like buy a months supply of Lipitor to save himself $50 while on a trip to Toronto he'd be in jail right now, filled with regret for his transgressions against the US drug monopoly.
Of course you could signup for one of these fancy new drug benefit insurance plans, as this scrivener did, and then see that you can reduce your drug prices and send the saved (or more) money to an insurance company! Ah, it's wonderful to have a choice!
For a moment I imagined myself in Olde Englande riding my horse down a road in the country. I was on this road because His Majesty the King declared that we could not use the other roads because it would be unfair to his friends.
Suddenly, a gang of highwaymen leap from the shadows demanding "your money or your life!" Let's call this gang, just to pick a random name, The Pfizer Gang.
But, being a prudent person, I had purchased in town a "protection" policy from a rough looking gang who came into my shop last week, breaking things and punching me in the shoulder. Let's call them, just to pick a random name, The Aetna Gang.
So I had a choice! I was Free To Choose which gang to surrender my fortune to: the Pfizer Gang or The Aetna Gang. Ain't it great!
Uh oh. But now the Aetna Gang tells me they no longer protect against Pfizer (for undisclosed reasons of their own) and I can't buy protection from, say, The Travelers Gang for a year when they allow Open Enrollment.
5 - Watch Entire Sicko Online
You can click on my name to see the entire SiCKO online.
The movie is incredible and should be viewed by all Americans. We can no longer accept the absolute disgrace that is our system. If you think it's anything other than a disgrace then you have absolutely been brainwashed. Insurance companies have NO place in a healthy health care system.
To some of the rebuttals brought up by people (whether they be confused citizens or insurance company shills)
1. As Moore mentions with over 40 million people OUT OF THE LINE - It makes sense that our lines would be shorter. But that's not even the case - A recent study of 6 major western countries on wait time and America is 5th... (ahead of only Canada)
2. Wait time seems like such a small issue compared to the other side of things. Again there are over 40 million people in America with no health care coverage and another 40 million with little health care coverage. I mean... that's just insane. On top of that, many of the people who think they are well covered are actually not. Many people have to fight with insurance companies to have their services paid for as they look for ANY reason to stop your service. When you get sick, the insurance company is not on your side - they become your enemy. Think about that!
3. People talk about how people come to America for some high end operations - Elton John's boyfriend for example came out against Sicko because he flew his father to some American clinic for care. OK, so if you are RICH the American system isn't so bad. That's right in America health care is only for the rich. The only people the current system serves are the rich and the people who work for health insurance companies. The rest of us? Out of luck! Completely!
4. Some people say that Moore cherry picks the worst stories from America and the best from Europe/Canada - maybe so... but on top of these anecdotal stories (and notice the anecdotal stories pro Universal Health Care are always much much much much much much much stronger than those for the other side...) there are also the numbers. America pays the most (by DOUBLE) per person of any western country yet America ranks 37th in overall health care. ... Are you going to look at those numbers and tell me that America's system is fine and dandy? COME ON. Open your eyes!
5. Taxes would be higher. Of course they would. But so what? As mentioned previously America spends the most by 2 times on health care. Yes there would need to be a tax increase to cover universal health care but guess what... then you wouldn't have to pay for health insurance!!! For almost all Americans this would mean paying out LESS money. Think about it - you no longer would have to pay for the insurance companies PROFITS and their disgusting advertising.
6. GET RID OF ALL HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES! They are the enemy of all Americans.
6 - High Heels
I pay high taxation compared with my counterparts in the US. I still consider myself better off - much, much, better off - because I have access to free healthcare. I pay for my prescriptions; apart from that if I fall ill, or have a medical emergency, I'm equal to everyone else, in having emergency and non-emergency care available. I don't mind contributing to that at all, even if I don't use it much. I couldn't stand to think that anyone else could remain sick or die because of financial restrictions, and I like the peace of mind the system provides me with. It isn't perfect - but its imperfections are matters of democratic lobby.
7 - Jeff Friedberg
Moore never had a chance for credibility with me---not after I saw him corner and hound an elderly, sick, arthritic, and all-alone Charlton Heston who was obviously crippled and in the early stages of his acknowledged Alzheimer's disease. That wasn't "journalism" or "documentaryism" or any "ism" except hooliganism, cowardice, and utter cruelty. It made me want to see something "happen" to Moore. I predict he will implode from some natural grave medical problem, and, of course, he'll flee to Cuba for the cure (Not, on both counts). Did you see his melt down on CNN? Did you ever see an uglier, meaner, more viscious, evil, ratlike face. ...thirty-two years of detectiving, and I never have.
8 - Dave Nalle
Re. #5. Nice to know the film can be viewed online. Makes it easier for me what with the kids and all.
However, at least one of your points is dead wrong. The spurious claim that the US pays double for health insurance per capita compared to other nations is pure hogwash and has been floating around the net for quite a while, despite having been well rebutted. That erroneous estimate comes from failing to take into account all of the costs of healthcare under a single-payer system and essentially comparing apples and oranges. It's based on figures from the OECD which are skewed towards minimizing the costs associated with single-payer systems.
Dave
9 - Baritone
I agree with bliffle. This "fill in the gaps" notion of Dave's is not an adequate solution. Something of that nature would haphazard at best.
It really comes down to a basic philosophy of whether health care should be a "business" at all. In Indiana the current governor is on a privatizing binge. He has or is attempting to privatize everything from toll roads, to the lottery to the welfare system. It's been suggested by some of his detractors that perhaps he should "privatize" the governor's office - turn the state's administration over to Halliburten or some such.
The notion that medical care is a privilege and not a right illustrates the difference between the right wing and left wing mind set. It's been said in one or more of the comments to Don Hall's piece that there is no precident for a "right" to health care. If that be the case, so what?
We should be looking to the future, not simply finding justifications from the past. Shouldn't we be attempting to make life better for all of our citizens, and not just those who can afford it? Isn't it a utopian notion that life should be good for all? Is part of the picture of a "more perfect union" having the masses grasping for the crumbs allowed to "trickle down" to them from the marbled manses of the rich?
I doubt that any well heeled son of a bitch in this country would quietly and patiently sit for hours in the average urban American emergency waiting room for service. But it's all right for the poor to do so. They've got nothing better to do, anyhow, right?
The entire system must be overhauled in the near future or it will all come crashing down of its own dead weight. If that means nationalizing the entire system, so be it. I doubt strongly that will ever happen, though. The medical industry lobby is far too strong to allow such a thing to happen. Too many people both in and out of government make far too much money off of the sick and dying. It's just too good a cash cow to let go of.
Baritone
10 - Dave Nalle
Medical care may be something we want to provide to people for the good of society, but that doesn't make it a 'right'. You don't have a right to take force others to provide you with their labor against their will, and that's what a 'right' to medical care implies.
As for my 'fill in the gaps' plan, don't knock it until you've heard the details. And there's more than one way to deal with healthcare needs. Other countries have tried a bunch of different approaches and many different approaches have produced acceptable results.
Dave
11 - Baritone
Dave,
I don't follow your logic regarding the implications of having a "right" to health care. You assume conscription of people into being health care providers. No one is going to escort a patient into a doctor's office and point a gun at the doctor and order him or her to treat that person. Do you believe that all medical people in Canada, France or England are forced to do their jobs against their will?
If you have a great plan to fill in those gaps, let's hear it.
Baritone
12 - moonraven
Since this appears to be a thread about film criticism, I am obliged to join in. Even though I am not getting paid for it. A freebie because it's Saturday, or because Mexico is having to playoff for third place in the Copa America in Caracas....
This is probably one of the few sites quasi-seriously treating film where the (self-)acknowledged dictators--er, experts--are the folks who have not seen the film. And do not intend to see it, either, by damn. After all, their hero, Ronald Reagan (RIP) said Facts are stupid things--or maybe it was silly things--he couldn't remember since he belonged to the Charlton Heston Mail Order Acting School and had Alzheimers anyway.
Nalle feels more than justified in reviewing SICKO, despite not having seen it. I guess Michael Moore is yet another guy on Nalle's Green List (the folks he envies).
And since this is a thread about film--and hence, about actors, I have to take umbrage at the lowbrow who complained about Michael Moore's hounding of Charlton Heston. I am old enough to remember those flatulent fifties big-budget fiascos flagellating Christianity in which Heston parted the Red Sea and won chariot races against bad guys and was politically correct for the time by having a mother and sister who were lepers.
Let me tell you, the guy may not have been the Roman with the rotating chain saws on his chariot wheels, but he sure chewed the hell out of the scenery in every one of those close-ups Mr. DeMille aimed his way.
A worse actor? Hmmmm, maybe John Derek was worse, but he had the good sense to stop acting and start marrying his way through several generations of great-looking women: Ursula Andress, Linda Evans, and Bo.
No, old Charlton clearly had it coming. It's just too bad that he wasn't hounded BEFORE he got Alzheimer's so that he would at least have known why he was being given The Big Thumbs Down....
13 - Egbert Sousé
"an elderly, sick, arthritic, and all-alone Charlton Heston who was obviously crippled and in the early stages of his acknowledged Alzheimer's disease."
Then you must also be upset and aghast at the NRA for using such an old feeble man as their president and spokesman. Right?
14 - Baritone
Good job Moon,
Heston, otherwise known as the "super-armed, super christian" and ham actor to boot did have it coming. Moreso though, for his actions on behalf of the NRA. It was unfortunate that he was only partly aware of the gist of Moore's intent.
Had he been otherwise, though, I doubt that he would have ever let Moore into his house, let alone film an interview.
Condemning films, books, plays and other works of art without seeing or reading them is often par for the course for many, usually of the conservative bent. Certainly, Moore's reputataion precedes him, but each of his films should be judged on their own merit after having seen them.
As an example. I liked Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and Dances With Wolves. Then came Robin Hood, Water World and The Postman. What can I say? I saw them all.
Baritone
15 - moonraven
He couldn't care less about Charlton--dead or alive.
He's just envious because Michael Moore has made big bucks tying the can to US sacred cows (like Bush, guns and doctors) and just being himself.
16 - Clavos
"Condemning films, books, plays and other works of art without seeing or reading them is often par for the course for many, usually of the conservative bent." (emphasis added)
Oh, please, Baritone.
I'm surprised at you. You're a very intelligent person, and usually not that blatantly partisan.
17 - moonraven
Baritone:
Some of those Kevin Costners are after my long stint as a film critic.
I bailed right after Robin Hood (yep, a stinker, and I voted with my feet).
Bull Durham was the best of the lot--but Costner had a lot of help from Sarandon and Robbins.
Field of Dreams was pretty good, too.
Or maybe I just like baseball--since I also wrote about it and had a long, intense friendship with a Hall of Famer.
Hell, I even sat through A League of Their Own....
18 - john
Michael Moore has it half right with his movie. The insurance industry is motivated by profit making and this can be contrary to a patients well being. However the answer is not to replace one middle man with another middle man run by the government. The answer would be to cut out the middle men altogether. Things like regular doctors checkups don't need to be included in health insurance. I don't pay an insurance company to buy gas for my car. My car insurance company doesn't pay for new tires, oil changes and tire rotation either. Car insurance is only for MAJOR ACCIDENTS. Likewise, a health insurance company should not be paying for dental visits, doctors checkups and cheap medications. It would be better to pay for these things out of pocket since you are cutting out the middle men. People would become more responsible about their health since they are paying for things out of pocket. Their would also be more competition to get prices to come down. With insurance and universal healthcare, nobody cares what the cost of things are since they don't directly have to pay for it. Capitalism does wonders for reducing prices. I remember 5-10 years ago it would cost you 20,000 dollars to buy a flatscreen television. Now you can get one for under 2,000. This is due to increased competition and better technology. Would socializing television production reduce the price of a television set? Not likely.
With universal healthcare the american taxpayer will be forced to pick up the tax bill for people who don't properly take care of themselves. Since the healthcare is free, nobody will have any incentive to lose weight or quit smoking or eat healthy. Personal responsability is key. If you smoke, don't exercise or drink alcohol and then you get cancer, heart disease or diabetes that is your own fault. A majority of disease are preventable with the proper lifestyle changes. People who don't take care of themselves shouldn't expect other people to pay for their medical costs.
Finally universal healthcare will reduce innovation in the creation of new medical technologies. The United States has created most medical technologies because of the free market. The human genome project is ushering in a period when it may be possible to elimate any disease currently afflicting humanity. It is quite possible that even the aging process could be eliminated in the near future if we so desire. However this will only occur in an environment that allows biotechnology companies to make a profit. If universal healthcare system was instituted, these profits would be greatly curtailed. So if aging could be eliminated in 20 years in a free market, in could take 30 years or more in a more socialist environment. This would mean the deaths of millions of people that could have been otherwise saved under a freer market. This contrasts with the the thousands of people who die yearly because they don't have insurance.
19 - moonraven
Well, you lost me with the 30 years for socialist countries.
Cuba is one of the most advanced countries in regard to biotechnology.
You know, it's errors like that that blow your whole post out of the waters of credibility.
Do some research next time.
20 - john
"Cuba is one of the most advanced countries in regard to biotechnology."
Communist governments tend to LIE about their health statistics. They LIE about everything. The Soviet Union did it. Why would you believe the Cuban government when they don't allow their citizens to have any freedoms.
Fidel Castro's initial surgury was botched by his personal Cuban doctors. So after this he imported a specialist from SPAIN to treat his recent medical problem. He couldn't find anyone in his OWN country to treat him properly even though he's the LEADER. Why would he be importing doctors if Cuba supposedly has such a great system?
"Do some research next time."
Yes you should do some research because you are ignorant about Cuba. Foreigners and the communist upper echelions may be treated well in Cuba's healthcare system, however the average Cuban does not get very good treatment. This is not necessarily due to the embargo but inefficiencies in the communist system. Plus Cuba only has a gdp of "4,000 compared to $44,000 for the U.S. That's an 11 fold difference. United States does have the best healthcare in the world assuming you have insurance. A large portion who don't have insurance in the U.S. could afford it but they choose not to get it. Many others could enroll in medicare but they don't. So the actual amount of uninsured who can't afford insurance and don't qualify for medicare is only about 11 million vs. the 40 million that they give in statistics.
Here are a few articles on the myths of cuban healthcare.
21 - bliffle
John, you mean feeling good and living longer isn't incentive to people to be healthy?
"Since the healthcare is free, nobody will have any incentive to lose weight or quit smoking or eat healthy. "
NO incentive? The only incentive anyone has is to screw others out of money by being sick and dieing?
22 - bliffle
John, most medical innovation occurs at public universities and the NIH.
23 - Scott Kohlhaas
Hello.
Believe it or not, selective service has a plan to draft health care personel.
Would you be willing to spread the word about draftresistance.org? It's a site dedicated to shattering the myths surrounding the selective slavery system and building mass civil disobedience to stop the draft before it starts.
Our banner on a website, printing and posting the anti-draft flyer or just telling friends would help.
Thanks!
Scott Kohlhaas
PS. When it comes to conscription, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
24 - Clavos
bliffle, a hell of a lot of young healthy people DO choose not to have health insurance.
I did it myself until I reached my late forties.
People still are doing it when they're young, especially now that fewer and fewer employers are paying for it.
25 - Dave Nalle
I didn't hold out until my 40s, but i certainly went without health insurance by choice through my 20s and early 30s. i found it more worthwhile to spend the money on travel and entertainment at that age than on health insurance. and apparently i gambled right, since i wasn't sick a day during that period, and now that i do have health insurance, i'm still pretty healthy, but my priorities are different.
dave