While I can't find myself agreeing with Michael Moore's politics, I appreciate his work. I've seen all of his movies (include the obscure The Big One and Canadian Bacon), and read all of his books. If you haven't seen Roger & Me or Bowling for Columbine, you need to do so posthaste. Stop reading this review to take care of this egregious oversight. (Okay, finish reading and then check them out.)
I'm a fan because he demonstrates uncommon skill in conveying his message. His movies simultaneously provoke and entertain. He weds biting social commentary with comedy. Moore brings together liberalism and lampoons. Laughs and tears are justly juxtaposed. Not easy to do.
With this backdrop, I approached Sicko with anticipation. Perhaps too much. The movie didn't seem to deliver the same Moorean prescriptions of satire and silliness.
Instead, Sicko is a sober, searing indictment of the US health care industry. Moore indicts through case studies of people you won't recognize. While building sympathy for "ordinary folks", you sense Moore cherry-picked the cases, and attempts to draw grand conclusions based on anecdotal evidence.
On the other side of the ledger, there were only about four or five chuckles or chortles. These moments of light were almost dropped in as asides. They didn't advance Moore's message as well as he has been able to do in the past. His biggest joke took some time to build to a crescendo. It's late in the movie and didn't really reward the audience's patience.
While some have said Sicko is Moore's least controversial or political film, I noted Moore could not resist indulging his disdain for the current occupant of the Oval Office, who appeared (unwittingly) in the movie about four or five times in unflattering contexts. Iraq policy even garnered a sneering mention.
Article comments
1 - orig_club_soda
I can't disagree more. Moore routinely misrepresents information. With Sicko, Moore ignores the horrors of two year waiting lists in Canada, the $2.5 bil deficit of France's health care, UK's health care workers distrust of their own hospitals, Castro's need to fly in a foreign doctors for his own health. And the most unAmerican aspect of all: Canada, North Korea, Cuba - and soon California- all prevent you from purchasing private care or insurance. Watch the movie Dead Meat free for viewing
2 - Jeffrey Dach MD
What is the real solution, if Michael Moore's government sponsored universal health care is not the answer?
The crux of the "SICKO" documentary is the disconnect between our expectations and the reality of health care. We are expecting compassionate care from another human being, and instead we get a faceless corporation. The person behind the desk or window is an agent of a health care corporation, which is not a human being, whose primary goal is to increase corporate profit.
This is America, and corporate profit is good, the profit motive forming the basis America's greatness. The basic problem is that a corporation is not a human being. Therein lies the fallacy of replacing a corporation with a government agency, neither of which is a human being, when what we really want is a human being to deliver compassionate health care, and assist in serious health care decisions.
Ultimately we must at some point ration health care to avoid national bancruptcy. We can't provide everything for everybody. Moore's film, SICKO replaces the corporate health company with the government agency as the agent of this care rationing.
My major point here, is that the larger issue which is ignored by the SICKO film, is the control of medical information, which then determines expenditure and rationing patterns. The control of medical information controls the money. This is explained fully at:
Review of "SICKO", by Jeffrey Dach MD
3 - Deano
I'm not a huge fan of Moore but you are basically doing exactly what he does - making vast generalizations and overstatements and taking extreme examples and painting them as valid.
It would be nice if you could back up your sweeping assertations about the non-US systems with some evidence...
I'll note that Moore was taken to task by several Canadian journalists at Cannes for his rosy picture of the Canadain health care in the movie but all of them declined to switch to the US system when pressed....
4 - Exec
The comments that ask for data or display the usual rightwing ploy of offering up absolute nonsense in the guise of information - such as the Canadian system has waits of a year or more. Do you know why this country is failing? Its because those of you who want to keep your beliefs sacred will just have to go down with the ship to prove yourself right. Moore and many others like myself prefer to try any port in the storm to save ourselves. Unless of course, you are so wealthy that health insurance just doesn't matter. This country used to stand up for the little guy, remember WWII? Now, it just serves as a all-you-can-eat buffet for those in power or power-wannabees.
5 - Dan
The implied comment from orig_club_soda that universal healthcare costs are higher is way off base. The startling point about US health care is not only that it leaves so many people uncovered but that the cost per capita of healthcare in the US is nearly twice that of the next most expensive country.
Viewed slightly differently (in terms of gross domestic product) The Economist reported in January 2006 that in 2004 the US spent 16% of its GDP on healthcare, twice the OECD average. The next most expensive country in the OECD (Switzerland) only spent 11%. And this 16% of GDP for the US would presumably be significantly higher (close to 20%?) if the 50m Americans who are not properly covered did have adequate access to healthcare!
The standard response to such figures - which are, after all, well-known - is to ask whether US healthcare is more expensive simply because it is better. Many studies suggest that the quality of US treatment is at best only equal and may be worse than those of other major countries. Consumer Affairs reported in November 2005 the results of a study that showed US healthcare to be more error-prone than that of Canada, NZ, the UK, Germany and Australia. The study also found that getting an appointment with a doctor in the US took significantly longer than in most of the countries mentioned. While all systems have their strengths and weaknesses, it’s clear that US healthcare is not noticeably better than those of its major OECD peers. Google around and you will find that there is a decent body of research that comes to this conclusion. In addition, of course, the US has pretty poor life expectancy and infant mortality rates compared to its developed peers.
And yes, some countries have waiting lists. I think the classic case is non-life threatening issues like hip replacement surgery. For the person who wants or needs surgery this is is no joke at all and maybe this wouldn't be an issue in the US. On the other hand, having the insurance company quibble about the cost of emergency surgery to deal with the aftermath of your cardiac arrest is no joke either - this just would not happen in the UK or France. Note also that a study published in Health Affairs July/August 2005 argued that “health spending in the twelve countries with waiting lists averaged $2,366 per capita.. while in the seven countries without waiting lists, it averaged $2,696"both much less than U.S. spending of $5,267 per capita”. This implies that we cannot ascribe the high cost of US healthcare to the lack of waiting lists alone.
I’m no cheerleader: I certainly don’t see the health systems of the UK or France as being perfect, but at least they do cover those they are supposed to cover and at a far lower cost than in the US. They are decent and conscientious compromises. Of course there is criticism of these systems and that is as it should be, but what is most noticeable is that most of the criticism (particularly in the UK) is based on anecdotal evidence in one narrow area rather than on methodical attempts to quantify differences between the NHS and other systems. But then the British love to moan and the grass, for many of them, is always greener overseas.
On the other hand, my experience of travelling and working in the US and with Americans overseas suggests to me that they are generally fair people who could and should have come up with a much saner and more humane system of healthcare than currently exists. In other words there’s a tremendous disconnect between the US's strong tradition of charitable thought and action and its own healthcare system.
In conclusion, it's eminently reasonable for people to ask what universal healthcare would cost the US. However, the answer is “probably a heck of a lot less than your current system”. I haven’t seen Sicko but from the reviews it seems that it does not explicitly address this point of high healthcare costs. I wish it did, if only to persuade skeptics (many of whom haven't bothered to take a close look at the figures) that universal healthcare is not necessarily either in theory or practise the money-devouring monster it is sometimes thought to be.
But, hey, ultimately this is a US problem. It doesn't affect other countries. If the US wants to fix it the solutions are pretty clear; it's just a matter of having the willpower to do so...
Dan
6 - bliffle
The story of the decline of US medical care is the story of several good ideas that went off the track due to poorly thought out planning, but mostly due to unquenchable greed. Too bad. In the end, everyone is gaming the system, and the ones who are most expert and most powerful due to their subornation of public officials and electees are the insurance companies. the other players have some real economic purpose but the insurance companies are just in the business of handling money so they are uniquely able tocreate their own win.
7 - Alec
Richard - I commend you on an excellent review, one that's even "fair and balanced" as those nutty kids today say.
My problem with Moore's film is that since it is so obviously a one-sided polemic, it is ridiculously easy for his opponents to shoot it down. In fact, it is a great example of the worst aspect of self-described progressives, namely an appeal to a kind of infantile solcialism, where every political decision is made on the basis of feelings and compassion, not effective public policy or economics (not even Eurpopean socialism along the Scandinavian model, for example).
You can't even say that Moore performs a public service by at least starting a debate about health care. Somehow people like to pretend that Moore's work is the first time that health care reform has ever been discussed, but obviously there has been a furious debate going on about this issue for some time.
Also, his depictions of the French, Canadian and UK systems is patently phony. Just google, for example, "canadian health care supreme court," and you get stories from June 9, 2005, when the Canadian Supreme Court struck down a Quebec private health care ban which forced all citizens into the state system, precisely because patients could not get timely access to health care and some died as a result. See, for example
There is also something disgusting about Moore's approval of the Cuban health care system, which depends on restricting the ability of doctors to leave the country or to make independent decisions about their own lives or medical practices (under the dubious rationale that since the revolution provided for their education they are obligated to "serve the people").
By the way, it is equally pointless to pay any attention to the worst bashing that gets from the right-wing crowd, which is far more interested in parading its conservative ideological purity than in dealing with issues of health care reform.
8 - Alec
Note: the last paragraph in my reply should have read,
By the way, it is equally pointless to pay any attention to the worst bashing that Moore gets from the right-wing crowd, which is far more interested in parading its conservative ideological purity than in dealing with issues of health care reform or with Moore himself, except as a convenient target for their general rage.
9 - Rodney Welch
My problem with Moore's film is that since it is so obviously a one-sided polemic, it is ridiculously easy for his opponents to shoot it down.
Yeah? Well, they're doing a pretty shitty job.