SICKO

Director: Michael Moore (Roger and Me, Bowling for Columbine)
Starring: Documentary on US Health System

Ah, the Michael Moore films. Nothing raises the ire of conservative "true believers" more. Why is that? Well, I think it's because Moore (more or less) uses the same propoganda tactics as they do. He's a true-believer too. It just so happens that he's on the other side of the representational aisle. Does this mean we can ignore his panderings and propoganda just as we ignore Bill O'Reilley's red faced diatribes? Maybe. Maybe not.

The imporant thing (IMHO) is that somewhere deep down beneath the arguments of all of these people there is indeed an objective truth. Oh, it's certainly well hidden beneath layers of inuendo, misdirection, and most importantly, complete ommission of countering arguments, but the truth is there. Somewhere. I'll bet each side occasionally has that truth on their side, depending on the particular issue. Probably a better description is that one is "nearer" to the truth, because I'm quite sure Bill O'Reilley has never been precisely right on anything in his career.

Regardless, coming into this film, I thought the US healthcare system would be Moore's easiest target. The truth was definitely on his side this time, and it was obvious to anyone willing to give even the most cursory glances behind the gleaming facade that the AMA or HMOs present. As a film, I think that the results for Sicko are good, but they're not on the level of some of his earlier near-masterpieces. Sicko is a solid bit of editorial. It's certainly a maddening film, showing the flaws in the US' method of providing medicine to its people. It's also one that overplays its arguments, and omits any fact that might get in the way of its central premise. In the end it's still right though. And that's a tough pill to swallow for many.

So, American health care? My thoughts? In the tiniest of nutshells, I think: 1 - We are the only western democracy without "socialized" medicine. 2 - We spend 3+% more of our GDP on health care than any other country on earth (6% more than the UK and most others). 3 - We don't live nearly as long as the most advanced countries. 4 - Our youngest children die at a rate comparable to some countries we'd call third world. Conclusion: Our investment in health care is not delivering compared to other countries. Some people really believe we have the best healthcare on earth. They are simply, and completely wrong. We do not. Some of our very best facilities are on par, or better, than anywhere else. But the average American has more health problems, dies younger, loses more babies, and spends more of their income than *any* of the top 30 industrial nations. This is a system begging for improvement.

Why do we spend so much for so little return? Well, 2 reasons really. The first is sort of a statistical anomoly. Americans spend huge sums of money on elective procedures. From boob jobs to unnecessary knee surguries we are in love with the operating table. The bigger piece of our enormous costs, however, lies with the profit of doctors, hospitals, insurance companies, and managed care. The administrative costs of most government run systems is significantly (and I mean significantly) less than what it costs for us to have HMOs, million-dollar doctors, and even worse, million-dollar healthcare administrators. I am a capitalist - through and through. But in this capitalist's opinion this is a system that has shown the areas where capitalism fails. Put simply, it would be cheaper, and far more efficient to have a government run system. Hard to believe for the 'true-believers'? You bet.

Okay, after all of this I'll note that Sicko only lightly touches on the subject of macro-economics. It's more concerned with a more basic, and probably just as important subject: How real people live in the US system, or in other countries' systems. Here, ~ 50 million people do not have insurance. In health care terms, these people basically live as if they were in the 3rd world. One individual the film can only afford to have 1 of his 2 severed fingers reattached. Another is dumped (by a Kaiser Permanente hospital) on the street near a free clinic, because they can't pay for their health care. We as Americans have said clearly, firmly, and loudly, and we've said it time and again, that we don't care at all about the lives of the poorest. You might as well suffer, you might as well die. As long as we do not die, you can die. Please die.

Given this, the movie doesn't even really spend that much time discussing the plight of the uninsured, the dregs of our society. No, it spends the bulk of its time talking about average people, people with good insurance, getting screwed over time and again by our current system. This is probably the most effective choice Moore made. At least it's the most accessible of the arguments against our current system. Sicko gives a handful of horror stories about average joes with good insurance. If you don't believe that the insurance companies are in the business of making sure you do NOT get the best health care for a decent price, you're living under a rock. One patient's insurance denied her counseling after a rape, because the rape qualified as a "pre-existing condition". One patient took her dying baby to the nearest emergency room, only to be told that she must go to a different hospital across town because of her HMO. The baby died en route. There are many more. Importantly, these are not anomolies of the system. The system is very much designed to do these things.

After a number of stories about people like these, Sicko moves on to other countries' systems (Canada, England, France and Cuba). These systems are held up as wonders, nearly perfect. This is probably the biggest complaint I have with Sicko. I agree that these other countries systems are better than ours (it's hard to logically argue otherwise). They are cheaper, and their citizens have fewer problems. It's a little scary that Cubans, whose country spends only a fraction of what the US does, manage to live a little longer than Americans. Nonetheless, there are certainly complaints that can be made against these other systems as well. They are not perfect. They are better, but whereas 2/3 or 3/4 of Americans claim our system is broken, about 40-50% of the French and English complain of major problems. I should note, however, that there aren't a lot of French and English arguing to scrap their "socialized" system. That's one notion that not many of their citizens have.

Anyway, like most Michael Moore films, he doesn't really discuss too many statistics, too many facts. No, he just wanders around in his rube persona documenting funny little episodes on these issues. In Sicko he takes a group of 9/11 rescue workers denied coverage for their respiratory problems to Cuba where they are treated far better than they were in America. Detractors will call this a publicity stunt. Yes, it is. The truth still lies there buried underneath, however, and Moore has gotten much much closer to the truth than most of the propoganda you'll hear about US healthcare. Sicko is a fine film, maddening to the viewer. It's intent is to enact specific change by the government. Let's see if it does or not.

Standouts: Another fun, humourous Michael Moore documentary on a social ill.

Blowouts: Very much propoganda, no time spent on the downsides to his film's argument. Not as entertaining as some other Moore films.

Grade: B+