Webomatica

 

Movie Notes: Sicko

June 27th, 2007

Sicko

starstarstarstar = 4 stars

Directed by Michael Moore

No different from his other films, Sicko is pure propaganda: Moore expertly uses film to get his totally biased point across. I already thought there were some things amiss with our health care system, and as a result, I enjoyed this film immensely. Conversely, you will hate this movie if you think Bush, Reagan, and Nixon were the greatest Presidents ever and anything anti-business or anti-profit = terrorist.

Sicko wants us to reconsider the compassionate conservative concept of “personal responsibility.” Only someone with no heart would consider a cancer patient with insurance bankrupted by outrageous hospital bills as lazy. However, it’s gotten to the point in this nation where “personal responsibility” means anything bad that befalls you is your own damned fault, even if you’re run over by a car crossing the street. Some people honestly consider this justification for buying a Hummer and eschewing mass transit.

Moore suggests that America has abandoned common sense in other ways, too. “Health care” by its association with “health insurance” now means instead of being cared for, people are often seemingly punished for getting sick, or even being sick before accepting insurance (the dreaded “pre-existing condition”). Patients must choose one finger over another, death over bankruptcy, and some of those unable to pay their bills are kicked out of hospitals onto the street.

Moore looks for answers abroad, namely Canada, England, and France, where the revelations regarding health care are tough pills to swallow, especially for those currently wrapped up in the American Way of Thinking: work, work, and more work – and if that doesn’t work, let the free market decide. Europeans have way more paid time off and months of maternity leave, all seemingly free of charge. Canadians worry about traveling in the United States and having to pay an American-sized medical bill. French families get cheap day care, where a government employee will do your laundry and even cook for you (Oh, but in America we do it better: we hire illegal immigrants – and they don’t get health insurance, either).

Granted, the way Moore portrays life abroad is all roses: he’s not objective in the least. While the majority of Americans shown are sick, weepy, and dying, the French are happy, thin, healthy, drinking wine, lounging in parks, and listening to Serge Gainsbourg. It almost makes you want to move there.

In Moore’s world, Americans are also depicted as worshiping money, the hard work it takes to earn it, and the corporations that employ us over all else. Capitalism even outranks democracy. It’s a sick cycle: we’re deathly afraid of losing our jobs, getting sick, or going into debt, so we work twice as hard, further convincing ourselves that capitalism is the answer to everything (why on earth would we spend so much time on something pointless?). Meanwhile, the primary beneficiaries of this work ethic are the corporations and the already wealthy. There’s a long list of things we as a people shy away from voting for because they’re “bad for business.” But the assumption that what’s good for business is automatically good for the workers it employs is simply wrong.

Without a doubt, Sicko has its faults. For me, it goes off the rails when Moore claims profit trumps patriotism, as he shows the government refusing health care to some of the first-responder emergency workers immediately after 9/11. Then comes the now-infamous stunt of shipping sick individuals to Cuba to get better health care, denied to them back home. While Cuban health care might have its perks, even I can resist the suggestion that a move toward a communist dictatorship would improve this country. This is one problem with Sicko: the suggested solutions are either absent, fantastical, or impractical.

But I’m willing to overlook some negatives because Sicko raises some relevant issues, namely that our health care system is messed up and could be better. With Fahrenheit 9/11, I thought Moore was awfully harsh on George Bush, but figured if American lives were at stake through war, perhaps an aggressive counterbalance was in order. Today, many wonder why the supposedly liberal mainstream press was so soft on this Administration during that time.

Perhaps Moore is ahead of the curve once again, as a reckoning with national health care is surely the horizon, either as soon as 2008 during the Presidential election or when the baby boomers start falling ill en masse in the years soon after. I strongly doubt the “me-generation” will accept “personal responsibility” as an excuse if the currently weakened American idea of health-care begins to fail them – if it hasn’t already.

IMDB: Sicko
Wikipedia: Sicko
Wikipedia: Controversy over Sicko
Rotten Tomatoes: Sicko 88%

RSS Feed Please subscribe to the Webomatica RSS Feed!

folder Categories: 4 Star Movies, General, Movies :: , ::

Related Posts:
Back Movie Notes: Hancock
Back Movie Notes: Metropolitan
Back Movie Notes: Possession

Back Previous Post:
Back Next Post:

  • Tony
    What some more insight into Michael Moore thinking? Read the entire “Public Health Crunch” blog before you see the movie! (http://phcrunch.wordpress.com/)

    This weeks topic is titled “Are CMEs becoming infomercials?”.

    Past topics included: “Patient dumping” “prescriber profiling” and “Me too drugs”

    Take care.
  • Good review -- you're so right, I hadn't noticed that all the Europeans depicted are healthy and ravishing, while the poor Americans are just ravaged. He's certainly not subtle, is he?
  • heh... yeah, I don't think I'd call him subtle any more than I'd call the film a documentary in the more objective sense of the word. But I really did enjoy it and it has some extremely relevant issues within.

    I had to shake my head and clear it of fantasies because I was starting to think moving to France would be a great idea - he does such a good job of making it seem like paradise. Even the protests looked like fun :)
  • The Canadians in that movie were not afraid of an American hospital, they were afraid of being in one without coverage. As a Canuck, I can confirm that it's totally true. I won't set foot in that country without travel insurance, because if I did, it would mean a lifetime of debt to pay off if I needed a hospital visit.

    Moore's portrayal of France reminded me of, well, France. It's a bloody fine country and it's sad that so many Americans (A) don't realize what a great place it is, and (B) don't understand how closely linked the two countries really are.

    As far as health care is concerned, I am most worried about the 12 Colonies of Kobol. Did you know the let the doctors smoke while they work? It's horrible.
  • Good point, I guess I should fix that one line up there. And yes, I guess the Battlestar Galactica may be the only advanced "country" with worse health care. Even their president turns to alternative herbal remedies :)
  • Wow. I have just GOT to comment on this review. I think I should mention that I'm also in the middle of writing a review of this movie for another site..

    Anyway. As a dual citizen (US and Canadian) who has lived in 3 major Canadian cities and 3 major US cities (11 years in the US and 22 in Canada, but I grew up in Canada so I've spent nearly about half my adult life equally in each country), I think I may have a more rounded overall view of the movie and the issues it presents.

    Moore is 99.9% correct in everything he stated in Sicko.

    That's right. Moore haters will can bash me for saying that, and that's OK. I did not believe everything in Bowling or Fahrenheit. I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist either. But the American Health Care system is so far beyond fucked up that I don't think Americans grasp how bad it is.

    Here's the _only_ part of the movie that I think he may have mislead people. Not ALL Canadian hospitals have a 5-30 minute wait in the emergency rooms. I've spent upwards of 5 hours waiting with a friend of mine who broke his wrist in an ER in Toronto. With that said, the hospitals in smaller cities do have the 5-30 minute wait times that were portrayed. Getting to see a Dr. depends on what state you're in. My mother walked into the same ER that I had to spend 5 hours waiting w/ my buddy, and she was seen by a Dr. in 10 minutes, because her heart rate was so low. Within ONE HOUR of entering the hospital she was being prepped for surgery, and within two hours she had a PACEMAKER "installed". The total cost? 0 dollars and 0 cents. She had a newer model pacemaker installed 5 months later, simply because it was better than her previous one. The cost? 0 dollars and 0 cents.

    My dad had a stroke about 2 years ago. He spent about 2 weeks in the hospital, had his own private room (with cable TV that cost $3/per day). He had a bypass operation, more tests than either of us can remember, and several of his arteries were "cleaned". The cost? You got it - nothing.

    When I was living in San Francisco, working for a company that provided my health care, I got sick and had to take a month off of work. I didn't enjoy being sick, I wasn't "faking it" to get time off work (I loved my job) and I'm NOT lazy. The company I worked for had a policy that I would get 2 weeks paid, but I had to pass some kind of insurance "exam" in order to get the other 2 weeks paid. I failed the exam. To this day I don't know why - I was sick, my doctor said I was sick, the treatment that he prescribed worked, and I got healthy again. But the insurance company declined me, and I never did get paid. _I_ could afford it, but I can't imagine what it must be like for people that weren't in the same financial class that I was/am.

    Oh and btw - "we" Canadians DO buy health insurance before crossing the boarder. It probably wouldn't help, knowing insurance companies (decline, decline, decline) but it makes us feel a little bit safer, even if it's only a false sense of security.
  • Uh "will can" should have read "will/can" and "nearly about" should have been just "nearly".

  • Well, Ross, I am really glad you commented, and this is a big reason why I blog with comments, as I obviously don't have the whole angle on the issues that this film tackles, having only lived in the united states my whole life. It's good to get some different perspectives and anecdotes.


    (I am wondering why there are so many Canadian bloggers?)


    Anyhow, beyond high cost, my main gripe about health insurance in America is how it is tied to an employer. Therefore coverage varies widely depending upon the type of job you have and if you're unemployed you pay through the nose or do without.


    It is a bit hard for me to temper the reality of the political partisanship in this country with the problems. While I think Moore's heart is in the right place when you look at how far America has to go on social issues (can't even raise the minimum wage!) I'm still skeptical - even with Bush's low approval ratings.


    As for your anecdote about San Francisco: That does not surprise me. Many jobs I have had only offer two weeks or less of sick time - if that. San Francisco (where I work) just passed a law (Prop F) that requires all employers to offer paid sick leave. What is really sad is it is the first American city to do so, and as I am sure you are aware - San Francisco is considered a really liberal city in the rest of the country.


    Knowing that something as fundamental as paid sick leave gets hemming and hawing from Republicans you can bet they will fight nationalized health care with all kinds of typical excuses - personal responsibility, bad for business, higher taxes (I really hope I am proven wrong).


    That is why I suggested in the review that one possible way out is if voters really make this an issue - and the baby boom generation with their huge swath demographically speaking might be able to turn the tide. Every politician is afraid of touching social security for fear of pissing off the baby boomers.

  • uh...when has a POV not been "totally biased." As if anybody could present any issue without bias.

    And by suggesting that Cubans on the average have better access to healthcare is not suggesting we should change our system of government. The point is: (1)our system doesn't work and (2) the free market should not be left to protect the health of our citizens.

    We have shared goods and market goods in a capitalist market economy. A shared good: fire protection; A market good: an automobile. Right now health is treated as a market good. If you suggest that it be treated as a shared good, you might expect to be called a communist. There's the irony and humor in Moore's taking people to Cuba for better healthcare. It isn't a suggestion that we should be communists. In our market the government is tasked (among other things like running the military) with regulating the distribution of goods and services which the market cannot handle appropriately on its own.

    I just get tired of anybody whining about "bias" in social discourse. It's all always already biased.

    cheers...gary

  • What I meant by pointing out bias is this is not a documentary. Moore doesn't make much effort to show the other side of the story. You go to a Moore film and you know he's going to show the left side of things. As you say, it's a point of view. But as a result of getting his point of view across in this obviously biased manner, many of the people who should watch this film (the conservatives) likely won't. They are already trashing this film - just check out any of those smarmy political blogs on Memeorandum for yourself.


    Moore's approach is controversial. IMHO he does a great job of laying out his case and showing all the evidence in a powerful way. It's just at that final stretch where he offers up solutions that I think he falls short. Just copy the French is not a good enough answer for me, knowing the political partisanship, politicians in the pockets of big business, and all the free market worshippers in this country. Someone is going to have to figure out a huge compormise between all the business, government, medical, and citizen interests. We the people can demand it. Hillary tried it. Some future politician will have to try it, too. Moore is not that person - he can only raise the issue and for that I commend him.


    Thanks for visiting and commenting.

  • Marla Comm
    If anyone decides to seek health care in Canada, I'd advise him to avoid Quebec. I live in this province and am think its health and social services system is something to be ashamed of. Thanks to reforms the provincial government made to the system, it's barely functioning. Anyone who puts himself in the hands of our system will find himself at the mercy of demoralized staff on the verge of burnout. Disabled people who need community support services aget mere crumbs. Staff are overworked, under constant pressure and losing interest in their jobs.
  • Webo -

    Not sure why there are so many Canadian bloggers - maybe cause we're an opinionated bunch? :)

    Marla -

    Thank you for acknowledging that it was a provincial decision, not federal. I'd hate for folks reading these comments to think that Canada's healthcare wasn't as good as it really is. On a related note - I've read that a lot of Dr's and nurses are leaving Quebec because of those changes, to places like Saskatchewan and Alberta. To me that kinda speaks volumes on the problem - if you're willing to live in Sask it's gotta be pretty bad :)

    ps. Saskatchewan readers - that was mostly a joke, I love you guys
  • Ross - I actually was injured while skydiving in Arizona once. Even though I had health coverage for 'merica, I was so worried about the hassle, I just lived with the pain (I screwed up my shoulder, and convinced myself it was not very serious)

    Jumped for the rest of the week (cautiously) and when I got back to Canada, the pain was suddenly getting worse, so I went and saw a doc here. She was an idiot, so I went and saw a physiotherapist. She was a babe, and brilliant, and she fixed me up.

    All free.
  • yeah, I agree about the "offering...solutuions" aspect of his films.

    You know, it might be worth posting about the restrictive and proscriptive limits in genre. I gather you'd be willing not to call films like sicko "documentary."

    But then, let's think of any documentary. I cannot think of one doc film that doesn't incorporate the use of an establishing shot, a master, a close up, a medium shot, some decision of what stock to implement, some style of editing; even hacks like Ken Burns zoom in and out on photographs and incorporate music and foley sound effects to achieve an emotional and intellectual response from an audience.

    so DOCUMENTary...it's just a crappy generic title given to films that all incoporate narrative techniques to tell a story and therefore always exploit techniques of fiction. I mean HISTORY is based in narrative and typically represents only a society's dominant majority group and its POV. So...I think we should not hold documentary films, in this case, to a standard of objectivity. Documents must be presented and interpreted.

    my 2 cents...great site. thanks.
  • Gary those are some good thoughts. I'm sure the truth is, a really objective film that just presented the facts would likely be very boring and not survive at the box office.

    After you posted your earlier comment I was kind of thinking about how Moore's tactics, although I might personally disagree with the sensational aspects, might actually be the best way to get his worthy points across to today's audiences - especially those who are into reality television and shock jocks (or whatever passes for entertainment these days that I try really hard to ignore). But to get a point across sometimes it means meeting the audience on their level.

    Also thinking about Al Gore's global warming movie and his approach, which I also enjoyed, but was much brainer and less emotional compared to Moore's. I personally preferred it but Moore is a better emotional filmmaker. Interesting thought if the two of them would ever collaborate on a movie!
  • Good review. Thanks for the info. I plan to see the film soon, too.
  • seth
    Sicko "won Cannes?" It won it? No, it didn't. It didn't win anything there.
blog comments powered by Disqus