Sicko

Director: Michael Moore

Cast: Michael Moore

(Weinstein Company, 2007) Rated: PG-13

US theatrical release date: 22 June 2007 (Limited release)

By Bill Gibron

Short Ends & Leader Editor

A Cinematic Catalyst for Change

SiCKO is sensational. It’s perhaps the best movie Michael Moore has ever made. Granted, there will be those who view his anti-gun screed Bowling for Colombine as his most heartfelt effort (it did earn him an Oscar for Best Documentary) and now that the firestorm has died down, and the winds of change are basically blowing in his direction, Fahrenheit 9/11 looks more and more like a prescient populist prophecy. But those two amazing movies, along with the retro-reactionary Roger and Me and the rest of his confrontational canon really pale in comparison to this detailed dissection of the American Heath Care system. Looking at the problem from both the inside out and the international inward, Moore manages to do what his previous films have failed to accomplish. SiCKO, more than any other movie he’s made, is guaranteed to provide a cinematic catalyst for change.

Don’t think so? Unsure that people will rise up to challenge the substandard status quo of insurance coverage for the US population? Well, just remember this. A film is forever. Mock its methods or question its facts, but once it takes a stance, that statement is set in celluloid stone. From then on, it is up to others to redirect the dialogue, to challenge its veracity and pick apart the particulars. But at the end of the day, after all the agenda-based attacks and website scrutinizing, Moore will have delivered the first AND last word on the subject. And since the enemy he picks is well known and hated by a vast majority of the paying populace, it will survive the government threats, the industry lawsuits, and the brazen backlash from dozens of self-styled experts. In turn, Moore’s version of reality will become the JFK of the HMOs. The essentials may be specious, but the overall message is right on goddamn target.

During the film’s clever opening, we see immediately where Moore is going. He discusses the case of two people sans insurance, and immediately tosses their frightening fate aside. We can’t deal with this issue, you can hear the filmmaker thinking, it’s too much of a common man slam dunk. Instead, the focus of SiCKO is on people who actually have coverage, and how said supposed security blanket is actually a lifestyle (and life) threatening ruse. We get testimonials from individuals who’ve lost loved ones thanks to seemingly random decisions by blank corporate facades, and then Moore turns around and puts a mug onto those crass kill(er)joys. It’s this material that’s the most fascinating in SiCKO. Everyone has a horror story about being denied in a time of crisis, but when do we ever get to see the person behind the decision. Granted, these former insurance company workers are all miserable and overflowing with mea culpas. But no amount of forgiveness can erase the dollar oriented disasters that lay in their wake.

Throughout this initial half of the film, Moore sets up the first of his two main themes—that insurance companies are in it for the money, not the health care management. The resounding ‘D’uh” following said sentiment should argue against his success as a pundit. But Moore knows movies, and he understands that the right story can sidetrack an entire library of statistics and consulting reports. Thus, he presents the Smith family. Amiable, hard working, and dedicated followers of America’s Middle Class dream, we watch as Mom and Pop Smith are devastated by several personal problems (him—heart attacks, her—cancer) and slowly swallowed up by the bureaucratic bankruptcy of the system. The co-pays and deductibles, let alone the financial reality of dealing with six kids of their own, sends them into a downward spiral of money problems. Eventually, they must sell their home and move into a cramped basement computer room (with bunk beds!) in their daughter’s home.

Like the scene in Roger and Me where a kind-hearted sheriff’s deputy dispossess a distraught family, watching real people suffer in a ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ manner is the most effective way of getting your point across. This is not an issue of mismanaged funds or individual liability. The Smiths bought into a system (paid into it, actually) that never intended to indemnify them come crunch time. Imagine—your car insurance suddenly stops taking effect right in the middle of a post-accident repair job. Your life insurance annuity ceases paying at the discretion of the company, not the contract. You sign up for disaster insurance before boarding a plane, and as the engines start to fail and the stewardesses shout out final instructions, the head rest phone rings. It’s your company, suddenly cutting off your coverage as a ‘potential risk’. Along with the other examples he provides in this section, Moore’s makes SiCKO a strong case for massive corporate reforms.

But what’s the model we should use? Which countries have the best universal coverage—or at least, in Moore’s opinion, put the American system to shame. The answer to this question composes the second half of SiCKO, and will probably be the sequence viewed with the most cynicism. Providing us a USA-ridiculing walking tour of the Canadian, French and British health care arrangement, Moore plays dupe to a bunch of everyday citizens who can’t imagine living in a country that doesn’t provide some manner of socialized medicine. Our intrepid reporter asks the same question over and over again—“what did it cost you?”—and the look of disconnect and confusion on these foreigners’ faces is classic. Time and time again, the answer is “nothing”, and Moore mimics their disbelief by wondering “what’s the catch”. Well, exploring said specifics and restrictions is not what SiCKO is on about. Again, the big picture is important here. No matter what it says in the fine print, almost every industrialized Western country has some form of universal health coverage—except the US.

Of course, the devil is always in the details, and there will be those who harp on minor misconceptions and abject realities as a means of trying to deflate SiCKO’s strategies. Unfortunately, said potshots won’t make the movie any less entertaining. The reason people will pile on this film has nothing to do with its ideas and everything to do with its effectiveness. If Moore was a moviemaking incompetent, unable to maintain a level of interest in what is an inherently intriguing idea, then his efforts would tour a few underground film festivals and that’s it. But people will be lining up to learn the lessons this director wants to discuss, and it’s the intrinsic draw of film that has opponents flummoxed.

If Moore was inherently wrong with what he puts out in SiCKO, that would be one thing. He’s not using one or two rare instances to make a gross overgeneralization about the US Health Care system. Instead, he is avoiding the 10 or 20% of satisfied citizens to focus on the far more prevalent problems. It’s not a question of balance—if 10 people out of 100 get good, trouble free service, representing their viewpoint does not provide equilibrium to the situation with the other 90. Neither does pointing out the number of areas where America beats the rest of the world in medical technology. Saving lives is one thing. Having access to the science that does such rescuing is the issue at hand. It is conceivable that the citizens of the countries Moore champions would have varying versions of their socialized medicines success. But complaining that problems exist in an arguably imperfect system is like saying an inexact science is wrong now and again. Besides, what’s more important—the fact that everyone is covered, or that when such universal coverage is in place, flaws are inevitably found? 

There will be those who cannot forgive his histrionics, who see him standing on Cuban soil, chronically ill volunteers from 9/11 in tow, calling over to Guantanamo Bay and asking for the same health care that we are giving to the terrorists, and complain about the obvious exploitation. Others will attack the man and consider it a criticism of the movie. But in a nation of apathetic arrogance, that has begun to believe much of its own hyped hubris, SiCKO needs to be seen. It does the two most potent things any successful screed can—it enlightens while it entertains. In addition, it sets the tone for the rest of the debate, providing proof against all the industry apologists while offering potential solutions, no matter how suspect. It’s what any good discussion should encompass. It’s also the foundation for any masterful film…and SiCKO definitely falls into that category.

— 29 June 2007
Sicko - Trailer
 
Bookmark and Share

Comments

Who wrote this review, Micheal Moore?  It is baffling the amount of praise this man gets for making up straw men to attack and bending “facts” to suit his own ends.  Sorry, but he is only “brilliant” if you swallow the selected spoon-fed he presents and think its clever.

As I am objective, I do not think its brilliant to make up facts, exploit people (911 victims) and have lame sketches to prove irrelevant points. Big example, in his film 911 asking congressmen if they would send their own sons to Iraq (uh..duh..we don’t have a draft, the army is volunteer.  Someone should wake him up from the 60’s)

Sticking to this movie, the 400 pound elephant falsehood in the room is that even though our system of health care stinks, so does the rest of the worlds.  Moore is frankly lying about other countries nationlized healthcare systems.  I watched “reeel reviews” on TV that had a british female reviewer, who is obviously not conservative, almost hold back laughter at Moore’s glowing review of British healthcare.  She related six month delays in treatment, chronic shortages, and non treatement of anything not an emergency unless you were rich enough to have private health insurance on top of what the system provides.

Another example is a recent Canadian documentary showing Canadians crossing the border into this (!) country to get basic care they can not get in their system (but hey..the drugs are cheaper).

In almost every country that has nationalized healthcare, there have been movements afoot, or actual progress made, to repeal it.

I love how the reviewer preemtively dismisses critcs upfront in the review.  Classic cool-aid drinker.  Look everyone, I’m part of the big business conspiracy because I can think..lol

Comment by rich from pittsburgh — July 2, 2007 @ 7:41 am

spellng errors are my own..sorry

Comment by rich from pittsburgh — July 2, 2007 @ 7:46 am

Having lived in the UK for 35 years, I can agree that the the system here is not perfect, but it is not as you assume from your comments above. Treatment for most things is available almost everybody, irrespective of income. Chronic/long term illnesses are funded on basis of most value to most people, as funds are not unlimited, and not all treatments offer reasonable chances of good outcomes so choices have to be made, but in my opinion a good balance is achieved. Private healthcare is available to those who wish to pay, but to be honest apart from simple procedures like hip replacements, (which you may have to wait for on the National Health Service) and plastic surgery for vanity reasons(not available on the NHS obviously), most expertise lies within the NHS as all university teaching hospitals are linked directly to the NHS.

It is by no means perfect, and funding it adequately is always a hot political topic, but it seems to strike a good balance. There is certainly no movement at all in this country to repeal it, and I would say 95% percent of the UK feel this way. It is considered a national institution and most people are very proud of it. That does not imply total satisfaction with the way it is run, and improving while maintaining its ethos of free treatment at the point of delivery for all has been at the top of every political parties agenda for the last 25 years. I think Thatcher when she came to power in 1979 initially harboured a desire to dismantle it and replace it with a US style system, but even she was taken aback by the hostility this generated.

Most people would be horrified at the prospect of an insurance based system, (I make no comment on the US system in saying this, having had no experience of it), as they are happy with the principle of the system they have.

Comment by Adrian from Edinburgh — July 2, 2007 @ 9:20 am

Well, I’m certainly not going to argue with a Brit whose there and knows the system.  But it still doesn’t invalidate the criticism.  Nationalized health care is nothing but one big insurer (government) taking over for smaller insurers.  It is also a myth that people in this country can’t get treatment without health insurance.  I am a small business owner and have no insurance, so when I’m sick, I pay for my own.  Although there are horror stories and people who are seriously injured do have very high medical bills, there are actually welfare systems here, such as SSI (social security) and Medicare (government insurance program) that will pay for people who seriously need treatment.  Hospitals also treat many people free of charge if it is an emergency, or will bill you later.

I am also an attorney and have some experience in our system, and it is VERY RARE for a hospital to brazenly throw someone out the door who needs treatment.  (the rare cases this happens is usually a mistake in diagnosis, sending someone to another facility, or the person has some mental disorder, drug problem, etc..that leads to a misunderstanding.)

The main problem with healthcare is that people are living longer, and new treatments are being developed that treat diseases and injuries that were impossible just ten years ago.  New treatments are expensive, but go down over time once they become accepted.

Also, the USA gets the best doctors and treatment available precisely because of the private system.  Doctors come here from all over the world because their nationalized systems don’t pay them the money they can get here.  Also, companies invent innovative treatments here because there is profit in it.  Finally, people who engage in higher risk behavioirs (smoking, sexual, whatever) pay more for their insurance, which is much fairer than asking me to foot the bill for someone else.

There are pluses and minuses to every system.

Comment by rich from pittsburgh — July 2, 2007 @ 12:32 pm

Although from Ireland, I have lived in both the USA and the UK.  I am hugely looking forward to Michael Moore’s film because, even if his film is somewhat simplified and occasionally sensationalist, the US Healthcare system is a scandal.

WHile at first glance taxes appear lower in the USA, the cost of health insurance premiums place a huge burden on working people.  For those on low incomes, but not low enough to qualify for medicaid, insurance is a luxury they cannot afford.  Those who work freelance or who are not in a company that pays for health insurance are also in this position.

I remember the story of a musician friend of mine in San Francisco - he was knocked off his bike, badly broke his leg and, as he was passing out with the pain, all he could remember was being asked by ambulance staff for his insurance number.  This guy is a US citizen, on low income but not low enough for medicaid.  15 years later, he is still paying the bills for his operation and treatment.

While British people occasionally complain about the NHS, it is acknowledged to be an excellent system - as outlined by the gentleman from Edinburgh earlier.  The principle of universal healthcare provision is the foundation of the NHS.

It’s time that US Citizens start to realise that other countries’ criticism of their government and the health/education systen in the US is not an attack on their nationality.  Their indignation should instead be directed at campaigning for improvemnet in the healthcare, education and social welfare provision for poorer members of society. 

Looking forward to Michael Moore’s film… bring it on!

Comment by Claire from Edinburgh, Scotland — July 21, 2007 @ 5:42 am

Just because we disagree doesn’t mean we take it as an attack on our nationalism.  Although I am certain you will dismiss this as my own rationalization, a lot of people just like this system. 

Regardless, no system is perfect.  They’re all going to have some horror stories.  To just build an argument, or a movie, around the extreme results of any system does nothing but mislead the audience.  The Cuban system is a horrific failure.  Well, let me restate that: it has failed Cuban citizens.  Tourists and the wealthy of the island have received some of the best medical care in the world.  “Sicko” does not reveal that because it only shows the best examples of that system.

Comment by Anthony from miami — July 25, 2007 @ 10:23 am

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?