Faithful readers of Lingual Tremors know that I was recently in PA visiting the parental units over the Fourth of July. In deciding our plans for the 4th, my mom and I were debating patriotism. In our conversation, she was discussing how she is proud of her American heritage and roots, but disgusted by the current government; I was arguing that nationality by birth isn't enough for me. And so she asked the question I always dread when we have this conversation: "Where would you rather live?" After seeing Sicko today, my answer is: "France, the U.K. or Canada."
I know I'm over a week late on this review--but Sicko wasn't playing in our part of Pennsylvania. Much to my surprise upon returning to New York City, it isn't playing in many theaters here either. I live in New York freakin' city, people! How is it that Sicko is only playing in a handful of theaters? How is it that only a week after its release, we saw the film in a theater not even 1/4 filled?
I think this has to do with American attitudes towards health care: we all know the system is broken, but no one can see a clear way towards fixing it. Current pinata-boy for the Democrats, Joe Biden, said in a town hall-style presentation in Iowa this weekend that you can't move the system from "this" to "this" (Absent visual: moving his fingers from the right to the left) immediately. And so the "answer" is an apathetic, depressive, do nothing. (Or, if you're a Democratic candidate, unveil a plan that isn't entirely clear or, if you're a Republican candidate, practice the phrase "health care? What's the problem?"). So, Sicko isn't on top of people's agenda in quite the same way that Fahrenheit 9/11 was. What a shame, because Sicko is a better film: it's better researched, better argued, and better filmed. All of the reliable Mooreisms are there--his wry and sardonic narrative, his outrageous stunts (taking 9/11 workers to Cuba for health care?), his real connection to the people he interviews, and his excellent researching of the stories we too often don't hear--but this film goes even farther by really delving into the problem.
In short, Moore has hit it on the head again. Do whatever you need to do to see this film. Convince others to see this film. Early bad reviews have centered on Moore's one-sided presentation of HMOs and the for-profit insurance industry. Early good reviews have focused on Moore's targeted critique of the problems in American health care.
Moore's film is, indeed, entirely one-sided. In freshman composition, we call that an argument-driven thesis. Moore's point? The U.S. needs universal health care because the U.S. has become a country driven by greed where working hard and believing in the American dream is not enough to get by (my own argument-driven thesis would question whether this was ever truly the case). Moore's point? Health care is a right, not a privilege and other countries do it better; so, why not do it better?
Moore debunks the most common myths about socialized or national health care by visiting France, the U.K. and Canada to see the facilities and interview patients and doctors. Among the small audience we saw Sicko with, the cheers and groans were evident as Moore moved through what seemed like the luxuries of the health care systems in those countries. Nannies that do laundry (state funded in France?), birthing clinics that are the size of my apartment in New York (England), inhalers that cost .5 cents (Cuba)... [Full disclosure: fully insured in the U.S., I am currently waiting over a month to see a breast surgeon for a biopsy... so I'm not particularly interested in critiques of the Canadian or British system where people wait (gasp!) over a month to see a specialist.].
Moore also includes his signature vignettes. As always, I love how he gets people to open up to him about difficult, embarrassing, and heart-breaking stuff. However, in Sicko, in some ways, this was both the most interesting and most disappointing part of the film. Moore doesn't focus on Americans without health care; he focuses on those with health care that is sub-standard because the insurance industry is profit-driven. The stories are heart-breaking and awful. Each one is more horrific than the next. The one that was most affective to me: hospitals dumping patients without insurance in front of a free clinic in L.A.
Part of Moore's iconic approach to film-making relies on making abstract ideas like "health care" real. I'm sure that I wasn't alone in wanting to send money to the people Moore highlighted in his film. But, just like giving money to the homeless on the NYC subway won't end homelessness or hunger, giving money to people facing medical debt won't solve the medical crisis in this country. Moreover, these stories don't address the true iniquities in the U.S. system. How typical are they of medical-insurance nightmares faced in the U.S.? What about those without any health care? In some ways, I think Moore's comparison on national health care systems versus private industry insurance would have been even more effective if it had focused on how those without health care would receive health care in other countries. Moreover, I think it would have made a better argument to show how "typical" the stories he presented were. It's too easy for Moore-critics to say that the stories he presented were "atypical." So, his argument could have been strengthened by showing how typical these stories are.
Moore also begins his campaign for the 2008 Presidential election. Hillary Clinton takes it on the chin for taking money from the health care industry. Moore does an excellent job of identifying the ways in which governmental intervention in health care has been compromised. See a complete list of candidates and contributions from the health care industry/Big Pharma here.
Another great part of the film is his interview with Tony Benn, a former member of Britain's Parliament. Benn provides insight after insight about both the kind of responsibility the government should have to its people--"if we have the money to kill, we've got the money to help people"--and his ideas about how democracy should work. Benn believes that in the U.K. (and in Europe), "the politicians are afraid of the people" and so the people get what they want. He suggests that the dismantling of the National Health System in the U.K. would cause a revolution.
Which brings me back to the point I began with. Sicko should be enough to start a revolution in the U.S. People should be outraged; this isn't about political affiliation: this isn't about political rhetoric; this is about human lives. This is about social justice. This is about living in a country that truly believes all of its citizens are equal and showing that by the way it treats its people. Don't we all have the right to expect good health care? Why should insurance companies profit from your illness or death? Where do you want to live? What dream do you want to fight for? A system where people are treated equally or a system where the least and last are dumped on a dirty L.A. street in hospital gowns without a hope in the world?
As always, Moore goes beyond the critique. Here's his plan for fixing health care in the U.S.:
I couldn't agree more. Let's start a revolution.
Read On:
Action Steps:
The deluxe beads come in aqua, mauve and copper. The regular ones are brown and white. You count the beads to keep track of your cycle. Of course you recognize this as the rhythm method (and feminists everywhere scream danger! danger!). However, it's been updated by researchers at Georgetown University's Institute for Reproductive Health. (I will remind you that Georgetown is a Catholic, Jesuit institution, so their institute for reproductive health focuses on research that supports Catholic doctrine).
Recent Comments