SiCKO

'America is certainly sicko'

Everyone knows Michael Moore. For better or worse, the self-aggrandizing master is the face of practically all liberal views and can possibly be attributed to the rise and resurgence in the recent popularity of good documentaries. Like Morgan Spurlock of Super Size Me fame, Moore makes a habit of inserting himself into his documentaries in an effort to add a humorous human element and to create a personal attachment between audience and material. Sure, hearing about people being shot in Vietnam was terrible, but it was nothing to seeing a soldier blow out the mind of a local villager on national television. By creating characters that are empathetic and the common American everyman, Moore thrives off of this empathy for these characters and their individual stories to emphasize his agenda and political views. Because his films do not even bother to take an impersonalized stance and feel sometimes a bit too muhc like propaganda, I have never forced myself to watch them. But after hearing that this film was not as bad as his previous films in terms of trying to make him look good and it touched upon the healthcare system which is one I have become increasingly worried about unlike many of peers, I decided I had to see it. So I did, with my in-laws, one whom is Democrat and the other Republican. And here's how it goes...

Sicko, the most recent film by Michael Moore focuses specifically on the power and clout of insurance companies and how corrupt the American system is for healthcare. The people chosen as examples are honestly very sad and angering examples of common people being destroyed by money-grubbing healthcare "professionals." I have no love for insurance companies as the job simply doesn't make sense. I pay someone a certain amount each year until something bad happens to me and then they will pay me back...what if I am unlucky? What if I suffer from some disease that makes me chronically ill or there is certain medication I constantly need? At what point does my medical health become dire enough to warrant pay back? What if the insurance goes broke and out of business? Obviously these are very simplified concerns, but it is possible to see that there are too many "ifs" involved and the next logical step as a businessman is to strip down and control the ifs into a manageable handfull and I'm sure to do it in a way that brings in more financial profitability for the company. One of these attempts to control the pay back of money is the commonly heard phrase in the movie of "the procedure is too experimental." I personally found great favor in seeing the one man who was told his daughter couldn't have the second cochlear implant write a letter to the CEO of his insurance asking them how they would like to be in Michael Moore's new movie and then having the CEO call him personally to let him know that the decision for not allowing the surgery had been reversed. That was humorous. Unfortunately, most of the personal experiences shared in this film are not of the happily ever after variety and proved one thing to me and my wife. Those who are insured are not much better off than those who aren't except that they at least have the right to apply for the money needed. I'm sure not all people get dicked around as much as Moore points out and that insurance does pay for most of its people, but the fact that certain people who worked in the industry have a certain quota of people to deny and there are jobs for those who will try everything to take the money back from people after it has been given to them is a shame. I only write this because most of the people checking Moore's facts in this film have had to say that most of the facts are correct.

However, they don't have to say that other countries are as great as he paints them. Although it was a great thing to see all of the people getting the help they needed in Cuba, I found it amusing that in terms of healthcare, Cuba was listed 39th on the list that Moore showed, just two behind U.S.A. Although I have heard great things about the French and the English healthcare, and this film does avidly attack the perception that under a socialized healthcare system doctors wouldn't get paid enough and people wouldn't get the same level of care by showing that people now don't get anywhere near the same level of care and only the super rich get better care than anyone else, I do think that his inability to find fault at all is slightly annoying. He never asked why the English have terrible teeth for instance. I hear its because there simply aren't enough dentists but is that because the social healthcare system doesn't pay as much for dentists because they consider it a superficial need? These are not addressed of course. However, after watching the film, there is no denying that America is paying way too much for medicine. I was disheartened by the amount it would cost for me to get the same drugs for my cholesterol in the other countries than it takes here. Also, Moore insinuates that doctors are really just trying to get as much out of their money as they can in America and are to blame for the jacked prices. He ignores the fact that doctor offices have to pay so much for all of their assistants. Big offices require more money for equipment, workers, nurses, receptionists, property taxes, clearinghouse fees, billing software, etc. Moore also doesn't mention that in a lot of the poorer neighborhoods, the doctors tend to have trouble collecting. Hell, in nice neighborhoods people have trouble collecting from their patients to pay for these things. Doctors figure in the amount of the loss they will receive for that year and incorporate that into their pricing because they don't have time to go and forcefully collect on their fees. Tons of doctor are going out of business and the most profitable positions these days are shrinks. Moore discusses NONE of these issues and concerns that help to provoke and sustain the current predicament.

Also, and this is where most people jump in, many wish Moore had not inserted himself after the first half. He takes the viewer on a journey as if he were Michael Palin exploring a far off distant country. It's great because everything seems to be so linearly explained and makes sense because we are seeing everything from Moore's point of view, which then means we tend to lose perspective. What's great though is that in the first part of the film without Moore to guide us, we were comparing the stories of the scarred to ourselves and creating our own point of view. Also, with Moore came his grandstanding and "look at me! look at me!" tactics. While slightly humorous, i felt bad watching the people on the boat when they went to Gitmo. Moore knew they would have no intention of letting them in, a boat full of supposed NY heroes off the coast of Florida outside one of the most well-known terrorist detainee camps since forever. Why does Moore put the N.Y. people through this? If he wanted to portray himself in a truly great light, he would simply take them to the hospital and never have wasted his time at Gitmo. Also, he had no reason, none at all, to show what he did for the poor guy whose wife almost died and ran the biggest Michael Moore hate blog. It was amusing but also childish. Now he will know who the anonymous man is and you have rubbed his ego in his face and flaunted it for the world to see. No good can come of this.

Conclusion:
While I have decided I don't like Michael Moore as a person, I do think he makes a fairly well artuculated case against the Healthcare system. I agree that the medicine is overpriced, and hell I have always liked the idea of a socialized system and this answered a few concerns and questions I had about it. It also opened my eyes more to the blatant cruelty and systematic profiteering of the insurance companies. I was glad to have seen the film. It is a great starting place, and nothing more, for a good discussion followed by a huge movement to change our healthcare. Something is wrong with it and instead of jumping to conclusions, something needs to be done about it and it should be decided by a good debate, a very public debate, so that hopefully no matter of bribing and stupidity can keep the Hill from ignoring it. Hillary lost my vote for sure after this, so God help the Democrats if they choose her as their candidate. For more points of view, the Democrat in-law said he was glad to see it because it only confirmed what he knew already but that he disliked Moore and thought it had some flaws and needed perspective. The Republican in-law found in interesting and thought it was well done and brought up several good points, but also hated Moore and thought it was a good starting point for the public discussion. In the end, no one I know enjoys Moore and here is his greatest weakness. Yes, he is amusing and can add a human element, but by putting himself into all of his films he defeats them with his arrogant and snobbish behavior and grandstanding. I'm afraid that by putting his face on all his ideas and thoughts which are fairly liberal, he is creating more conservatives simply because people do not like him as a person. He's a good filmmaker and rabble rouser and will probably be known in the history of film and possibly America for the controversy he has aroused, but he will lose everytime if he keeps making films that inextricably tie him to the source material.

4.2 out of 5

Wannabe