Sicko the Movie Sicko (Michael

Sicko The movie Sicko (Michael Moore, 2007) is a documentary about the health care system in the Untied States and how it is failing the people who need it most. There is no surprise in that simple statement, for most people already see the health care system as in need of reform, and efforts to do so have been offered for some time, though not developed enough to make people believe that the reform can be achieved.

Moore thus plays off an already existing concern about high costs, poor insurance coverage, discrimination on the basis of economic status, and medical decisions being made not by doctors but by insurers more interested in saving money than in good health care. The film is shaped around the investigations of the filmmaker and around anecdotal evidence from people who hade been mistreated by the system, or at least who believe they have been.

There are a number of reasons to accept what is said in the film, and some reasons not to accept all that is said in the film. For many of the people interviewed, there is evidence that they are telling the truth and that they have been mistreated, usually by being denied procedures not for medical reasons but because an insurance company bureaucrat makes a ruling that is apparently based only on money and not on sound medical advice.

The way money plays a role is made most apparent in the story of the man who had to decide which finger to have reattached based on cost. Medical science has made great advances, but too often whether those advances are used at all is not based only on the need but on ability to pay. Insurance has long been offered as the way to assure that when a crisis occurs and a procedure is needed, there will be a way to pay for it.

What is seen too often is that the insurance company wants to limit payments for those who need them. The supposed ideal is that all people pay into a pool by buying insurance, and those in need take from that pool when they need to do so. The pool remains viable because most people do not need to take advantage of it, while they are paying to be able to take advantage of it when they need to do so.

Insurance companies have become huge corporations with stockholders who have to be served. Insurance companies pretend that they exist only to serve their customers, but in fact they more and more serve their stockholders and not their customers. Other stories of denial of service have much the same aura in this film.

At the same time, there is some reason to question these anecdotal tales not because they may not be true but because there is no certainty that they are really representative or that they may be only specific cases that might be belied by a more in-depth examination of the system as a whole. These particular people may have been failed by the system, but that does not mean the system fails all, or even the majority.

Every system has its failures and its bad cases, and while correcting these may need to be a priority, they do not necessarily prove that the system itself is corrupt and a failure. For any particular case, more information might be needed to assess the situation fully, as for the couple forced to move in with their children because insurance would not pay for their medical care. More information might show that there are other problems causing their situation, though this is not clear from the film.

An examination might also show that insurance has indeed failed to meet the expectations raised by the insurance system itself, which is the implication on first viewing. The filmmaker goes to other countries and shows how their systems work better and serve the needs of the citizenry to a greater degree.

This is convincing because of the way the people interviewed simply accept that their system works and have nothing bad to say about it in France and Canada in particular and how they seem surprised by the issues being raised with reference to the American system. Moore interviews both native people in each country and American ex-patriates who have a clear view of the differences between the two systems, which gives their statements about how much better they are treated under the foreign systems great weight.

At the same time, there are reasons to question many of these claims. It has long been argued that the Canadian system is not as good as believed, for instance, though the film suggests otherwise. The truth about the Canadian and British systems in particular is unclear because of contrasting claims, and a more through investigation of the economics involved is required to be sure that what is said in the film is correct.

This is true of the French system as well, though that system is not as well-known in the United States and does not feature in as many discussions of the issue. Moore meets with a group of Americans living in France, and while they seem to be clear about why they like the French system, an while it might seem that Moore just met them and asked them questions, what is not as clear is if that is the case or of they were selected for their views.

Moore finds almost no one who says anything other than that the U.S. system is out of whack and that some of these other systems are better. This documentary does not present an ongoing conversation about health care but a one-sided complaint about that system. Without hearing from the other side, the viewer is left with only one vision of the truth and no way to be sure that truth has not been shaped unfairly. This is also an issue with the trip to Cuba.

Moore travels by boat with a group of 9-11 caregivers who are ailing and in need of medical attention, attention the system has denied them. Choosing that particular group clearly weights the argument in favor of giving them all the medical help they need. Moore uses a bullhorn to ask that they be given the same medical care being given to detainees at Guantanamo, and using that group as a model also weights the argument in favor of the people in need.

That argument is acceptable, though, and can also be seen in the fact that members of congress have a health plan that is everything the public wants and is denied by laws passed by that same Congress. This fact alone shows a major hypocrisy in the system, and the fact that prisoners are treated better than citizens is not.