Whatsoever we do to the least of our brothers...
Written: Jul 03 '07
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Bang For The Buck |
 |
|
|
Pros: A powerful, moving film showing the worst of the U.S. healthcare system.
Cons: Fails to make an effective general argument.
The Bottom Line: A film with a lot of strengths, but an ineffective attempt at making a general argument about what is wrong with the American healthcare system.
|
|
|
| Bloody_Mary's Full Review: Sicko |
Most of the negative reviews about Michael Moore’s film Sicko have rambled on at length about how biased it is, and about how his film-making is shaped by his strong left-wing orientation. I think at this point saying that Moore has a liberal bias is kind of like saying that cigarettes are dangerous—it really shouldn’t be surprising any more. He does not provide a “fair and balanced” perspective on all sides of a debate. Some people think that documentary film-makers should do this; Moore is not one of those people. He is a commentator or a critic, not a journalist. So to criticize Moore’s films for exhibiting liberal bias is a bit like criticizing poo for smelling bad—true, but not very interesting.
What Moore does is use film to make an argument. And so I think the most appropriate way to critique Moore’s films is to ask whether or not they make their arguments effectively.
The thesis of Sicko is that there are problems with the health care system in America that stem from its control by insurance companies, and that would be fixed by socializing medicine. Moore’s main approach to supporting his thesis involves interviewing a number of people who are unhappy with the healthcare system in the U.S., and a few people who are happy with the healthcare systems in Canada, England and France. In other words, he relies almost entirely on anecdotal evidence from a small, and certainly not randomly chosen, sample of the populations of four countries.
Now as a person with a scientific bent, I do not find this a particularly compelling approach to making an argument. There is a reason that, for example, testing of pharmaceuticals is not done using an anecdotal approach. Say for example Bob is diagnosed with cancer. He takes drug X. He says it makes him feel better. Does drug X get FDA approval for treating cancer? Of course not, because this finding can be overturned with a single case of someone who says that it makes them feel less well. Anecdotal arguments are not very convincing because they are easily over-turned. And the Moore-haters are lining up many, many examples of people who are happy with the healthcare system in the U.S., and unhappy with the healthcare systems in Canada, England, and France. Such examples are just as effective at refuting the general point as Moore is at proving it--not very.
Moore also undertakes an experiment. He transports some of the people he interviews in the film to Cuba to see if they could get better treatment there. They do. The problem with this experiment is that it is impossible to know whether or not the presence of the film crew affected how they were treated. Moore apparently asked that the patients be treated just like Cubans would be. But in a documentary how do you test whether or not they were, without having the cameras there? One could, I suppose, send in an American with a hidden camera as a “control”. Moore does not do this. He doesn’t even rely on anecdotal evidence in this case—we aren’t treated to a bunch of average Cubans rhapsodizing about the quality of their healthcare.
So I did not find Moore’s approach to making a general point about the American healthcare system particularly compelling. However, I would say that this movie does demonstrate that there is a problem with the healthcare system in the U.S.A., in spite of these criticisms.
What Moore does very successfully is show us the worst of the healthcare system in the U.S. In my world view some of the things that are documented in the film should never happen in a country as rich as the United States. People should never lose their home because they can’t afford to pay their medical bills. A person should never be dumped on the sidewalk in front of a homeless shelter before they have finished healing from a major trauma. And volunteer workers from 911 should never have to suffer without care for illnesses incurred from their heroic efforts in New York. This is not a point about socialized medicine, or about the quality of healthcare in other countries. It doesn’t matter if similar stories can be found in Canada, France, or England. They would not refute the fact that such crimes against humanity should never happen, and are happening in the United States of America. Moore’s ultimate point about fixing the healthcare system is correct—until Americans feel a sense of personal horror at such examples, until they feel some sense of obligation to the least of their brothers, nothing is going to change.
I found watching Moore’s film a powerful, moving experience, and think it should be a call to arms to Americans to start trying to fix the problems with their healthcare system. Unfortunately, because the film fails to make an effective general argument, I fear that its message will get lost in a barrage of counter-examples, and complaints about his politics.
Recommended:
Yes
Movie Mood: Serious Movie
Viewing Method: Other
Film Completeness: Looked complete to me.
Worst Part of this Film: Nothing
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
Bloody_Mary
|
|
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Reviews written: 26
Trusted by: 6 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.