I just got a change to see Sicko today. Being a Canadian who does believe in universal health care, i did want to see Michael Moore’s spin on things. I’ve seen both Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911, both of which I watched with caution as to not digest all the information as fact.

As a filmmaker myself, my main point of contention against Moore’s film is his lack of respect for the true documentary. A documentarian need never be in his or her documentary only because they are trying to document what is happening in the world around them as it is, without opinion or bias clouding the view. Documentaries are still obviously visual filmmaking essays to prove a point, but the thesis is only as strong as the supporting arguments, and the supporting arguments must be presented in a clear, unfettered manner with which the viewer can digest on their own, and form their own opinion from. Michael Moore clearly does not do this, Often manufacturing his own instances for the sake of entertainment, and appears in his own films, introducing a bias that need not be there. It’s the equivalent of saying “I feel” in a thesis paper - it’s bad form and only works against your point.

I guess I’m sending an email along to both of you mainly because while I am particularly anti-bush, and pro universal health-care (thus agreeing with Moore’s views), I do not approve of his methods. I went to your site after watching Sicko mainly to find the main points of contention that were in this particular film, because I did sense an over dramatised and somewhat clouded view of the facts being presented. I wanted to thank you for providing the rebuttal in a clear fashion for me to also digest, because as with many views, I find myself somewhere in the middle, questioning both sides.  I went into
the film aware there were questionable practices being presented in the film, but decided to not find out what the were afterwards, so as to not let anothers opinion bias what I thought of moore’s
presentation. Anyways, I like what you guys are doing and I think it’s important to display the facts for people to digest, as long as you do so with journalistic integrity. I hope that the hate audience that you have doesn’t give you too hard a time.

Thanks, unnamed documentary film maker!  I really liked this email because it shows that we can fundamentally disagree on the core issue - universal health care - but agree that no matter how you feel, you have to be fair and honest when talking about it.  This person and I agree completely about what a documentary should be, and about Moore’s infotainmentarian style.

Hey, did I just coin that word? I think I did.  Sweetness.  Infotainmentarian.  Infotainmentary.  Michael Moore makes infotainmentaries.  It;s a hell of a mouthful, but pretty accurate.

Anyway, loved the feedback, and I especially love the part where they said they were “somewhere in the middle, questioning both sides.” I’ve tried to be there myself.  This person leans toward some form of universal health care, and I lean toward truly reforming the system without adding government control and another giant agency to an already bloated, federally-controlled system of government.  The thing is, we’re both asking questions of both sides in this debate, and I think that;s the way it should be.

Blindly accepting that the current system is perfect, or that single-payer is the only answer is just...lazy.

Update from Lee: There are two separate issues here.  Moore’s trick is he presents them as one.

There are major, major problems with the healthcare industry in this country.  Moore has done all of us a service by, at the very least, creating a point around which a discussion can take place.  Where he pulls his usual deceptive stunt is in showing the problem, then showing one of many possible solutions and presenting it as the only possible solution.  And, not only is it the only possible solution, but there isn’t a single downside to implementing it.

Think about it.  Even the biggest proponent of single-payer healthcare will, if they are honest, admit that there are substantial downsides to that program.  Can you remember a single downside presented by Moore?  I can’t.  I mean, look at the segment he did in France.  As I was watching Sicko the other day, particularly the scenes set in France, a scene from The Simpsons popped in my head.  It was the episode where Homer ran for city trash collector.  In a debate with the incumbent, Ray Patterson, Homer promises that, if elected, he’ll hire more men to provide every last service the people could want.  Patterson tries to tell them this is impossible and unworkable.  Here’s the debate scene.

Now, as you watch the musical number, think of the scene with the doctors making housecalls.

Of course, the episode ends up with Homer bankrupting the sanitation department.  A parable for socialism and its promises?  Oh yes, indeed.  See, what Moore shows you is a snapshot of all the free goodies that you get in France now.  What he has no way of showing you is the cuts in social spending that are going to be required in France, so that in 20 years much of what we see there now simply will not be available.  Just a few weeks ago there was an election in France between a the Socialist Royale (promising more goodies and less work) and the center-right Sarkozy, promising to cut back government freebies.  Moore conveniently neglects to tell you that Sarkozy won handily.  Why, if the French have the government bending over backwards to provide for their every need, would they vote for Sarkozy?

Simple. Their system cannot last forever.  It might look great now, but like all socialist utopias they only last a short time.  And Moore isn’t honest enough to admit that.

So, we all admit there’s a problem.  But he only shows one solution, and doesn’t even admit that there’s a downside to it.