Not all Brits are happy with “Sicko”

"Sicko” recently had its grand opening in England, and I was expecting it to receive quite a fanfare. It seems, however, that a fair number of reviewers are only loving the first half of the movie… y’know, the part where Moore slams the American system. It’s when Moore shines his happy rose-colored light on the British system of health care that has many reviewers all riled up.

The review from the Scotsman starts off with a bang, furiously agreeing with an indicting the American health care system:

FORGET about Kurt Russell’s character in Death Proof, Michael Moore should rename himself Stuntman Mike. With his latest film, Sicko, America’s premiere left-wing polemicist solidifies his reputation as a consummate showman, pulling off some outlandish tricks and making damn sure he leaves us entertained. He may not put his life on the line, but in this examination of America’s healthcare system, he does do what no-one else has dared do on such a broad public platform: he stands up and asks why the wealthiest country in the world doesn’t have a system that provides basic care for the sick of any age, race, class or income level.

It’s a principle that’s so fundamentally sound that it’s impossible rationally to argue against it. Yet a lot of people in America do. The profit-hungry drug companies with their outlandish product mark-ups; the bureaucratic Health Maintenance Organisations (HMOs) responsible for so many insurance policies that fail the patients; the politicians dependent on campaign contributions from the industry - these are just a few of the key players who collectively have a stake in ensuring that the health of the nation doesn’t improve.

But, just as quickly, the review turns when it begins to discuss the second half of the film:

It’s too bad, then, that Moore undermines his own efforts with his excursions abroad to superficially compare and contrast the health systems of other nations with the US. With faux naïvete and specs heavily tinted with rose, he travels to Canada, France, the UK and Cuba to marvel at the utopian dream we’re all living courtesy of our super-duper free health service, which apparently costs us absolutely nothing, is run with clockwork efficiency, has no waiting lists and pays all its cheerful, definitely not-overworked doctors enough to have a flash car and a nice £500,000 home in the middle of London. It’s a land where MRSA doesn’t exist and where “who gets what treatment when” isn’t determined by inefficient hospital trusts that squander millions.

Sure, nobody could seriously want to trade the NHS for an American-style system (Tony Benn says in the film if that happened “there’d be revolution"), but it’s not helpful to suggest to US audiences that it costs nothing and works perfectly. More to the point, you may find yourself slightly peeved that your National Insurance contributions are also providing free emergency treatment for idiotic American Beatles’ fans who throw their back out while doing handstands on the Abbey Road zebra crossing.

The story Moore is telling is powerful and humanistic enough without such embarrassing deviations. If only the compassion he demonstrates for his fellow Americans was matched by an appreciation for their ability to grasp complex issues without all the parlour tricks, he might be on to something.

This article in The Telegraph also takes issue with Moore’s portrait of the British health care system, which it claims it is a state of complete calamity:

This weekend, the film Sicko — an indictment of US healthcare by the American polemicist Michael Moore — opens across Britain. In it, Mr Moore depicts our NHS somewhat simplistically as a haven of kindly efficiency. While his view is a reminder that there is much to be admired in the NHS, particularly by foreigners, it ignores the harsh fact that it is an organisation heavily funded by British taxpayers and frequently failing to provide proper care in return. Too often, wards are going uncleaned, and patients are neglected in the essential basics of washing and feeding. When a nurse of the stature of Justine Whitaker from Lancashire, named Nurse of the Year for her work in cancer care, resigns in despair because the constant burden of form-filling means that some days she doesn’t get to see a single patient, it is evidence of a system in serious trouble… Time and again, Government ministers have promised the public cleaner wards and greater one-to-one care, only to be rocked by yet more scandals. This is not simply a result of demand outstripping natural capability, but of systematic flaws in the operation of the NHS, compounded by fresh blunders. The money in the NHS is often squandered on lunatic Government initiatives, such as the botched rejigging of the junior doctors’ job application procedure, or the terrifyingly incompetent new contract for GPs that has now resulted in an average GP salary of £120,000 a year while permitting 90 per cent of GPs to opt out of providing care at evenings and weekends. These are disasters imposed from the top down, and paid for dearly from the bottom up. It is time that the Government did what it so often promises and so often fails to do, and really put the patient first.

So here’s my question of the day. If the British can clearly see that Moore’s depiction of their own health care system is biased, based on poor data and research and completely misleading… why can they not seem to grasp that Moore’s depiction of the US system might also be biased, based on poor data and research and completely misleading? How can anyone honestly think that Moore could get one half of his movie completely right and the other half completely wrong? How is it not apparent to these viewers and reviewers that if part of something is a deception that the rest of the the thing must also be construed as possibly being deceptive as well?

It boggles the mind, doesn’t it?