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?
Comments
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?
‘Cause folks see what they want to see and disregard the rest.
It’s almost sad that the reviewers can’t seem to grasp that maybe they’re being duped about the eeevil horrible US system. The first article claims that moore is so fundamentally sound in principle that it’s impossible to argue against moore’s claims. It’s as if principle is enough to win the debate, never mind that facts might help tell the whole and true story. And then when it comes time for the writer to dissect moore’s falsehoods regarding the NHS, he’s suddenly outed as someone without principles.
It’s almost like the reverse of “The Grass is Always Greener.” Their system is bad, but it COULDN’T be as bad as ours is, especially when you consider how much we pay for it. That could be their line of thinking. But I’m not British, so I don’t really know.
I am British and I do know about the state of the NHS, my partner is a nurse at St James hospital in Leeds, my son was born in an NHS hospital, my step father was treated for pancreatic cancer in an NHS hospital and my uncle is currently at an NHS hospital recovering from complications concerning his diabetes.
Now, I am no Moore fan, war profiteer sounds about right (see past forums etc) and the NHS is certainly not perfect. But, the treatment my family has received was/is excellent, on my partner’s ward there is a wall with literally hundreds of thank you cards from previous patients and families.
On the flipside to this my partner cares for 3 patients who have MRSA, my grandmother was misdiagnosed and as a result passed away much quicker than she should have done and doctors pay rises have been scandalous leaving wards critically understaffed.
On a recent trip to Florida my friend had to take her son to a Hospital and before they would treat him she had to confirm her travel insurance valid, after being unable to reach her broker ( a major UK bank)she had to use her credit card for payment.
I pay approx 50% of my £35000 ($70000) salary in Tax and I have never used a hospital myself, I have not visited a GP in years. Despite the problems the NHS currently faces, the lack of NHS dentists and the fact the current government seems to be wasting my money I fully support the NHS, it is a good organisation and doesn’t deserve the press it gets.
Blame the politicians for making it into a bargaining tool and the greedy corporations lobbying for privatisation.
Donna, I boradly agree with you, although I would say that through seeing the discussions on this board in particular, the fact that your healthcare system is broken doesn’t seem to be in doubt does it? I have heard people say may times that they agree that something has to be done, simply that socialised medicine isn’t the way.
So in this sense, the article is agreeing with you. Part one of the film demonstrates the problems with the US healthcare system. We agree with this. The second half of the film says that Universal healthcare is the answer - we don’t agree with this. He makes a good point, but doesn’t offer an adequate solution.
Oh, and no comment on Giuliani lying about cancer survival rates in the UK on a campaign ad?
So in this sense, the article is agreeing with you. Part one of the film demonstrates the problems with the US healthcare system. We agree with this.
ilovecress, With all due respect, and I do respect your opinion, we might have to disagree with the premise that Moore demonstrated the problems with our health care system. What Moore was trying to do is make a case that health insurance companies routinely deny treatment for services. He did not make a case for that. In fact, he had to go out of his way to dig up cases from decades past to give the impression it’s a common occurance.
Example 1: Moore gives the impression that a little girl was denied treatment by her health insurance company and that denial led to her death. What Moore didn’t tell you was that the California Supreme Court ruled it was a case of medical malpractice, mostly due to the failure to properly treat the girl at a government run emergency room. Moore left that out too.
Example 2: Moore leads his audience to believe a man died of kidney cancer because of insurance denial. The man had been treated for months and months with no success. As a last ditch effort his doctor wanted to try an experimental treatment that would have cost over 200,000 bucks with almost no chance of success. Very few, if any, health care systems in the world routinely allow experimental treatments as most of them turn out to be next to worthless. That’s just a fact of life.
Example 3: Moore does the same thing allowing Linda Peeno to distort the reality of a denial that occurred back in the 80’s. She and Moore make a big deal of a man who was denied a heart transplant back when the treatment was experimental. Even our socialized Medicare system was denying that same treatment only a few months before. And keep in mind that even today around 80 to 90% of the folks who need heart transplants don’t get them because of a lack of donors. And back in the 80’s the success rate was almost nil until certain drugs were developed to surpress the immune system from rejecting the heart.
This is the nonsense on which Moore based his case for “denials”. The fact is the final say in any denial is regulated by state governments in this country, not by the insurance company. How convenient that little tidbit wasn’t mentioned in “Sicko”.
So what are some of the problems we really do have?
1. Not everyone has health insurance. (That doesn’t mean denial of treatment.)
2. Health insurance costs are extremely high.
3. The costs of health care is extrememly high.
4. HMO’s are bureaucracies that people have to deal with (as if governments are any different).
5. You need a Philadelphia lawyer to explain your health insurance policy.
6. If a person changes jobs, they must change their insurance company. This may mean some pre-existing conditions are no longer covered.
And remember, when people say our health care system is “broken”, only one part of it is really broken . . . our socialized Medicare system which we cannot afford. For the most part, the people who can get private insurance get good care. Moore would screw that up if he could.
One other point that is very important here . . . In “Sicko”, Moore is making a case for socialism, not just socialized medicine. He still lives in the fantasy world of his youth where there’s a bottomless pit of money for every cause under the sun and a perfect fairness for every mother’s son and daughter. That’s why his arguments are always based on his idea of morality, and not on facts.
ilovecress, here’s an anecdotal story of how broken our healthcare system is:
This weekend I had to take my wife to the emergency room because of abdominal pains. We gave them our name, address and phone number. 5 minutes later she was in with a doctor to discuss the symptoms. 15 minutes later she got the first of three tests, and 2 hours later (well after the last test) she was asked for insurance information. NOT A WORD before that about how we were going to pay. NOT. ONE. WORD.
oops, I suppose I should clarify—we did not go to one of the county (government-run) hospitals. Which undoubtedly explains the excellent treatment we received.
On a recent trip to Florida my friend had to take her son to a Hospital and before they would treat him she had to confirm her travel insurance valid, after being unable to reach her broker ( a major UK bank)she had to use her credit card for payment.
Nope, calling BS on this!
Englishbob
I pay approx 50% of my £35000 ($70000) salary in Tax and I have never used a hospital myself, I have not visited a GP in years.
And yet your country is going broke trying to keep the NHS afloat. No thank you…
I pay approx 50% of my £35000 ($70000) salary in Tax and I have never used a hospital myself, I have not visited a GP in years.
Well, that means you’re half way there to the perfect society.
On a recent trip to Florida my friend had to take her son to a Hospital and before they would treat him she had to confirm her travel insurance valid, after being unable to reach her broker ( a major UK bank)she had to use her credit card for payment.
Just under a year ago, my gf was visiting from Australia, where she’s a citizen. Due to some health issues she was having, she needed to go to the doctor. Since it was a weekend, we got sent from the doctor’s office to the nearby hospital emergency room to get some of the tests done.
Getting the tests took a few hours, but the issues of paying didn’t get sorted out till after and was taken care of by travel insurance.
Though, my gf also really disliked the care she got compared to care in Australia, so I’ll add that bit in.
Buzz - fair enough. My point was only that the review was saying that part one of the film was saying that there was a problem, and part two of the film was suggesting the alternative. It’s the alternative that sucks.
Bismark - I can bore you with anecdotal evidence of my brilliant healthcare stories too - doesn’t mean our system isn’t f*cked. And I didn’t have to pay for mine on the day. And I didn’t get MRSA. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove anything and is lazy.
Englishbob, if you’re paying 50% tax you’re getting fucked mate. For £35 grand it should be more like 30% (which is still high. )
Anyway, I’ll shut the fuck up now, I haven’t even bothered to see the film!! - i just miss the debate around here - whys it gone so quiet??
Buzz - fair enough. My point was only that the review was saying that part one of the film was saying that there was a problem,
Except that it is bullshit. What Moore is doing is pretty much equivalent to saying that racism in the US is a major problem today and then the evidence he is providing as proof is primarily coming from before the 1960’s. And then even a lot of that information is being twisted around. Would you say that if Moore were to do that he’d be demonstrating that racism is a major problem today?
i just miss the debate around here - whys it gone so quiet??
I think even most of the trolls have abandoned Moore on this one. Had Moore worn his Che T-shirt in “Sicko” he might have garnered more support from them.
One other point ilovecress . . . IMO there is a problem in the HMO/Physician relationship. HMO’s may have crossed the line in some respects when it comes to interference into the actual practice of medicine. I think even most HMO would agree with that, so there needs to be some changes in that relationship.
All things considered though, I really think Moore made a buffoon of himself in “Sicko”, and I think more and more people are beginning to understand his M.O. This article is an example of that.
ilovecress --
Anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove anything and is lazy.
While I admire your self-righteousness, I could use that statement on roughly 50% of Sicko. Methinks if you’d seen the movie you would be less willing to make such a comment.
Anecdotal evidence doesn’t prove anything and is lazy
True. Sadly, statistical evidence isn’t really that much more useful most of the time.
In fact, statistical evidence is in some ways worse, because it sounds so authoritative, even though it frequently turns out to be mistaken or misleading. Check the NYT article posted on on this web site today.
On Florida – Chas, first of all on the Florida thing, she says it’s totally true, but I wasn’t there.
On tax – ilovecress, I know its approx 30% (goes up to 40%, plus National Insurance, on anything over £34600) but when you include council tax, road tax, fuel tax, VAT etc it is creeping up to the 50% mark.
On evidence - My tutors at Uni said the same thing anecdotal evidence is lazy; a million different people could have a million different stories. In the same instance you can pick two academic journals papers in the same volume of work that ‘conclusively’ disprove one another. So where does that leave the idea of objective evidence? Forums are the ideal place to band about anecdotes.
On socialism - I’m uncomfortable with people labelling British people socialists, especially Moore. This is a very out of date ideal, the notion underpinning the NHS is that everyone should have access to proper medical care should they need it. I agree with it, there may be a better way to go about it and I am certainly not the person to provide an alternative, but in principle it is a good thing. This does not mean I am a socialist but there are certain things that shouldn’t be politicised or castigated and universal healthcare is one of them.
On Sicko – haven’t seen it yet so can’t comment directly, not gonna until I do so for free, not lining Moore’s pockets any er, more.
While I admire your self-righteousness, I could use that statement on roughly 50% of Sicko. Methinks if you’d seen the movie you would be less willing to make such a comment.
Thanks for the back handed compliment. I admire your sense of humour, as I’m sure you’re being deliberately ironic with that statement? Anecdotal evidence sucks, and uses emotional arguments to more easily claim something that isn’t true. Thats why Moore uses anecdotal evidence?
I have two friends who had lousy healthcare in America. Does that trump your example? No, of course it doesn’t.
It’s one of my pet peeves on this site - decrying Moore for his cherry picking of anecdotal evidence in one thread, then ‘proving’ that gun control/NHS doesn’t work by doing the exact same thing in the next post.
EnglishBob, you raise a good point - can anyone point me towards some figures on how much Europeans pay in taxes compared to the Americans?
It’s one of my pet peeves on this site - decrying Moore for his cherry picking of anecdotal evidence in one thread, then ‘proving’ that gun control/NHS doesn’t work by doing the exact same thing in the next post.
Why is the concept behind this so difficult for you to comprehend? Is it because to understand it you actually need to be able to think?
If I can take Moore’s method and use it against him then I score a double whammy. I first demonstrate that his argument is invalid because its been countered. I also demonstrate that his method is invalid because I have just used it against him. Its a double hit. Proving the worthlessness of his argument on two fronts.
If the goal was a full discussion, with all information it would be different. But this isn’t Gun Control Central or Medical Watch. This is Moorewatch, and if something Moore has stated can be completely rendered pointless with a minimal effort, why shouldn’t it be done? Just because a simpleton like you can’t grasp it?
Buzzion - f*ck off with the AdHoms mate.
If I can take Moore’s method and use it against him then I score a double whammy. I first demonstrate that his argument is invalid because its been countered. I also demonstrate that his method is invalid because I have just used it against him. Its a double hit. Proving the worthlessness of his argument on two fronts.
This doesn’t actually follow Buzz. IF Moores method is doesn’t prove anything, then you can’t actually use it against him. So you don’t prove him wrong on the first count.
And by using his method as a means to ‘prove’ your argument, and claiming your side of the discussion as rightly proved, you have just demonstrated that it is a legitimate method of arguing. So you don’t get him on that front.
Its the intellectual equivalent of saying “I know you are, but what am I?”
Let me try again.
Moore: “I have an account by a poor white trash lesbian black Flint single mother who says US healthcare is non existent! We need a communist state to sort it out!!”
Buzzion “an account by a poor white trash Flint lesbian black single mother doesn’t prove anything you mooreon!”
Moore “Oh.”
Buzzion “Anyway, I have an account by a poor white trash Flint lesbian black singel mother who says US healthcare is awesome! Market Forces baby!!”
Moore “I thought you just an account by a poor white trash Flint lesbian black single mother doesn’t prove anything?”
Buzzion “um......I know you are, but what am I?!!!”
Next you’ll be falsifying newspaper headlines and stop cutting film footage of Moore speaking in order to prove him wrong!! Can you not see the irony???
Sorry, but I’m attacking you as a moron, and attacking what you are saying as moronic. I am not discounting what you are saying simply because you’re a moron.
And by using his method as a means to ‘prove’ your argument, and claiming your side of the discussion as rightly proved, you have just demonstrated that it is a legitimate method of arguing. So you don’t get him on that front.
Its not a means of proving my argument. Its a means of disproving his argument. The tactic he has used has been used against him. See what you then go to do is prove your idiocy is to ignore part of what I said and then act like its exactly the opposite.
If the goal was a full discussion, with all information it would be different.
The goal here is not full discussion. It is to take down Moore. Your pathetic little quote doesn’t do that at all. But if all I’m doing is proving moore as dishonest and his tactics as pretty worthless then I can just take those and turn them right back on him. Moore takes a cherrypicked piece of information claiming it is proof of his beliefs. I take a piece of information demonstrating the exact opposite. I can then point out that what he has done does not prove his beliefs. And that is the only goal. I’m not going to use that as evidence to support my beliefs. Like I said you would actually need to be able to think. You can’t.
Next you’ll be falsifying newspaper headlines and stop cutting film footage of Moore speaking in order to prove him wrong!! Can you not see the irony???
You really are a simpleton. I thought we were talking about the cherry picking of information. You’re shifting the goalposts
ilovecress, I agree that anecdotal evidence isn’t quantitative but, seriously, why is it so wrong to use Moore’s tactics against him? (Here I’m giving you the benefit of a doubt that Moore’s evidence is quantitative, even though that requires a suspension of disbelief.) I think our major difference here is that you say our system is “fucked,” even though there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. Messed up? Yes. Needs some correction? Yes. “Fucked?” Puhleeze.
I shouldn’t have to subsidize other people’s unhealthy lifestyles. When the government takes over paying for health care, they will want to tell me what to eat, what to drink, how much to exercise, how to cross the street, and a host of other things that might have something to do with my health. They’ll create a huge, bloated, tangled bureaucracy with lots of numbered forms of varying hues, and then they’ll take even more of my money than they do now. That way, I won’t be able to afford gas because of the exorbitant fuel tax, and I’ll lose my job, so I can then get some of that money back that the government has been stealing from me. That is, if I fill out a bunch of numbered forms of varying hues.
Forget Michael Moore. It’s Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi who scare me.
I think our major difference here is that you say our system is “fucked,” even though there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. Messed up? Yes. Needs some correction? Yes. “Fucked?” Puhleeze.
Bismarck - apologies, blame it on the cockney. Fucked is too strong a word, and one I use too often. I’d say that there are issues that need to be fixed though. (actually, I don’t think I actually said your system was fucked, I said broken..)
About the anecdotal evidence thing - (and possibly this should be the last word on the subject outside the forums because it is off topic) I don’t think it’s ‘wrong’ to use his tactic against him, just that it’s not really effective, and means that we just go round in circle on sites like this. Moore gives us a horror story about US healthcare, you give us a good one, so someone comes back with a bad one, and so on. In my opinion, it doesn’t really prove or disprove anything about Moore.
What gets my goat, and I was referring to is the fact that we decry Moores use of cherry picked anecdotal evidence, then the next couple of posts will be cherry picked anecdotal evidence of a NHS horror story, or a fatal shooting to make the point that socialised medicine doesn’t work or that UK gun laws are counterproductive.
See the post “Get me outta here!” - “If we had a Candian-style system in this country, Belinda Stronach might be dead”
See the post “Canadian mother flown to US for birth. Why? No room in Canada.”
See the post “Go Home and Die… For Free!”
And my favourite - Armed and Hoserous, where finding a canadian kid with some guns in his room proves that gun control is a complete failure.
And by the way
While I admire your self-righteousness, I could use that statement on roughly 50% of Sicko. Methinks if you’d seen the movie you would be less willing to make such a comment.
Exactly why I haven’t watched Sicko. If I wanted to watch a fictional account of the US healthcare system I’d buy the new scrubs box set. Don’t assume I’m a ‘mooreon’
PS - tried to email this to jim, but it bounced. If you really want to get your knickers in a twis check these out from a left wing labour shitrag and here
RSS (Subscribe)
Not really. Quite simple actually. Their experiences tell them that their NHS is not what Moore makes it out to be. But the KNOW that the US healthcare is horrible. They know that it must be a fact and Moore confirms it for them. Its just a shame he didn’t do the same for their system.