Michael Moore's latest film documents the atrocities purportedly committed by our managed health care system and contrasts America's privatized health care models against those of other countries, where health care is socialized. Needless to say, this film has been making waves in the health community and has left people alternately scratching their heads and pointing their fingers.
But what is the counter-argument? Can America's health care system really answer for this list of misdeeds?
You decide. See the movie and do your research, starting with the brief summaries here. Remember, pre-med applicants and future health care professionals; schools have a tendency to ask interview questions around hot-button issues such as these, so be prepared!
Michael Moore/Filmmaker-Activist says...
This is a film synopsis taken from Michael Moore's Website:
Opening with profiles of several ordinary Americans whose lives have been disrupted, shattered, and—in some cases—ended by health care catastrophe, the film makes clear that the crisis doesn't only affect the 47 million uninsured citizens—millions of others who dutifully pay their premiums often get strangled by bureaucratic red tape as well. After detailing just how the system got into such a mess (the short answer: profits and Nixon), we are whisked around the world, visiting countries including Canada, Great Britain and France, where all citizens receive free medical benefits. Finally, Moore gathers a group of 9/11 heroes – rescue workers now suffering from debilitating illnesses who have been denied medical attention in the US. He takes them to a most unexpected place, and in addition to finally receiving care, they also engage in some unexpected diplomacy.
Kurt Loder, Journalist/MTV icon:
What's the problem with government health systems? Moore's movie doesn't ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide an answer. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they're inevitably forced to ration treatment. This is certainly the situation in Britain. Writing in the Chicago Tribune this week, Helen Evans, a 20-year veteran of the country's National Health Service and now the director of a London-based group called Nurses for Reform, said that nearly 1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care — and another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. Evans also says the NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts. Last March, the BBC reported on the results of a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: two thirds of them said they "would not be happy" to be patients in their own hospitals. James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have." Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown — just installed this week as Britain's new prime minister — had promised to inaugurate "sweeping domestic reforms" to, among other things, "improve health care."
Googling "Sicko" will yield many more results, (some from far more reliable sources than others. ) Read up, pre-health folks, and be prepared to formulate a balanced, intelligent perspective on this hotly debated topic. Feel free to post your comments as well.
