Health Care: Michael Moore’s “Sicko," a review

By Gary Gordon

It is difficult to review a Michael Moore film without reviewing Michael Moore. He is the upstart troublemaker, activist, trickster, vaudevillian, the sore spot on the ass of the official story; celebrated, vilified, studied by anthropologists. Oh, and he’s popular.

In “Roger & Me,” he documented the economic collapse of Flint, Michigan as General Motors reorganized and the local Chamber of Commerce simultaneously denied the collapse and concocted bizarre and unsuccessful plans to revitalize the place.

In “Fahrenheit 9/11,” he argued that the “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq were based on lies.

Now, in “Sicko,” he declares the healthcare system in the United States is broken, owned and operated by a greedy and often corrupt insurance industry and their servile politicians in both major parties, and there has to be a better way.

Through heartbreaking interviews with healthcare system victims, including 9/11 heroes who worked ground zero, and those in middle-management who once perpetuated the system and have since defected, Moore clearly documents the problems created by the for-profit health industry.

Through interviews with citizens of Canada, England, France and Cuba, Moore presents exciting aspects of their national health systems and maintains this kind of socialized approach is a solution for us to grab. To detractors of socialized systems, he points to long-socialized American institutions: medicare, our police and fire departments, our post office, public schools and libraries.

Critics of Moore often pick over his films the way vultures devour roadkill, finding fault and what they argue is deception and manipulation. Unfortunately, by some reputable accounts, Moore leaves himself open to these attacks because there are times when his use of narrative and moving images slights the truth of a more complex situation. His celebration of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s health care plans, as if her call for a national health plan was not a colossal deception designed to maintain the insurance industry’s grip speaks to his occasional naiveté. To his credit, he points out her rank as senator and presidential candidate among recipients of health insurance industry donations: she is number two.

The thing is, Flint, Michigan’s economy did collapse when General Motors shifted facilities and tens of thousands of jobs to Mexico and the Chamber’s schemes flopped, the “war on terror” and the invasion and occupation of Iraq were and are based on lies, and the US healthcare system is broken.

In other words, despite Moore’s faults and his critic’s best efforts, Moore gets it right.

CBS Anchorman Walter Cronkite once observed that anyone who got their news solely from him was a fool, that many sources should be sought and considered.

Moore’s is not the first nor final word on the healthcare debate, but his film “Sicko” is a brilliant, devastating and at times an oddly entertaining and humorous portrait of a sick system and a poignant draft of a possible solution.

Activist and singer-songwriter Gary Gordon is the creator of The Fictional Times.

----------------

Michael Moore Rips Into CNN's Wolf Blitzer

Sicko director Michael Moore gives host Wolf Blitzer and resident MD Dr. Sanjay Gupta a dressing-down in a must-see live TV moment (watch until the end to see CNN try to put Moore back in place before the next segment).

- Watch the clip here:

<http://youtube.com/watch?v=6TR1SG8WDbU>

- Watch Sanjay Gupta's 'Sicko Reality Check' here:

<http://www.crooksandliars.com/>

- Read Moore's point by point rebuttal to the 'Sicko Reality Check' here:

<http://www.michaelmoore.com/>

2008: The case for John Edwards' universal health care plan

Of the Democratic candidates, John Edwards has offered the most thorough (this is drawn from a piece by Timothy Noah in Slate, with which I agree) -- and the most progressive -- program for achieving universal national health.

Paul Krugman, who showed in an essay in the New York Review of Books ("The Health Care Crisis and What To Do About It") how far the current health-care debate misses the mark, gave Edwards' health-care plan thumbs up in a February column in the Times ("Edwards Gets It Right").

When the Democratic presidential candidates gathered in Las Vegas in March to debate health care, Marc Cooper of The Nation reported that Edwards' speech was the standout (see also, Impractical Proposals, 2008: Seven Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate Health Care), showing up both Clinton's program to save the insurance industry and Obama's bland assurances that something would be done (Obama's eventual proposal, while an admirable effort at political counter-punching, is not very well thought out; meanwhile, the only candidate who actually endorses single-payer, the commonsensical approach to providing health care of our international rivals, is Dennis Kucinich, who typically is short on the nuts and bolts of making it work).

William F. Buckley doesn't like Edwards' plan, a further indication that Edwards is on to something.

With his focus on poverty, universal health care, and immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq, Edwards is well to the left of the other major contenders for the Democratic nomination; this is why, I'm guessing, his is virtually the only name I hear when ordinary citizens discuss politics out here, 3,000 miles from the Beltway and the Manhattan media; the situation strikes me as very similar to 2004 when one candidate (Kerry/Clinton) had been anointed by the Democratic establishment because he/she "can win" (momentum? moderation? money? -- I forget now what the reason was) and another (Dean/Obama) had captured the imagination of the romantics in the party because he promised change without pain.

(While there's no likelihood Obama will implode in a fit -- of passion, exaltation, outrage or any other emotion -- as Dean did, he is also about as likely to become president as Kucinich; out here in the boonies, take it for what it's worth, there is a strong feeling that Sen. Clinton -- momentum, moderation, money and whatnot notwithstanding -- cannot win; it's not that we wish her ill -- we're as stupified as you are by the prospect that the Oval Office might next be occupied by Newt Gingrich or someone of his ilk; on the contrary, we long with all our hearts for a real Democrat, at long last; it's just that we think it has been clear since Reagan beat Carter that, with the exception of charismatic Bill Clinton's runs -- Elvis Presley cast against the political equivalents of Dennis Weaver and Walter Brennan, the Democrats can't win as GOP lite.)

Asides aside, when it comes to health care, Edwards' liberalism, in addition to the nostalgic bonus of causing Buckley, the WSJ, Forbes, et al, to see "Red," is good for the campaign. As Noah writes, this is one debate that needs to shift leftward.

Despite the fact that it will probably be seen only by Democratic primary voters -- if nothing else, that may have the benefit of making it harder for Sen. Clinton to bloviate about the issue, despite its merits Michael Moore's Sicko by itself won't be enough to do the job of forcing the next Congress to take up universal health care (partly because the movie doesn't engender sympathy for the program's natural political allies in the business community).

But at least Moore's movie will help to keep the issue percolating through November 2008. And it should help to forestall efforts by "moderates" in Congress to pass an industry-backed "reform" of the current health-care setup as a way to block the adoption of a truly universal single-payer system.

To get back to specifics, then, how does the Edwards plan measure up? Here, in Edwardscare: A Trojan Horse, is what Noah finds.