Sicko

A few months ago Dan and I watched Sicko. Because I'm sort of a movie prude and because we don't own any of the self-editing devices, this was my first Michale Moore movie. I've been curious about Moore's movies for awhile, especially after the uproar that occurred in Utah county when UVSC invited Moore to speak. There's just a little part of me that loves to be the devil's advocate.

Although I'm not a hater, I admit that I was also a bit skeptical about Moore's movie, having heard from a reputable source (somebody on NPR) that Moore hardly presents an unbiased view. Overall the movie was interesting and at times entertaining. Moore knows how to craft a good story and if one is at all open minded, he can be quite clever and amusing.

But there were lots of segments that really bugged me too--lots of times when Moore deliberately ignored the whole story. Take Moore's representation of France as a place where not only do you get socialized medicine, but the government will also help out new mothers by sending over someone to help with the laundry and other housework (something that sounds very appealing these days). Unlike the freedom fries bunch, I'm okay with the idea that life can be quite pleasant in France, but when Moore presented it as an enlightened utopia, I wanted to know what about all the immigrants who live in slums? You know the ones who rioted a few years back and burned tires and stuff.

He also interviewed a woman whose young daughter died because her HMO refused to pay for treatment unless her daughter was transferred to one of their hospitals. By the time the little girl was transferred, she'd had a high fever for too long and she died. The girl was originally taken to the King/Drew hospital in Los Angeles, a hospital that was frequently in the news while we lived in LA because of mismanagement leading, at times, to improper patient care resulting in injury and death. Of course Moore left that last part out. And he never said what caused the delay in transferring the girl to a hospital where she could receive treatment covered by her mother's insurance. Was it haggling over who would pay for the ambulance or mismanagement by the staff at King/Drew?

These and other examples left me wondering, why Moore had to be so cheap with the truth when he had lots of other great evidence that made a compelling argument for socialized health care without manipulation. I'm guessing that he's more interested in being provocative and entertaining people who already agree with him than in really making a sound argument. Personally though, I'd rather feel more confident about the information being presented than watch a sort of rah-rah argument that I already agree with. After watching the film, I realized that I was okay with "socialized" medicine, but I'm not sure if that's an opinion I had before the movie or something Moore convinced me of.