What if Michael Moore had not made "Sicko"?

[Rolfe]

I've been looking at discussion of Moore's Sicko, and find almost nothing about the factual accuracy (or otherwise) of the film's content. Almost all I find is ranting about Moore personally, and about perceived deficiencies in other works of his. And a bit of criticism of certain parts of Sicko, but mainly criticising Moore's motives for including these segments, not discussing the points Moore was trying to make or whether they were valid.

We must remember that this film was never intended to be even-handed. It was intended to be a counterbalance to all the anti-universal-healthcare propaganda which cherry-picks isolated disasters from the NHS or elsewhere, and quietly ignores any disasters in the USA, isolated or not. It was also not intended to be a discussion of the uninsured. It is about how the insurance industry works in America, and whether even the insured are as secure as they think they are.

So I'd like to propose some ground rules. We discuss Sicko, but we leave Moore right out of it. Pretend someone else made it. Joe Bloggs, someone you've never heard of. Discuss the actual examples presented, and the message the film intends to get across. Discuss whether the examples are valid, and whether they are just isolated hiccups or not, and discuss whether the intended message of the film is actually substantiated.

Do not bad-mouth Moore in any way. Don't even mention Moore except in a neutral way, if necessary. Don't get mad, don't rant, just discuss the examples.

Oh, and if the mods would rather put this in Social Affairs, just move it, but it is a very political topic right now and most of the related discussion is here.

The film may be viewed here. It is about two hours long.

Rolfe.

 

[tomwaits]

Frankly, I didn't hear much about Sicko at all outside of this forum. Certainly nothing like the publicity he got for his previous films.

ETA: In addition, I'm a little confused about the purpose of the thread. Are we discussing the merits of the movie, or are we discussing the impact it had on American politics? If it's the first, I don't know because I haven't seen it. If it's the second, my impression was that the movie didn't make much of an impact.

 

[boloboffin]

It's going to be hard not to discuss Michael Moore because he's in the movie. Perhaps we should just describe him as the Narrator.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

MM is fat and slovenly. Now that's out of the way, maybe it won't become a "point" of "debate" like I've seen in pretty much any other "discussion" of his "work".

I'm pretty loose with the qm's.

 

[tomwaits]

I've seen plenty of discussion about Moore's films that didn't involve commenting on his weight. In particular, Gumboot on this forum has made some very pointed criticism towards Moore's dishonest filmmaking techniques (though I haven't seen him post in awhile...)

ETA: OK, this thread is supposed to be specifically about this film. I'll just leave now...

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, I forgot the link. The OP has now been edited to link to the page where the film may be viewed in its entirety.

Rolfe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Sorry, I forgot the link. The OP has now been edited to link to the page where the film may be viewed in its entirety.

Rolfe.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

Thanks for playing the viral marketing board game, by Hasbro.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Rolfe]

I'm a little confused about the purpose of the thread. Are we discussing the merits of the movie, or are we discussing the impact it had on American politics? If it's the first, I don't know because I haven't seen it. If it's the second, my impression was that the movie didn't make much of an impact.

We're discussing the particulars of the film. Are the examples Moore presents accurate, are they representative of a more general problem, and are they misrepresented. (See, you can name him so long as it is in a neutral manner.)

I think the main thrust of the film can be summarised as the proposition that even insured Americans are getting a significantly poorer deal than people who live in countries with universal healthcare, and current US perspectives both unfairly demonise such systems and turn a blind eye to the failings of the insurance system.

Does Moore succeed in substantiating this message?

The format of the film is not dissimilar to many anti-universal-healthcare presentations I've seen, especially the Stossel half-hour that Dan Stanley was touting earlier. That presented a number of alleged horror stories from countries with universal healthcare systems, and some polemic trying to argue that such systems are dreadful.


There are many other examples, some just one-anecdote clips on YouTube.

I have never yet found such an anecdote that wasn't either grossly misrepresented to the point of outright lies, or (less often) the cherrypicking of an isolated problem the UHC system in question was actively working to remedy. On the contrary, the US insurance horror stories Stossel presented seemed not only to stand up to scrutiny, they appeared to be representative of systemic problems with the system.

I want to see what we can do with Sicko in the same vein. But I want to do it on the evidence as presented, and the background knowledge we have, not by bad-mouthing Moore.

If Moore uses dishonest techniques in Sicko, then point these out. But anything he did or didn't do in any previous film is irrelevant.

And yes, it is necessary to actually watch the film.

See you in two hours.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I see, we have here a paid (unpaid?) shill for Michael Moore.

Thanks for playing the viral marketing board game, by Hasbro.

I would like to mention that I have just reported that post. I intend to report as off-topic any post which is explicit or implicit ad hominen attack on Moore. If you have nothing constructive or destructive to say about the film, go away.

Rolfe.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Michael moore's methods of analysis were dishonest. He takes certain case studies like don and larry who have insurance, then they apply it across the entire spectrum.

He does not specify American ctiizens, residents or illegal immigrants in his uninsured americans claim.

He also appeals to emotion with images of crying children.

Correct me if i am wrong rolfe, but health insurance is like car insurance. Companies do not take you on, or increase premiums if you are deemed to be risky.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I would like to mention that I have just reported that post. I intend to report as off-topic any post which is explicit or implicit ad hominen attack on Moore. If you have nothing constructive or destructive to say about the film, go away.

Rolfe.

Confirmed my first sentence, thanks. His film appears to have taken you in.

Do not post off-topic. if you do not wish to discuss the merits of the film, please do not post.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Delscottio]

Michael moore's methods of analysis were dishonest. He takes certain case studies like don and larry who have insurance, then they apply it across the entire spectrum.

What bit is dishonest - the whole story or specific bits?

Sorry strike that - misread your reply.

 

[Architect]

Michael moore's methods of analysis were dishonest. He takes certain case studies like don and larry who have insurance, then they apply it across the entire spectrum.

He does not specify American ctiizens, residents or illegal immigrants in his uninsured americans claim.

He also appeals to emotion with images of crying children.

That's very vague. Please be more specific.

 

[Rolfe]

Larry and Donna Smith. Larry had three heart attacks, then Donna got cancer. They had insurance, but the "co-pays and decuctibles" were so expensive they couldn't keep up with them and had to declare bankruptcy. They lost their home and had to move into a single room in their daughter's house.

We could complain that there wasn't enough detail given to verify the claims, however there was some. In particular, they were insured, and they appear to have received continuing coverage, but the terms of the policy required them to pay a great deal of money out of their own pockets as well. Due to the multiple health problems the couple experienced, these payments were enough to bankrupt them.

I don't see what's so dishonest about this. I didn't see any suggestion that this "applies across the entire spectrum". I saw the presentation as something that could happen, even to people with insurance cover.

Obviously, not everybody is going to be caught in such a trap. The multiple health problems are not everybody's experience. And co-pays and deductibles vary. However, the kicker is that people with slender means may be more likely to opt for higher deductibles in order to keep the premiums down, and so be very vulnerable to such circumstances. Indeed, more recently "high deductible" policies have actually been promoted as the solution to healthcare provision for the poor - they are actually Stossel's "big idea" in that other film I linked to in post 8.

And I don't see "oh he shouldn't have shown a crying child" as a serious criticism. The family was suffering major disruption, and a child was crying. That doesn't detract from the point being made.

Rolfe.

 

[Architect]

Context is important.

DR

It is indeed, and as I think you know well this was - at least in part - kicked off by recent posts by NWO Sentryman that rather got stuck into Sicko but were vague on detail. The purpose of this thread was, I think, to provide a more focussed and specific forum for that part of the discussion.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

Correct me if i am wrong rolfe, but health insurance is like car insurance. Companies do not take you on, or increase premiums if you are deemed to be risky.

I don't see any smilies but, assuming you are serious, could you please add a comma or two so I can understand what you are trying to say?

 

[Architect]

Let's stick to the OP, folks.

 

[Rolfe]

That's very vague. Please be more specific.

It's a pity, NWOS was actually doing better in the thread this arose from. I found it best to watch the entire film to see where Moore was going with it, before going back to specific segments.

I've outlined the Larry and Donna case. which is early in the film. It's an example of what can happen, to people with limited means who have policies that require them to pay a lot out of pocket when they receive care. I saw no suggestion that this applied to all Americans, but I certainly have no reason to suspect it was an isolated case.

The film isn't about uninsured Americans. Moore says that quite clearly at the beginning. He shows a couple of people in situations we would regard as bad form even in the third world, because they don't have insurance, and he repeatedly says this film is not about them. While making this point (which is essentially over the opening credits), Moore mentions the commonly-quoted figure of (I think) nearly 50 million Americans who are in that category. Since that's not what the film is about, this doesn't go any further.

We can't dismiss the entire film because a commonly-quoted statistic is used in a non-critical context. The provenance of that statistic is actually completely irrelevant.

And I think we have to bear in mind that this is a film. It's not going to work if it's dry and sterile. People cry in such clips all the time, including the anti-universal-healthcare ones. It's SOP. I never heard anyone dismiss any of these on the grounds that showing someone upset was "appeal to emotion".

Rolfe.

 

[DC]

I just have watched Sicko the first time.

I personally like the film very much. but its a huge Appeal to emotion.
But that is the problem of the topic, it is a very emotional topic.
Its a typical Moore film.
i did indeed find one story a little strange.

1 H 14m . The guy came back to france when he discovered his illnes. talks about having no income, but then tells about having to call his employer to make sure he gets the remaining 35% payd. sounds like a very strange story but could be because he didnt tell the whole timeline, but its presented strange.

another thing i remember from an earlier thread about sicko, is his controversial practises about the Cuba trip.

But i think its a good film to start a debate about having a healthcare reform or not. but at his stage there needs to be a debate about how to reform the system. And there it doesnt go into details.

oh and its bigest flaw is that its only examples of some cases and not really statistics etc, and it picket the worst cases from the US and picked good or normal cases from other countrys, we also have our horror storys. and that wasnt pointed out at all.

 

[Rolfe]

Correct me if i am wrong rolfe, but health insurance is like car insurance. Companies do not take you on, or increase premiums if you are deemed to be risky.

Look, I don't think you understand this yet. We are looking at the benefits and drawbacks of free-market insurance to fund healthcare, in contrast to some form of universal-access healthcare.

The first answer is yes, you're wrong, because what you describe only pertains across the board in the USA. In every other civilised country, either healthcare is paid for from taxes, or legislation is such that the insurance companies have to take you on, and that the premium you pay will be one you can afford.

But the second answer is, you're actually making the point Moore is making. Using a system equivalent to motor insurance to provide healthcare is not necessarily a good idea.

Rolfe.