Michael Moore's "Sicko"

Image Credit: Michael Moore

After watching Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", I knew Moore would take an extreme stance on America's healthcare system. To be completely honest, I thought "Fahrenheit 9/11" was interesting and thought-provoking, but I was skeptical of Moore's claims. They seemed ridiculous. However, I am reevaluating these doubts after watching "Sicko".

I have a little more knowledge about the American healthcare system than I did about the 9/11 attacks and the federal government. This might have contributed to my being more persuaded by Moore's argument in "Sicko". Although Moore does choose to use some outrageous testimonies to persuade viewers that the American healthcare system is corrupt and centered around making money, there is some truth to these claims. Working in a pharmacy, I see insurance companies troubling patients with some of the same things that Moore shows in his film. Granted the things I see do not jeopardize lives, but they do indicate insurance companies are trying to spare themselves money at the expense of insured people's pocketbooks.

It seems crazy to me that insurance companies are able to determine what is "medically necessary" and what is "experimental". The people working for insurance companies probably do not have near the amount of knowledge that a doctor does regarding medical issues and medications. For that reason, I think that insurance companies should not be deciding that medications or procedures are not necessary. Even though insurance companies are not denying people service, they are making it impossible for patient's to seek the help they need because of the cost.

Much of the movie focused on comparing the American healthcare system with the healthcare systems in Canada, Great Britain, and France. I had always known of these countries having universal healthcare, but I thought that the quality of healthcare suffered and taxes paid by citizens skyrocketed under this system. I know I cannot trust Moore as my sole source of information on universal healthcare policies, but he did showcase several interviews with doctors and everyday citizens that contradicted these widely held perceptions about universal healthcare. And even though the doctors were employed by the country's government, they still earned a decent salary and were able to live luxurious lives. Moore made it a point to say that doctors working for the government probably would not be able to afford multiple million dollar homes and six cars, but why is that necessary anyway?

All in all, I thought this film was pretty fascinating. While Moore is quite biased, I think there is some truth to this film. I do wish we could see a documentary that was anti-universal healthcare for comparison purposes.

Random Thoughts:

1. I thought the part where Moore threw in the clip from Fahrenheit 9/11 and had the voiceover saying: "and remember, let's fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here" was completely unnecessary.

2. I felt like Moore's choice of using the 9/11 victims' struggles with insurance companies and Moore taking them to Cuba to obtain more affordable healthcare was a little too extreme. First of all, 9/11 was a tragic touching event that people of all ages relates pretty well to. I feel that Moore chose to include this in the film to win over those viewers that maybe hadn't bought into his argument just yet. I wasn't a fan of this choice.

3. I loved the part about Moore sending money to help pay for the medical expenses of the wife whose husband has the anti-Michael Moore website.

4. I am interested in how the insurance companies reacted to this film, especially after the part in the film with the girl that is not approved for both cochlear implants until her father writes a letter to the insurance company about how he will tell Michael Moore about his troubles.