We, Not Me

I saw Michael Moore's film "Sicko" last night. Now, I know this film has already been the spark for many blog entries about the pros and cons of universal health care. So let me tell you up front, I am not going there directly. This film has also inspired much debate about Moore's examples, whether they are accurate, and whether he is "truthful." According to CNN, most of his facts do check out. Is the film "truthful?" Obviously, if you remotely familiar with Moore's work, you know that he is opinionated and you are getting his take on the issues he is addressing. But is anything that you read or watch ever "truthful?" Everything is influenced by the perspective of the person presenting the information whether it is Michael Moore, Fox News, or even yours truly.

Honestly, if you look at this film at face value, it is really difficult to see what the big fuss is about. He takes a very complex problem, the American healthcare system, and presents the idea that it does not work very well. This is not earth shattering news for most Americans. And if you are reading my blog the chances are you have some interest in healthcare or medicine, and nothing that is presented in the film is going to shock you. Yes, insurance companies make decisions based on profit. Yes, the drug industry has a powerful lobby in Washington, DC that influences political decisions. Yes, hospitals do discharge people to the street and try to transfer financially undesirable patients elsewhere if they can.

His look at the universal health care systems in other countries was interesting, albeit simplistic. Yes, he neglects to point out that in places like Britain and Canada there are waiting list and rationing of care for more complicated conditions, and that the wealthier members of these nations buy more specialized care out of pocket. Yes, Fidel Castro got his recent medical care in Spain, not Cuba, when he was seriously ill. But, he makes the point quite well that for average citizen to have access to basic primary care and hospital coverage is a lot more than many Americans currently have.

What I did think made this movie "controversial," or even, dare I say, "revolutionary," was the political ideology not very thinly guised under the surface. If you take an entire populace, make them scared, keep them feeling hopeless, broke, and in debt, you get a system where the elite stay in power because no one votes, according to Tony Benn, a former member of British Parliament, who Moore interviews. He ties together the problems with healthcare with other issues that faces the "average" America today like soaring student debt, bankruptcy, lack of childcare, and general fear for the future. Hmmm..... If these ideas are going to get to the American masses it will be via the screen, not published media. So I can see why this movie, made by an overweight guy from the Midwest, has the potential to make some nervous.

Or maybe it was the end where Moore challenges the good old American value of "every man for himself." Wait a minute, wasn't this the country where we help others in need? Who are we? What have we become when we discharge sick patients to the street who have nowhere else to go? Whatever happened to "we," not "me?" That is the fundamental question, and until it is answered the healthcare system will continue to reflect our broken, conflicted society.