Kevin Freking and Linda A. Johnson from the Associated Press conduct a nice summary analysis of some of the larger facts and figures that litter Moore’s recent documentary, Sicko, on the American healthcare system. Unlike many, however, these two have really done their homework to try and put some of the numbers that Moore throws out into context. Because it’s telling not only what a filmmaker says, but what he doesn’t say. And Moore doesn’t say a lot.
For instance, it’s a nice headline to say that America ranks 37th in healthcare in the world (suggesting all sorts of room for improvement!), but the article puts this data into some much-needed context:
Moore does not say that one of the countries he highlighted, Cuba, is ranked 39th, below the U.S. Among the others, France is ranked No. 1, the United Kingdom ranked 18th and Canada ranked 30th. He does not give those rankings, either.
The report, based on 1997 data, measured not just the quality of care provided, but how well the countries prevented illness and how fairly the poor, minorities and other special populations are treated.
Interesting.
And his personal stories, while very interesting and an important part of the picture, don’t paint a complete canvas. For instance, here’s the real story behind wait times in these countries compared to the U.S., something Moore holds up as an example of how great healthcare is in countries like the UK and Canada:
Yet a recent report from the Commonwealth Fund indicates that wait times in the U.S. are clearly shorter than they are in Canada.
In all areas measured, the U.S. fared better than Canada. [...]
The difference was more acute when it came time to see a specialist. 57 percent of Canadians waited four weeks or longer to see a specialist versus 23 percent in the U.S.
The Commonwealth Fund also monitored wait times in Britain, which has universal health care. The wait times for emergency room care were comparable to those in the U.S.
There was a big difference when it came time to see a specialist — 60 percent in Britain waited four weeks or longer.
Now of course Moore is a filmmaker first and foremost, so he can tell whatever story he wants. But a “documentary” definitely loses some of its luster (and strength) when it chooses to be very selective in the factoids it presents without trying to put these factoids into some kind of perspective.
In some ways, Moore’s style is endemic of American society (dare I say, Web 2.0?) in general — the explosion of factoids and personal storytelling with little regard for context, hard data, and trying to understand the complex relationships between all of these things.
Moore has a point, but it’s lost on me because I lose respect for anyone who can’t be upfront about their data. It may be good entertainment (see if for yourself to decide), but it’s not a documentary nor serious look at the U.S. healthcare system and its ills.
(13 votes, average: 3.31 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Links to This Article
University Update - Sicko - The Rest of Moore’s “Sicko” Story (7/1/2007)
14 Comments to
“The Rest of Moore’s “Sicko” Story”
Have you actually seen the movie?
Most “documentaries” aren’t really documentaries, by your criteria. Even academic historians have agendas and subscribe to different schools of thought, and they aren’t as blatantly out to make money (have you looked at professors’ salaries lately?) as filmmakers of any stripe are.
NOW LOOK.. I SAW “SICKO” AND FOUND IT TO BE ACCURATE TO A VERY HIGH DEGREE.. HOWEVER… THE QUESTION IN THE MOVIE THAT WAS BLATANTLY AVOIDED WEAS ” WHO, HOW AND WHEN DOES THE MONEY COME FROM TO SUPPORT SUCH A GENEROUS SUPPLY OF HEALTH FOR IT’S PEOPLE.. TAXATION: CANADA IS ROUGHLY 44% UK ABOUT 48/52% FRANCE I DUNNO.. AND CUBA..??? DID YOU SEE THE ACCOMODATIONS..?? OK AND WE HERE IN AMERICA, TAXATION IS ROUGHLY 28% SOOO HERE’S THE MATH.. IF YOU TAKE THE EXTRA 14% YOU ARE NOT GIVING TO THE GOVERNMENT WHO COULD PROVIDE THIS SOCIALISED MED.. AND SENT IT TOWARDS THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.. I THINK YOU COULD GET A REALLY HEALTHY POLICY GOING FOR YOUR WHOLE FAMILY PLUS MAYBE EVEN A NEIGHBOR OR TWO.. HMMM…YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS MR. MOORE..!! ROGER SMITH EVEN COULD BECOME YOUR FRIEND.
GIL has a point, but its lost on me because I lose respect for anyone who types in all caps.
Yes, I’ve seen the movie and while I know most documentaries are exposing one point of view of history or an event or something they want to shed light on (even Ken Burns’s works), there are certainly matters of degrees. Many other documentary filmmakers at least discuss the controversial components, or acknowledge them, in their works. Moore tells a very specific, particular story and if it was just that — a story about these people’s personal stories with the healthcare system — I’d be fine with it. But when he starts throwing data in your face without any kind of context and insinuates from that data, that’s harder for me to swallow.
Gil, Moore’s solution isn’t even possible in the U.S. Nobody believes for a moment that you could dismantle the complex healthcare system here and turn it into socialized medicine. It can be fixed, I believe, but I don’t think it could be so significantly changed (mainly because that’s not the history of this country and I don’t believe most Americans want more government intervention in their lives).
I definitely don’t want to be giving any more to the insurance companies. I feel I already overpay for my healthcare coverage in this country, given that I’m a health individual and have never had any major healthcare expenses.
So the debate begins.
I am gratified to see a discussion begin. As some have begun to see, the factors are many and complex. Context, as the article pointed out, is important. But the article also takes a “response” role in regards to the film presentation.
Perhaps it is useful to ask some additional questions. For instance - The numbers regarding specialists. In a universal health care system no one faces sturctural barriers to engaging with health services. Consequently, I’ll bet that our lower wait times for specialists is a result of only a fraction of those that NEED a specialist actually get to the stage of “waiting in line”.
The responses so far seem based on some shaky assumptions like all those that should be included in the “numbers” are actually quantified.
I suggest we all look at our assumptions and well, I think everyone should take a short study in health care statistics and statistical analysis before tossing numbers around as facts.
Personally I would like to see a projection concerning productivity and overall profits that would result from an economy where all the people are cared for and their efforts are to maximize their profitability in the economy rather than minimize their drain on the economy. I’ll bet that a universal system will result in greater profits and progress overall and quickly overcome the cost of such a system.
We compare ourselves to other countries on cost, but then forget our egotism when it comes to production.
Keep thinking…and well, this fight ought to be fun!
Somehow I got on this psych list.
I have porphyria, which was not dx’d until I was over sixty. Before that, no dx and ridicule, then MS dx due to brain scars from taking drugs harmful to people with porphyria, many of them psychotropic drugs.
I started university at Stanford, had my first big attack there, was unrecognized as either a person or a patient in those bad days. Hope those days are better now, but I doubt it. I got my dx finally because a psychiatrist supposedly versed in meds for pain gave me Depakote off label and put me into attack. He knew I was being tested for porphyria, so he was negligent, but I didn’t think of suing him, I was just trying to stay sane and alive.
My point to you is that the psychology people in America do not consider that some people with emotional problems and gut pain could have porphyria. Our medical system failed me even though I was an “elite” who could go to Stanford, for which my father worked two jobs seventeen years. (he had undx’d porphyria too).
In the long run, after dx by brilliant doctor, I did get some decent hematology. So yes, good care is available if you go down the right track.
I haven’t seen the movie, so it is difficult to comment on specifics. I have seen and read enough promos about it to understand Moore’s intent - bring the issue to the forefront for political and personal discourse.
I have been uninsured for over three years. I am self employed. The insurance companies won’t cover me due to some pre-existing and chronic health issues. I couldn’t afford it even if they would. I pay cash to see a doctor. I am charged more, much more than the contract rates they have established with the HMO and insurance companies.
This situation has led me to be selective about when I see a doctor. I am 55 years old and due for tests and screenings common for a man my age. I can’t afford it. This might come back to bite me because I put off getting medical care during the early stages of a condition or disease when it is more easily treatable.
So, for those of you throwing out statistics and tax rates for other countries, try walking a mile in my or the 47 million American’s shoes who have no insurance. At least these other countries make sure that everyone is afforded access to medical care. Our system doesn’t.
Kudos to Moore for at least bringing higher visibility to this national disgrace.
It seems to me we pile on people when they make a film/documentary (however you want to describe this movie); we say it’s just a film and there’s no science behind it, etc; (should the movie have had footnotes?) AND we go after those who are “upfront about (their) data,” eg, Hillary Clinton in the early ’90s. Her agenda failed too, despite a bunch of numbers and data. The question is, Is healthcare a privilege or a right? Is our system fair for everyone? No, it’s not. And a lot of that, as Moore points out, is because of money. I’m like one of those in the movie–I would have to sell my house if I got something catastrophic. AND I have good insurance.
Over 400 billion spent on the Iraq war.
Over 50 million uninsured Americans needing healthcare coverage.
Enough said.
Good point. I shudder when I think of all of the things the U.S. gov’t could have funded if it weren’t for the continuing “emergency spending bills” used to fund the Iraqi conflict.
I think there’s plenty of room for change and improvement of our current system.
For instance, one of the things mentioned in the movie that has a lot of merit is rewarding docs based upon how healthy their patients are, not based upon how much money they can charge in additional procedures.
I receive mailings from Michael Moore and he has discussed France, Cuba and Canada in the mailouts. I have not seen the movie yet.
I want to state upfront and clear that Michael Moore, to me, has done more to wake up the American people than any other movie maker when it concerns the dishonesty and neglect that our government shows us on so many different levels.
I don’t see anyone else out there making an attempt to state the obvious in movies.
Us British may have to wait a few weeks longer to see a specialist, but guess what… IT’S FREE ! the doctors visits, the referral to a specialist, the specilalist visit, x-rays, MRI’s - EVERYTHING is free - the entire operation/surgery if required… isn’t that worth waiting a couple of weeks for?
And THEN we Brits don’t get deductables, co-pays or any of that nonsense, and extortionate RX prices for pain meds, or any other meds, and ALL birth control is FREE.
Oh and guess what else? If you’re too sick to get to a doctor, they come to your house 24/7 - no charge.
RX prices are FIXED whether you have 10 tablets or 100 tablets, generic or brand name, makes no difference (current rate is equivalent of about $14 US$ per RX)
You weigh that against the american system and how much YOU pay per month for insurance…
There’s a lot of problems with the U.S. healthcare system — no one argues that. But the solutions are not as simple as Moore and others suggest. Trash an entire system and start from scratch with the government in charge? That’s a “solution” only in an idealist’s eyes. The pragmatist in me, after reading so much on both sides of this debate, knows such a thing could never happen here.
Instead, we should be having a serious conversation about what we *can* do to implement modest, incremental changes that can actually be accepted and benefit folks. In fact, if Moore has done nothing else, he has spurred this kind of conversation. Although because of the way he has presented it, I’m afraid he’s also balkanized the debate (making it black and white when it’s nothing of the sort).
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 1 Jul 2007
