| Revision as of 15:09, 25 August 2007 editNoroton (talk | contribs)37,252 edits remove a bit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:34, 25 August 2007 edit undoTurtlescrubber (talk | contribs)2,351 edits rvt. back to consensus version of partial merge and deletion of article, do you need me to find the archived conversation for you, I would be happy to oblige | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{mergeto|Sicko|Talk:Sicko#Sicko_controversy_page_.28again.29}} | |||
| {{r from merge}} | |||
| '']'', a documentary film by ] about the health-care system in the ], generated heated public debate about its content and Moore's methods before and during its release. | |||
| The political controversy over its content included numerous articles by journalists and commentators associated with major American newspapers and magazines, including multiple articles in '']'' and '']'' newspapers, '']'' magazine, and articles in the magazines or Web sites of such publications as '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'' magazine and '']''. | |||
| ==Controversy over content== | |||
| Shortly before ''Sicko'' opened, Moore said he is scrupulous about accuracy, both in past productions and in this movie: "I make sure that all of the facts in my movie are absolutely 100 percent true," Moore told National Public Radio. "And I'm very, very concerned about that, because I want people to listen to my opinion."<ref>Masters, Kim, article/news segment titled "Michael Moore's 'Sicko' Flogs U.S. Health Care", Web site of ], dated ], ], accessed ], ]</ref> Moore also told '']'' staff reporter Mark Rahner that one of the reasons he "rarely if ever" gets sued is because "I have a team of fact-checkers that come in, I have a team of lawyers then that tear the film apart."<ref>{{cite news |last=Rahner|first=Mark|url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/artsentertainment/2003762133_michaelmoore26.html|title=New Michael Moore film takes on the health-care system|publisher=The Seattle Times|date=2007-06-26 |accessdate=2007-06-29}}</ref> | |||
| ===Description of Cuban health-care system=== | |||
| ], editor of '']'' wrote that Moore whitewashed the ], describing it as better than ]<ref>Lowry, Rich, "Sicko: Michael Moore's sickness.", reprint of his syndicated column at National Review Online Web site, ], ], accessed ], ]</ref>, although "According to a 2004 story in the Canadian '']'': 'Hospitals are falling apart, surgeons lack basic supplies and must reuse latex gloves. Patients must buy their sutures on the black market and provide bed sheets and food for extended hospital stays.'"<ref></ref> | |||
| Kyle Smith, a '']'' film critic, wrote that Moore asserts he asked Cuban officials to give his group exactly the same care that a Cuban would receive, "and that’s exactly what they got". Smith writes that Moore treats the ] with kid gloves, although he's capable of taking a hard look at American officials: "You can’t film anywhere in Castro’s Alcatraz without government say-so, meaning the whole scene was phony Moore solemnly reports Cuba’s official health statistics, which are of course a fiction Moore's motto is to trust no authority figure from cringing corporate spokesman on up to Washington windbags. Except dictators. Dictators, he’ll take your word for it."<ref name=ksmith>Smith, Kyle (movie reviewer for ''The New York Post''), "Kyle Smith on Michael Moore's 'Sicko'" entry at (unnamed) movie blog at the '']'' Web site, dated ], ], accessed ], ]</ref> | |||
| A '']'' reporter made the same point, and Moore replied: "If we went to Columbia Presbyterian, they're going to roll out the best doctors, take us to the best floor. And if we went to Pfizer, they're going to show their best face, too. What's the difference between what Pfizer does and what Castro does? We get P.R.'d all the time."<ref name=globe>Allis, Sam, "Under the knife / Michael Moore says he's a changed man in 'Sicko,' his new documentary about the state of health care in the United States", article in '']'', dated ], ], accessed ], ]</ref> Moore told '']'' "I’m not trumpeting ] or his regime. I just want to say to fellow Americans, "C’mon, we’re the United States! If they can we can do it."<ref name="pnhpsickotime">{{cite news|last=|first=|title=Moore in The E.R.|publisher=pnhp.org|date=2007-05-17|url=http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/may/moore_in_the_er.php|accessdate=2007-05-24}}</ref> ] is also referred to as a "dictator" in the film. | |||
| ===Description of other nations' health-care systems=== | |||
| Smith criticizes Moore for presenting health care systems in Canada, Britain and France with the same uncritical attitude the filmmaker took with Cuba, despite the fact that there are significant criticisms of those systems within their own countries.<ref name=ksmith/> According to Scott, Moore's descriptions of health care in other nations have "a bit of theatrical faux-naïveté", and "the utopian picture of France in ''Sicko'' may be overstated", but Scott dismisses the problem by saying a filmmaker praised in Cannes would naturally be pro-French.<ref name=scott>Scott, A.O., "Open Wide and Say ‘Shame’", film review, '']'', ], ]</ref> | |||
| Some ] critics did not like Michael Moore's glamorizing the ] system.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/215801 | title=Canadian media needle Sicko | publisher=The Toronto Star | accessdate=2007-05-24}}</ref> Peter Howell, in '']'', wrote: "''Sicko'' makes it seem as if Canada's socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo." Howell wrote that he and other Canadian journalists criticized Moore for inaccurately contending that Canadians only had to wait for minutes for health care, rather than much longer waiting periods. <ref name=phowell>Howell, Peter, "Canadian media needle Sicko: Moore's health-care film gets rough reception" article in '']'', ], ], accessed ], ]</ref> | |||
| Michael C. Moynihan, an editor at the ] '']'' magazine, wrote that while Moore presents other nations' health-care systems as close to perfect, they and other systems have many of the same problems as in the United States. Anecdotal horror stories as bad as Moore's can be found in European health-care systems, Moynihan wrote, such as a Swedish parent whose government-run health-care system refused to put cochlear implants in both ears of her child, and a German man<ref>Moynihan cites a , Goteborg Posten, apparently run by a German newspaper, accessed ], ]</ref> who couldn't get his national health-care system to approve surgery for a brain tumor — and if he hadn't paid for it himself instead of continuing to wait, his doctor says the man would have died. London's ], shown as an example of the British health-care system in the movie, was pressured by health officials to limit the number of patients treated in order to cut costs, a problem that isn't anomalous in Britain, where the government has promised to cut down waiting periods — down to 18 weeks.<ref>Moynihan cites this article: "Tories will offer doctors and nurses more power, but pay cuts if they fail" in '']'' newspaper, dated ], ] ("the Government's commitment to reduce waiting times to 18 weeks by the end of next year ."), accessed ], ]</ref> "Massive queues and cash shortages have plagued all of the systems profiled—and celebrated—in ''Sicko''."<ref name=mcm>Moynihan, Michael C., "Michael Moore's Shticko: | |||
| His health care jeremiad won't win any converts", article at ''ReasonOnline'' Web site of '']'' magazine (it is unclear from the Web site whether the article is in the magazine), ], ], accessed same day</ref> | |||
| Jonathan Cohn, a proponent of a universal health care system in the United States and the author of ''Sick'', a book about health-care policy, wrote in '']'' that Moore wrongly downplays the waiting lines that the British and Canadian systems "really do have", but he points out that the French not only don't have waiting lines, they have an insurance system that "allows free choice of doctor and offers highly advanced medical care to those who need it." Although the French pay a lot for their health-care system (paying more in taxes and less in private insurance than Americans do, overall), their national health-care costs are still ultimately less than those of the United States.<ref name=jcohn>Cohn, Jonathan, "It's no fun to agree with Michael Moore / Shticko", article in '']'' magazine, ], ] issue, posted on the Web site on ], ], accessed ], ]</ref> | |||
| Cohn wrote that Moore wasn't always accurate in the movie, citing the case of Tracy Pierce, who died of kidney disease after his insurer refused to pay for an experimental treatment. The insurer may well have been correct, Cohn said. "Would the bone-marrow transplant denied to Pierce have made a difference? It seems unlikely. Experts told me that the treatment never made it past the experimental phase because of ineffectiveness and harmful side-effects."<ref name=jcohn/> | |||
| Moore said the wait for service in Canada is, on average, a few weeks. "I'd be willing to wait a couple of weeks," he said during a stop in Colorado on a publicity tour for the movie. "Statistics Canada, which is the governmental statistics office in Ottawa will tell you the following: there is a four-week wait in Canada to see specialist. There's a three-week wait for diagnostic testing. And there's a four-week wait for elective surgery."<ref>Web page titled, "Michael Moore Pushes 'Sicko' During Denver Visit / Raj Chohan Reporting" at CBS4Denver Web site of KCNC-TV, dated ], ], accessed ], ]</ref>. <ref>2007 Canada Health Council report section on Wait Times</ref> | |||
| Some of Moore's critics, including Kyle Smith<ref name=ksmith/> and Moynihan<ref name=mcm/>, agree with him that the health-care system in the United States has deep problems.<ref name=ksmith/> | |||
| ==Moore's methods== | |||
| Moore has been criticized and praised for the way he reports and presents his argument in the film. | |||
| "any of the major pieces of evidence are ones that have been widely reported elsewhere and in some cases date back 20 years," according to ''].<ref name=mflk>Freudenheim, Milt and Klaussmann, Liza, "Film Offers New Talking Points in Health Care Debate", news article in '']'', ], ]</ref> | |||
| Some have said the film lacks enough detail, both on what alternatives Moore would propose and what that might cost. '']'' film critic ], in a generally positive description of the movie, wrote: "In a 2hr. movie, Moore could have taken a couple mins. to tote up the expected tab."<ref>Corliss, Roger, "''Sicko'' is Socko", article at ''Time'' magazine Web site, dated ], ], accessed ], ]</ref> Moynihan critiques Moore for not presenting specific policy proposals in the film. "Without them, he ends up urging viewers to just let the government run the damn thing."<ref name=mcm/> | |||
| Yet other prominent commentators have said the documentary doesn't need to present proposals. Instead, they say, it succeeds by making its general moral point so well. "'Sicko' is not a fine-grained analysis of policy alternatives," Scott writes in his '']'' review. "This film presents, instead, a simple compare-and-contrast exercise. Here is our way, and here is another way "<ref name=scott/> | |||
| On the Web site of '']'', Ezra Klein wrote that the power of the movie is not in its accuracy or even in its overall description of the various national health-care systems but rather in emotionally confronting the viewer with the problems with the American system and the need to (somehow) make it more humane: "Is this an accurate representation of the Cuban health care system?" Klein asks at one point. "Of course not. It's an attempt to shame us into caring for our own. This is not a movie of arguments, but of examples — of practices Moore thinks more humane, and more in accordance with his countrymen's preferences."<ref>Klein, Ezra, "Why Michael Moore Is Good for Your Health", article at the Web site (but "Web only" so not in the magazine itself) of '']'' magazine, dated ], ], accessed ], ]</ref> | |||
| David Corn, writing on the Web site of ''The Nation'' magazine, agreed that the power of the movie lies in its general moral point, made not only with entertaining humor but with affecting pathos that draws the audience in a convincing way to a general moral conclusion, not a specific set of policies: "Moore, to his credit, cuts through the surface-level details and gets to the essentials. Why allow corporate profit-mongers to decide whether an 18-month-old girl lives or dies? Why is the population of the United States, as wealthy as this nation is, not as healthy as the population of Britain, France, Canada, and 33 other countries?"<ref>Corn, David, blog post, "SiCKO Is Boffo", at the Web site of '']'', dated ], ], accessed ], ]</ref> Cohn also said Moore's method was effective: "he movie actually made a compelling, argument about what's wrong with U.S. health care and how to fix it. Sicko got a lot of the little things wrong. But it got most of the big things right."<ref name=jcohn/> | |||
| ==Criticism of the critiques== | |||
| CBS Evening News critique of Sicko relied on the premise that the U.S. public and its political leaders do not embrace Moore's preferred solution of a ], in which medical care is provided by private doctors and hospitals but paid for by the government. However, according to the media-watch group ] (FAIR), that premise is incorrect. The claim that no politicians support such a system is incorrect, because presidential candidate Congressman ] supports just such a system, as do dozens of members of Congress who co-sponsored H.R. 676, a bill that would provide single-payer coverage. With respect to Americans' support for universal health-care paid for by the government, in a recent CNN poll, 64 percent of respondents supported the statement that "government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes". A recent CBS/New York Times poll found that 64 percent of Americans support the idea that the federal government should "guarantee health insurance for all," while 60 percent supported paying higher taxes to provide such coverage.<ref> June 25, 2007</ref> | |||
| A 2006 poll conducted for ], ] and the ] found 56 percent of Americans supporting the idea of universal health care. This poll found that if supporters are challenged by researchers with arguments about possible downsides of such a plan then significant numbers change their minds about such a program, with support dropping to one third or lower.<ref>"Health Care in America 2006 Survey", dated October 2006, accessed ], ]</ref> | |||
| Moore himself was pessimistic about the chances of universal health insurance being enacted in the U.S. in the near future. In one interview at Cannes he said: "'Let’s be honest, no one’s going to support dismantling the private health care system', Mr. Moore replied. 'I don’t think the insurance companies are just going to give up the profit motivation.'"<ref name=mflk/> In an interview with ''Entertainment Tonight'' at Cannes, Moore said: "What I'm suggesting is the elimination of private health insurance, which is a much bigger thing. I don't know any politicians who are going to take that stand, which is too bad. I don't know many liberals who can take that stand."<ref name=etcannes/> However, Moore clarified that some American politicians are supporting single-payer public health-insurace of the type he advocates<ref>Moore Congressional press conference, June 2007, http://www.democrats.com/node/13353</ref> | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| {{wikinews|Michael Moore's new film 'Sicko' leaked via P2P}} | |||
| ;National health-care systems: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ;Other controversies involving Michael Moore: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==References== | |||
| <!--See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to create footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags--> | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ==External links== | |||
| * , Moore's response to Dr. Sanjay Gupta | |||
| * , Web site of Moore critic mentioned in the film | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 20:34, 25 August 2007
Redirect to:
- From a merge: This is a redirect from a page that was merged into another page. This redirect was kept in order to preserve the edit history of this page after its content was merged into the content of the target page. Please do not remove the tag that generates this text (unless the need to recreate content on this page has been demonstrated) or delete this page.
- For redirects with substantive page histories that did not result from page merges use {{R with history}} instead.