REVIEW
|
 Sicko
2007
Certificate: 12 | Runtime: 119 | Director: Michael Moore
Starring: Michael Moore, -, -
 
Documentary maker Michael Moore delves into the issue of healthcare in the US. With over 50 million people not having health insurance in a system which almost requires it, Moore compares the US system with the universal programmes seen in many European countries, and Cuba. However, he is also interested in insurance companies - particularly regarding their apparent reluctance to pay out for claims - even when cases seem to be black and white.
Michael Moore is a documentary maker who almost seems to revel in dividing opinion. For my part, I'm decidedly on the fence. Sometimes I agree with him, and at other times I do not. But his film-making methods have often caused me to raise the odd cautious eyebrow, and Sicko sees his controversial tactics utilised to their utmost.
I think that Moore's main criticism of the US health system is a valid one. Interestingly, his primary complaint is not that 50 million people do not have health insurance, though this is an issue he addresses. His focus is instead on the plight of people who have health insurance, but who have been told at some point that significant medical expenses will not be met by their insurer. In many ways anyone with any form of insurance can relate to their situation, albeit to a very limited extent. After all, getting money from your house or car insurance company can sometimes feel like trying to squeeze blood out of a stone. But imagine if your life itself hinged on your insurance company, and suddenly the situation has become a lot more disturbing.
Moore's relatively anecdotal approach to documentary making naturally serves this aspect of the film well. It could be seen as a trifle manipulative, but then again the testimonies he has gathered are not coming from people with a particular axe to grind; he simply captures their absolute devastation. You'd have to have a heart of granite not to feel sympathy for the woman whose husband was denied a bone marrow transplant by their insurance company because they claimed that the treatment was experimental. Similarly, there is a despicable irony in a woman being told that her brain tumour is non-fatal by her insurance company, and then dying from it. What about the mother whose seriously ill little girl died while being transferred to the hospital where her insurer wanted her to be treated?
Obviously there are a great many people in America who are presumably quite happy with the service their insurance companies provide. But that doesn't mean a problem does not exist, and Moore is successful in pointing out where this flaw lies. However, when it comes to the matter of selling universal healthcare as the alternative, Moore's anecdotal and deeply personal approach gets him into trouble. Beforehand, he was using specific examples to demonstrate his general point. In the second half of the film however, he uses the opinion of his interviewees as fact, and that is something very different.
For example, he spends a decent amount of time in the UK examining the NHS, a system pretty much every person in this country is familiar with. The NHS is a wonderful thing but it does have problems, and Moore is not interested in hearing them. While he took the opinions of dozens and dozens of people to demonstrate his point about American insurance companies, when it comes to the topic of universal healthcare Moore finds one person who agrees with his specific viewpoint and presents their testimony as a consensus. He finds one British doctor who absolutely loves his job and everything about the NHS, and pretty much presents that as the opinion of the UK medical profession.
He is also very careful not to mention the issue of how the system is paid for while in the UK. The UK is one of the most heavily taxed countries in Europe, but in order to understand how the taxation needed to fund universal healthcare affects people Moore goes to France instead, and France has a lower taxation burden than the UK. The amount of money we're talking about isn't small either - the NHS budget for 2007-2008 is £104 billion - and this money has to come from somewhere. Moore is also very quick to dismiss concerns about governmental interference in healthcare having negative consequences. But with reports in the UK strongly suggesting that government targets are to blame, at least in part, for the massive rise in hospital related infections and illnesses, it is an issue that Moore should have debated properly.
To be honest I could go on and on doing this, but there's not much point in looking at each one of Moore's points in a review. As a documentary Sicko is relatively informative, often quite funny, and poses a few interesting questions. But Moore is guilty of manipulating things to suit his agenda, which is a shame because there is really quite a lot in the film that a significant number of people could agree on.© David Mercier
Discuss films and features on the FilmJudge Blog
|
|
RECENT REVIEWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
RECENT FEATURES
|
|
|
|
|
