Sicko

The other night I managed to see "Sicko."

This is a very tricky film.

It's tricky because it's an issue that desperately needs attention. However, Moore presented his film as viscerally as possible. It was designed to punch you in the guts with the facts and show you his argument as forcefully as possible. So, I fear people are going to dismiss it as unbalanced. He made it easy for critics to poo-poo "Sicko" as more Moore malarkey.

On the other hand, perhaps he'll grab enough attention that enough people will do solid investigations within our health care system. After all, the film did a great job of ramming home the issue on an emotional level. Also, Michael Moore didn't have as much time as he needed to be able to fairly address the issue. To do the subject credit 3 extra hours added to Michael's 2 would still be skimpy treatment. In this light, perhaps a polemic was all he could manage within the time available.

At any rate, let's hope this film will help the situation.


As an aside: concerning the issue of health insurance - I feel that it's a sham. People shouldn't have to be in the position of being objectified in this way. If you have a possession, like a work of art, a house, or an automobile, that you wish to insure so that if you lose it because of theft or catastrophe you will not be out too much, then that's a sensible use for insurance. However, if you get sick you should just be cared for. Period.

Let's leave insurance to deal with the world of things and leave health care to the world of caring for our fellow creature.

EDIT:

A friend of mine pointed out to me that this is M Moores POV and as such is his side of the argument. Those that claim it's not "fair and balanced" basically want people to argue against their own POVs. So, far I can't think of a thing wrong with that reasoning.