|
Sicko
Mar 30, 2010 12:04:41 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Mar 30, 2010 12:04:41 GMT -6
Sicko is a 1997 documentary which questions the American for-profit health care system, which benefits insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies while restricting access to health care for many Americans. Director Michael Moore is known for his controversial and provocative documentaries on General Motors (Roger and Me) the gun rights movement (Bowling for Columbine) and 9/11 (Fahrenheit 9-11)
Sicko compares the U.S. system with the non-profit universal health care systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, France and Cuba. In one famous scene, Moore travels to Gitmo with a group of uninsured Americans who need medical treatment but can't get it. The group gathers outside the prison as Moore asks the prison's administrator why these Americans can't have the same free medical care that accused terrorists get? The group is turned away, but they continue on to Havana, where all the Americans are given treatment free of charge.
In England, a doctor tells Moore that he makes less money than an American physician, but that he lives comfortably and is grateful to be free of the hassles of billing patients for his services. In France, a new mother receives six weeks of home visits from a mother's helper who even does the laundry for her, and it's all paid for by the government.
Some critics have complained that SIcko romanticizes socialized medicine, which has its own problems with lack of timely access and budget problems. The film launched a debate about health care in the United States that has culminated in the U.S. government's passing legislation to reform the way health insurance companies do business.
|
|
|
Sicko
Mar 30, 2010 16:23:58 GMT -6
Post by diane on Mar 30, 2010 16:23:58 GMT -6
Midge this sounds exactly like the documentary I saw - except the man who hosted it was an English journalist. We have a national health system here in Australia and there are problems - like the waiting times. But to not have an alternative system I feel sorry for the people that can't afford it. We would be in the same boat. We (Herb and I) did have top cover but a few years ago when we were going through tough times we downgraded (we were on the verge of pulling out altogether) and now our cover is only for "emergencies". There was a talkback on the radio about it and one chap said he had opted for a bank account where he put his health fund contributions into a bank and he had managed to save $47,000. People were amazed at his saving skill (it had taken him years) but then someone rang up and said they had had to go into the hospital for a week and it had cost them far more than that.
|
|
|
Sicko
Mar 31, 2010 9:31:32 GMT -6
Post by dvdjunkie on Mar 31, 2010 9:31:32 GMT -6
I have never believed anything Michael Moore says or does. He twists all his interviews to fit what he is talking about. He takes a lot of comments out of context, and makes them mean something other than what they were originally intended.
Why anyone would make sense out of anything this man says is beyond me. However we each have our own opinion and that is just mine.
He preys on that part of American society who will listen to just about anything if it is anti-American, anti-Government, or anti-just about everything.
Sicko is irreverent for sure. But for the year 2007, when this film was released, it just doesn't make any sense.
;D
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 2, 2010 12:23:59 GMT -6
Post by tinyhippy on Apr 2, 2010 12:23:59 GMT -6
He preys on that part of American society who will listen to just about anything if it is anti-American, anti-Government, or anti-just about everything. ;D Amen to that! I'm not even American (yet), but I do live here and am pretty patriotic about this country. It angers, annoys and disgusts me that there is a part of society who will continue to hate America, blame it for everything, and for whatever reason, wish they were more like Europe! :huh: Why?? I've lived there, I know how it works, the lack of freedoms and government take-over of EVERYTHING. Socialism does NOT work. It has never worked there, it will never work here. And besides of which, the American public do not want it. What happened to the government being of the people, for the people? Michael Moore is a leech, living off that tiny percentage of people who are ready and willing to follow anything un-American. He needs to read the Constitution. And, if he still doesn't like it, he should move to Cuba since he seems to love it there so much. (If it's so great there, why do they all keep coming here? Hmm.) /rant ;D (Just a side note - I have never seen this film, because it would make me want to smack the TV screen too much.) ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 3, 2010 1:05:53 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Apr 3, 2010 1:05:53 GMT -6
This is just a friendly reminder to everyone that in order to comply with Diner policy to avoid controversial topics, we had better limit our discussion to the film itself and not debate the pros and cons of socialized medicine or insult the filmmaker. There are lots of other places on the Internet where you can do that. I realize I may have ignited a powder keg by even mentioning this film, so I will take my share of the blame. ![:-[](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/embarrassed.png) Thanks for understanding ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 5, 2010 13:13:04 GMT -6
Post by tinyhippy on Apr 5, 2010 13:13:04 GMT -6
Hey, that's no problem Midge. I understand that. Believe me I could have got a lot more fired up but I understand people here may have differing views. :thumbsup:
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 5, 2010 13:48:42 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Apr 5, 2010 13:48:42 GMT -6
Hey, that's no problem Midge. I understand that. Believe me I could have got a lot more fired up but I understand people here may have differing views. "People may have differing views." Based on the partisan shouting matches I've seen on other forums, that must be the understatement of the century! ![8-)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/cool.png)
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 5, 2010 22:41:20 GMT -6
Post by dvdjunkie on Apr 5, 2010 22:41:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 6, 2010 2:53:28 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Apr 6, 2010 2:53:28 GMT -6
Fair enough. I believe that Michael Moore as a filmmaker wears his heart on his sleeve. He has a point of view that he is trying to sell you. In that sense I wouldn't call his films pure documentaries because he doesn't pretend to be objective. What you see in his films is only what he wants you to see - whatever makes his point of view look good and makes the other side look bad. Because Moore is so openly biased and can sometimes behave like an obnoxious ass, he has made a lot of folks angry. I liked the movie SIcko. Moore's films are always entertaining because he has the chutzpah to confront people and ask the tough questions. However, while watching the film I was very much aware that Moore was promoting his own point of view and that I wasn't getting the whole story. Uh-oh, I hope I haven't violated any Diner policy.
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 6, 2010 9:32:32 GMT -6
Post by dvdjunkie on Apr 6, 2010 9:32:32 GMT -6
Well done, Midge. I wanted to say almost the exact thing, but I think my version would have been totally in violation of Diner rules.
You did a marvelous job and saying what I was thinking and finding hard to put into words.
;D
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 6, 2010 14:33:25 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Apr 6, 2010 14:33:25 GMT -6
Thank you, Bill! You just made my day. ![:-X](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/lipssealed.png)
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 9, 2010 12:32:47 GMT -6
Post by Hedvig on Apr 9, 2010 12:32:47 GMT -6
It's certainly true that Michael Moore is an opinionated film maker. It seems a shame to me that he inserts himself into his films so much. That generally has the effect that he gets discussed much more than the real issues he deals with. I also don't really care for the sections of his movies where he speaks in voice-over, speculating wildly and telling me what I should be thinking about certain video clips. That's too much like propaganda for me. But that doesn't mean that his movies are without interest. My advise is as with everything political: watch it first and make up your mind afterward.
IMO, pretty much all movies contain some sort of bias - but it's not always so in your face! That doesn't mean it isn't there though.
What worries me is that I think we might be conditioning ourselves for more documentaries and journalism of this sort. It is a journalist's job to, as far as it's possible, try to be objective. At least present the facts in as neutral a way as is possible, and keep yourself out of the story. I was taught in journalism class that I should never include the word 'I'. We have a code of ethics that the more serious press, in print and on TV, tries its hardest to follow, so that it can earn the public's trust.
Documentaries should also follow this principle, or else they can too easily be dismissed as biased, and then what purpose do they fill? However, documentary film makers like Michael Moore are not bound by the code of ethics like journalists, and they do not have the same burden of public trust, so they are freer agents than journalists. What I see as a problem is when journalists, on both sides of the political divide, start acting more like propagandists than objective news readers. You have to be constantly aware of what you're watching, what an agenda it could have. Where do you get your information from? Maybe Michael Moore helped normalize this sort of reporting.
I hope this was less political and more bemoaning the state of civilization in general?
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 9, 2010 13:26:46 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Apr 9, 2010 13:26:46 GMT -6
Hedvig, that was a very insightful commentary on the state of journalism today. Documentary filmmakers such as Michael Moore are not journalists and don't follow the principles you described. They don't pretend to be objective, so it's no wonder that they are accused of bias.
The points you brought up could be the subject of a whole new thread on the state of journalism today.
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 9, 2010 14:10:27 GMT -6
Post by Hedvig on Apr 9, 2010 14:10:27 GMT -6
Yes, that's a fascinating topic on it's own - though it's got the potential to become very political!
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 9, 2010 14:46:48 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Apr 9, 2010 14:46:48 GMT -6
Yes, that's a fascinating topic on it's own - though it's got the potential to become very political! Right you are. :nervous:
|
|
cherrymalotte
Regular Diner Patron
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_darkblue.png)
Discovering the It girl...
Posts: 108
|
Sicko
Apr 10, 2010 8:12:37 GMT -6
Post by cherrymalotte on Apr 10, 2010 8:12:37 GMT -6
I think one has to remember that the film is from his point of view...as most documentaries are.
I work in the insurance industry, have for years - medical, dental, RX, vision. My opinions on this would probably cause a small revolt. The only thing I can say is let the buyer beware, and for pete's sake know what your policies pay for!
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 10, 2010 14:29:20 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Apr 10, 2010 14:29:20 GMT -6
I think one has to remember that the film is from his point of view...as most documentaries are. I work in the insurance industry, have for years - medical, dental, RX, vision. My opinions on this would probably cause a small revolt. The only thing I can say is let the buyer beware, and for pete's sake know what your policies pay for! As you know, Cherry, insurance is a for-profit business, and as such it is in the industry's best interest to charge more for premiums than they pay out in patient care. This is one of the points that Michael Moore makes in Sicko, and it's a valid point even if his way of presenting it was heavy-handed.
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 10, 2010 15:02:45 GMT -6
Post by Hedvig on Apr 10, 2010 15:02:45 GMT -6
That's very true. I take a class about film and propaganda, and one of the things my lecturer said to us a couple of weeks ago was that we keep talking about how documentaries are becoming more skewed, when in fact they always have been. From Nanook of the North onwards.
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 10, 2010 17:50:13 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Apr 10, 2010 17:50:13 GMT -6
That's very true. I take a class about film and propaganda, and one of the things my lecturer said to us a couple of weeks ago was that we keep talking about how documentaries are becoming more skewed, when in fact they always have been. From Nanook of the North onwards. I don't think it's possible to make a documentary without a point of view. Every film needs to tell a story. If it didn't, it would be rather boring to watch.
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 11, 2010 4:58:23 GMT -6
Post by Hedvig on Apr 11, 2010 4:58:23 GMT -6
Yes, and even journalistic articles have a slant because it's simply impossible not to have one - it's only a human writing it, and besides, it needs to have a focus to remain interesting. However, with documentaries, it's a delicate balance - you need to tell a story, but you shouldn't construct a fiction. You can't treat facts too liberally. Letting the "other side" speak their piece in your film, for example, is something you must at least try to do for the sake of fairness. It might even help your cause if you confront them, it will show that you are being serious. This is all a bit OT since Michael Moore does confront his opponents, but I've seen a few documentary films lately that don't seem to find that necessary, which is petty bad I think.
|
|
|
Sicko
Apr 11, 2010 15:39:24 GMT -6
Post by Midge on Apr 11, 2010 15:39:24 GMT -6
That's a very good point, Hedvig. A good documentary will let both sides have their say, and confrontation can be an effective way of doing this. In Michael Moore's first film Roger and Me, he confronts the president of General Motors, Roger Smith, to ask him about the effect of the company's downsizing on the citizens of Flint, Michigan. His attempts to talk to Smith are cheeky and amusing in a David-and-Goliath sort of way. Moore got a lot of media attention because of this. In some of his later films, however, he uses this confrontational style in a way that makes me feel uncomfortable.
For example, in his film about gun control, Bowling for Columbine, Moore travels to Hollywood to talk to gun advocate Charlton Heston, who famously defended the right to bear arms by holding up a rifle and declaring that "they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands."
Heston greets Moore cordially, then the filmmaker bombards him with questions that are clearly designed to make the elderly actor feel uncomfortable. We know now that Heston suffered from Alzheimers Disease, so in retrospect the relentless badgering of an old man seems cruel. It's one thing to be provocative and ask the hard questions, but I think Moore could win over more people to his point of view if he presented facts rather than staging stunts that make him the center of attention.
|
|