8/3/2019 "Sicko" PHE 455 Christopher Harley Quick Critique 3

1/2

Christopher Harley Quick Critique #3 Sicko

PHE 455 Lockwood 1

Positive Aspects

Ive always admired Michael Moore as a sort of modern incarnation of the timeless

huckster archetype. Theres a lot of P.T. Barnum there but I reference that name

only because both Barnum and Moore are skilled showmen. Both are deft

impresarios, always ready to take their shows on the road. I think the work thatMoore has put forth in his film Sicko, arrived because of a need in the United States

to make sense of the vacuum that capitalism has created around healthcare. Moore

successfully chisels away at the arguments for individualism that animate rightwing

conservative thought in this country by showing the audience that the health of a

nations citizenry is important in ways that need to be measured beyond bottom line

economics.

The perennial question surrounding Moores workconcerns his objectivity in

presenting the material. The audience must either believe what Moore presents as

fact or be prepared to scrutinize everything as though it were all created from his

own personal bias from the start. I dont see this as a fault of the filmmaker. Moore

always tries to create an entertaining and engaging vehicle to carry his subject. Hiswork is neither intellectually unassailable nor particularly beguiling. He simply has

a documentary style that purports to address a partiality that he knows is shared

with a substantial percentage of his audience. He speaks their language and they in

turn respond to his message style. None of his work would ever find a substantial

audience if werent for that fact that his subject matter is often incredibly

contentious to begin with. In Sicko, Moore asks both his admirers and his detractors

to try and explain the deeply complex issues surrounding universal healthcare and

when doing so, describe why the convention should be considered unattainable. In

the end, those who agree with Moore feel satisfied in their beliefs. On the other side,

his detractors are left clinging to the single argument that remains to qualify their

distress; that of the right of individuals to remain unburdened by the duty toposition oneself as a caretaker for the wellbeing of their fellow citizens. Though that

may sound presumptuous, I believe that to be the truth that resides at the core of

each detractors resistance to sharing the cost of universal healthcare. Moores Sicko

works to make that argument all the less tenable.

Interesting Aspects

By far, the most interesting parts of the film are played out in the machinations used

to determine what healthcare is provided to which policyholders among those who

are insured in our country. Its terrifying to think of what I would do if I were to

become critically ill. I have no health insurance other than what is provided to methrough the universitys studentpolicy. The one time Ive used it, the doctors visit

was paid for but the medical device that was prescribed was not covered nor was

the prescription medicine. Emotionally, I had to treat the aliment as though it were

something Id promised would get my attention later in life, when I had more

substantial insurance converge. Its my own denial but its all I have to go on. In

watching the citizens of other countries who benefitted from universal healthcare, I

notice a relaxed sense of contentment even though they were facing medical

8/3/2019 "Sicko" PHE 455 Christopher Harley Quick Critique 3

2/2

Christopher Harley Quick Critique #3 Sicko

PHE 455 Lockwood 2

problems. To me, thats a paradoxical disposition that Ive never known one in the

United States to present in the face of illness. Even the well insured among us knows

that there are limits to coverage and that services may be curtailed or completely

denied before the financial burden is fully understood. Its very telling that Moore

could travel to Cuban and still find that ease with which patients access healthcare.

Negative Aspects

Though I prefaced my essay by praising Moores style, I still harbor an uneasy

feeling around his delivery. When the artist is too far out in front of his art, theres

an element thats created that draws the audience away from critical thinking and

instead provides an opportunity to unthinkingly mimic Moores prescription for

simple solutions to complex problems. Moores work is there to make us think but

his delivery presents the subject as though public policy can be changed overnight if

only his detractors werent the heartless beasts that hes drawn them up to be. I

agree that the insurance system that we have must be reformed but I dont see how

we can turn that system around even in my lifetime. We have a nation thatsobsessed with viewing doctors as heroic figures, handsomely paid and endowed

with an education loftier than what could be imagined by the common person. Add

to that the litigious nature of our citizenry and the malpractice lawsuits relative to

those doctors and you have a near stalemate. Going a step further, I cant see how

pharmaceutical companies, conducting research, can continue to pursue their profit

motive if their incentive is coupled with a supposedly altruistic responsibility to the

public. The elements that Ive highlighted as negative aspects in this film are not

solely to be found in Moores filmmaking style nor are they details left purposely

unaddressed in his delivery. These characteristics are qualities of the average

American temperament that need to be reevaluated in the context to holistic

healthcare. If we want to be healthier, we as a nation need to pursue health from thecradle to the grave. We mustnt hold doctors in such high regard and allow their

manner to supersede the humanity among which they ply their trade. We need tort

reform to make certain that doctors can practice in a reasonable sense without the

looming specter of malpractice ligation defining their every decision. Most

importantly we, as individuals, in an incredibly individualistic society need to take

personal responsibility for disease prevention before the assumption of universally

provided cures. Moore made good use of the vehicle of film to deliver a very

important issue facing all Americans but he never asked that we look deeply into

every facet of what would bring us to a better system than what we currently have.

In failing to do that, Moore left his fans with an implausible hope for overhaul and

his detractors with just enough ammunition to continue their blockade on commonsense.