STRATFORD, NJ, USA
Friday, I had a little bit of a break. I got out of the house for a few hours to watch two movies.
The Simpsons Movie
(That is supposed to be me as a Simpsons character, courtesy of simpsonizeme.com)
First, I saw The Simpsons Movie.
This is only about the third time that I’ve seen a movie on the day that it came out. Fortunately, even though I saw it right away, I wasn’t chomping at the bit with sky-high expectations.
I’ve been watching The Simpsons on TV for years. While it’s still an awesome show, I do think that, in recent years, it has had an increasing tendancy to be hit-or-miss. Honestly, I think the writers are just running low on ideas (that’s only natural after 18 years), and plots that seem to revolve around finding a way to work a celebrity guest-star in the show or plots that take the Simpsons on an exotic trip are getting a little old, I think.
That, coupled with the fact that I was working every time the show was on (both new episodes and reruns) for a while means that I got out of the habit of watching for a while.
Even though The Simpsons might not be at its peak, it’s still one of the better shows on TV. So, I was eager to see the movie. I was expecting something fun and that would earn about 3.5 stars out of 5 on the Gary scale. And that’s exactly what I got!
Check it out!
Sicko
I am not a big Michael Moore fan. Nevertheless, after The Simpsons Movie ended, I decided to make it a double feature and watch Sicko.
(I missed the first 5-10 minutes, but I don’t think that’s too too big of a deal).
It had been over 3 years (time flies!) since I watched and reviewed the last of Michael’s Moore’s movies, Fahrenheit 9/11. It had been even longer since I had watched his other films. But I wasn’t that very impressed with any of the previous ones that I had seen.
If memory serves me correctly, Fahrenheit 9/11 initially struck me as a largely unreasoned anti-war screed. Bowling for Columbine didn’t even answer the main question it raised (what is it with American culture the inspires gun violence?) and instead took a simplistic anti-gun tone. I haven’t seen Roger and Me, and I remember pretty much nothing about The Big One aside from the fact that it was unmemorable. And one-sided.
Still, I think it’s awesome that Moore has hit it big enough in the mainstream to bring big issues to broad debate, even though he’s just a wee-bit too far to the left for me.
I had heard that Sicko was Moore’s best film yet. After watching it, I am inclined to agree.
That’s not to say the film is perfect.
Moore is a hard-core socialist, and, just like his other films, Sicko rails against the injustices brought about by more capitalist societies while upholding the ideals of the far-left. If there are problems with social welfare regimes, Moore doesn’t see them.
After I left the theatre, while everything was still fresh in my mind, I sat in the car and made a list on a napkin of some comments and critiques–positive, negative, and neutral:
- Moore’s comments about being kept in an “economic chokehold” by a lack of of social welfare programs, and therefore choice and democracy suffering, is a good pro-left, pro-democracy arguement.
- The comparison of US and Canadian healthcare wasn’t fair. Moore focused on chronic care in the US, but emergency care in Canada. Apples and oranges, especially since the most common critcism I’ve heard of Canadian hospitals is their handling of chronic health problems. I would have liked to see that allegation examined fairly.
- Of course the 9/11 rescue workers got good care in Cuba! Brining them there is an incredible propoganda opportunity for the ruling party. Castro must have been drooling. Remember that Cuba’s healthcare is still ranked below the USA’s.
- The health and social welfare program of the European Union, including France, cost A LOT of money, and that has caused things such as unemployment and questions about the long-term financial solvency of these programs. That’s not to say that it’s not a good program, but it’s not right to paint France as perfect. We should learn from them, though.
- Everyone knows HMOs can suck, but I had no idea how ruthlessly they go after some people. Dang!
- I agree that more preventative care is needed, but I do think such care is growing in the US. The US does need to do a better job at thinking long-term.
- Yes, US prescription costs are high. But isn’t that because US consumers are subsidizing the R&D costs of new drugs because Rx companies don’t make enough in foreign markets to do so? This is an arguement I’ve heard in the past, and it would have been nice to see Moore tackle it. I’ve always wondered if foreign countries may be doing more harm than good by regulating the price of drugs.
- Good point: we have public education, so why not public healthcare?
- But does Moore trust the US gov’t to run medical care when he seems to think it does such a poor job in so many other areas?
- I think Moore should have taken a look at the libertarian anti-Nanny-state arguement. Does socialized medicine cause one? Do we have one anyway?
- Likewise, I’ve seen it mentioned that the quality of care-per-dollar spent here is low. Is that true?
Still, it’s not a bad film.
In fact, I think Sicko works better than Moore’s other films simply because it examines multiple countries and therefore presents us with options.
In the past, Moore’s movies seemed to make simplistic, exclusive statements like “Bush is bad,” “Guns are bad,” and “Downsizing is bad.” Here, “the US Healthcare system is bad” is certainly at the core of the film, but a more positive ”socialized medicine is good” ties everything together.
Or rather, it doesn’t tie things together. At least not all the way. And I think that’s why this movie is better. It gives us room to examine, think, and choose.
The US, UK, France, Cuba, etc., all have their own social welfare programs that, to different extents, subsidize the costs of healthcare. All have positive aspects, and all have negative aspects. And some do better jobs than others.
Moore makes a compelling case that the American healthcare system is not the best, and therefore there are better ways. We should examine these. After all, why shouldn’t the US strive to be the best?
He doesn’t tell us specifically what US healthcare policy should look like, but he does show us that it deserves another look.
Sicko opens a debate, but it doesn’t close it. And that’s not such a bad thing. For Moore, it’s his best.
3.5 stars out of 5.
Filed under: Current Events, Life, Movies, Posts with Pictures
