Sicko

L. and I saw Michael Moore's Sicko this past weekend. Overall, it was well done, and somehow managed to be both entertaining and completely depressing.

First, let me get a couple things out of the way. This movie is liberal in nature, but I don't really begrudge Moore of that; he is, after all, making a point. And to be completely upfront, I am liberal, but I'm not going to take Moore's every word and trust it as Gospel truth. However, I think that most people will connect with this issue (if not the movie) simply because most people have had unpleasant dealings (at the very least) with their insurance companies and the health care industry, or have at least known someone who has. But, you don't go to see a Moore film, or any documentary for that matter, without a modicum of reservation that this may not be the whole story. OK, now onto the other stuff.

As I break it down, this movie has three main parts to demonstrate how health care in the US sucks:
1. Insurance companies are privatized, meaning that their goal is profit not care.
2. Other countries do health care better because it is "free".
3. Shock value: Cuba cares better for our 9/11 heroes than we do, and apparently our mortal enemies at Gitmo have access to better health care than law-abiding citizens in the US.

Point 1
I do actually agree with this part of the movie. Health care in America isn't really health care when the insurance companies are accountable to shareholders and responsible for maximizing profits. Hands down, this is a conflict of interest. It's also a big conflict of interest to have insurance and drug companies lobbying our law makers, but this isn't limited to these industries alone, so I think that is part of a much larger issue.

As shown in the movie, another elephant-sized conflict of interest is having doctors deny necessary procedures in order to get higher bonuses, promotions, and other perks. These people took an oath to care for their patients, not to line their pockets or the pockets of companies and shareholders. The movie does a good job of showing some of the corruption in the industry, such as:

• A doctor who testified before congress that she had denied procedures and knew of at least one procedure that resulted in the death of a patient. This led to her being promoted into a higher position with more influence and, of course, money. She also explained how this is common practice in the industry to save money for the company.
• A doctor whose signature was stamped on all kinds of denial forms without his actual review of the documents to determine whether a procedure was necessary.
• A man whose job it was to uncover previous conditions to deny procedures. One woman affected by this particular practice was denied coverage of her procedure because she had a yeast infection in the past and had neglected to disclose the information - on a form in which she detailed her previous serious medical conditions. And as a side note, what woman hasn't had a yeast infection in her lifetime??? I recall this being uncomfortable, but in no way a serious condition. I digress.

This was a pretty emotional part of the movie for me in light of the recent problems that my step dad has been having, and also due a really difficult time for our family several years ago. My cousin's wife, H., was 22-ish when she was diagnosed with Burkitt's Lymphoma, which is a very rare and aggressive form of lymphoma. It was a devastating blow. My cousin, J., and H. had just been married and were starting their life together after college. Both were very healthy people. Then she went to the doctor with a jaw ache, and somehow her doctor sensed that something very bad was happening and ordered blood tests which revealed the lymphoma. It would have been a death sentence for H. had her sister not matched as a stem cell donor. The joy quickly went south when her insurance company denied the procedure to have a stem cell transplant. So, H. (as sick as she was) and J. (as devastated as he was) pulled together a case for the transplant, and made their trip over here to Western Washington to appear before the board with their appeal. Luckily, the overturned the denial and approved her transplant, and she is now alive and happy today. I felt badly that one couple in Moore's film were not so lucky - despite the appeal of their denial, they were turned down and the husband (and father) died of kidney cancer despite the fact that his brother was a donor match. It brings tears to my eyes just thinking of awful that must have been and still is for his surviving family members.

Point 2
Now onto the next part of the movie, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't: other countries do it better and for free. Let me first say that I have family and friends in Europe, and studied the European Union-including their health care practices-as part of my degree in college. So, I do have a little prior knowledge of this, although I am certainly no expert. It is true that we (in the US) are pretty far down on the list as far as some statistics go, such as infant mortality, and this is particularly troubling because we are an industrialized nation that should have our crap together on this. And in countries like Canada, France, and Great Britain, you wouldn't have to give yourself stitches or pick which finger you wanted to have sewn back onto your hand if you got a little too close to the table saw (as shown in the movie). Nor would you have to pay exorbitant prices for drugs at the pharmacy, so you wouldn't have to work well into your 70s to pay for medicines for you and your spouse (as shown in the movie). As a side note, this is an issue that my parents are currently discussing so as to determine when it will be feasible for my mom to retire - not because of their actual retirement plan, but because of health care. But, again I digress.

The thing that I felt was poorly covered in the movie is that health care in these countries is not free. Although Moore does cover some statistics of how much this all costs, he and the people he interviews constantly refer to their care as free. Last time I checked, things such as roads and schools aren't free. These things are paid for by tax dollars. So this is where things get sticky, because those countries that have "free" health care are actually paying for it with their taxes (which is something that Americans are extremely wary of). Some countries are better at balancing the books, but not all. As a result, some countries go into debt to take on such elaborate health care programs. I don't think that means that it's impossible to do, but just that these other places probably need to look at what they're doing as well. And, as far as terminology goes, I suppose that throwing around the term "free" could be an attempt at framing, but I think liberals tend to be conscious of such manipulation in general and conservatives will be sure to be conscious of this because it is Michael Moore. So, I think it is safe to say that Moore is no candidate for a position in a conservative thinktank that comes up with terms like "death tax" and "tax relief".

On a personal note, about 10 years ago I visited some friends and their extended family in Denmark. At the time, I recall that they were paying approximately 60% in taxes. Now, that is a lot of money. However, when I asked them about it, they said that although it is a lot, and certainly they'd like to have more take-home money, they were also thankful for the fact that they had help when they needed it and that everything was taken care of. So, this didn't affect decisions, such as which career path to take or when they could retire. They also didn't fear what would happen if they were unable to work for a period of time, such as due to childbirth or having some kind of accident. They understood that they are paying for this, but that they were happy that this was available to everyone - regardless of position in life. They felt like it was their responsibility as part of the community to take care of themselves as well as others. This is what my family in Germany echoed, as well as my friends in France.

So, here is where I think we have a big divide: attitude. As Americans, we may pull together during times of strife, but overall we're a very self-centered society that constantly looks at "me" rather than "us". Our current political situation is a direct reflection of this in the "me" against "you" attitude. And God-forbid you'd ever criticize America or suggest that we may be able to take a lesson from another country, or you'll be labeled a bleeding-heart liberal who wants to turn the country into a socialist or communist nation. That actually happens to be my biggest problem with sites like Moore Watch (http://www.moorewatch.com/) and honestly the conservative viewpoint in general. Just because we are Americans does not mean that we are perfect. We are human, and we make mistakes. And sometimes, we might be able to take a look at the things that aren't going so well and re-evaluate things. I was already tired of "stay the course" the first time it was uttered. Now it just makes me livid.

Point 3
OK, onto the end of the film, which is probably the most hyped part: going to Cuba. I actually thought this was a pretty brilliant move, even though a lot of people are ticked off about it. Having grown up at the tail end of the Cold War, I am probably not the best judge of how this particular stunt will be received by people who were trained to hunch under their desks or in hallways in case of nuclear attack. I realize that there are some very strong feelings about communism, and particularly about Cuba, in our country. But, I couldn't help but get a kick out of giving the ol' finger to our current administration by pointing out that the health care in Gitmo is better than an ordinary citizen working nights at the 7-11 could ever dream of having. And I was really moved by the Cuban fire department honoring the 9/11 heroes who went with Moore to Cuba to get treatment and drugs.

Now, I'm not sure how accurate the part about actually getting the treatment and drugs was. I'd wager a bet that there was some movie magic going down here. First, I'm not sure how common this kind of hospital and treatment would actually be throughout Cuba. Second, I'm pretty sure Cubans understand the relations with America are strained (to say the least), saw the movie cameras rolling, and were motivated by one or a combination of the following thoughts:

• These people are sick and they need care. They are here, so we will care for them.
• It could be good for relations with the US.
• It would be a big ol' finger to the US that it can't even take care of it's own citizens, especially people who helped in 9/11 efforts.

There are likely more, but you get the idea. And I'm not sure how thrilled Cuba would be with an influx of Americans coming down to get free health care. I think at some point, they'd look at us and wonder why we were sucking their system dry.

But, in the end, these particular people did get the treatment and drugs that they needed, and I can't say that I blame them for doing what they had to do. I mean, after fighting so much red tape, a person just wants to be able to breathe, ya know? And for those critics who say that Moore used these people to make a point, well yeah, but I'm sure that they knew it and it was a tradeoff for something that they wanted. These weren't defenseless, brainless people. They made a choice and followed through with it. If you want to feel badly for them, feel badly about the health issues that they'll face for the rest of their life. And feel badly about the fact that we failed them in the end by not having the guts to stand up to our government and hold it accountable for such atrocities as letting people suffer this way.

Summary
So, that's my tome about Sicko and health care in America. It's a lot of food for thought, and I haven't completely digested it all as it is. But, I do think that it is worth questioning our methods and standards so that we really can be the best that we can be. Status quo might work for some people, but we need to look at the bigger picture and see whether we're hurting other people in the process. I don't hold out that it will ever be 100% perfect, but it's better to try and make improvements where possible instead of reacting like injured creatures when someone criticizes us. And in that, I mean that by having people, like Moore and others, point out our shortcomings we should be looking at all of the data instead of branding people as un-American or un-patriotic. On the contrary, progressives have made many things better for our country and are responsible for many rights that we now take for granted.