The Medical Freedom Channel

The rather glowing review in this space, of Michael Moore’s latest film, SiCKO, has gotten far less response than we would have expected. Nevertheless, it seems time for some “leavening” of the bread. Herewith, a consideration of some of the criticisms of the work, from a couple of other sources. One is a respected free market thinktank, while the other might be charged with the label of “industry flack screed.”

The first voice is a familiar one, for regular MFC readers. From the blog of John Goodman, the self-proclaimed “father of health savings accounts” and President of the National Center for Policy Analysis, comes a June 29th entry, archly entitled “Michael and Me.” Goodman begins by charging that “Michael Moore didn’t want me to see SiCKO … [and] If you know anything about health care systems, he didn’t want you to see it either. At least, not at first. In the beginning, the only people allowed to view the film were reviewers who knew nothing about the subject. The apparent theory was: get it reviewed by people unlikely to spot all the errors and omissions before you open it to more discerning viewers.”

He goes on to catalogue a long list of “errors and omissions,” calling “the whole purpose of the film … to compare the worst features of American healthcare with the best features of healthcare in Britain, Canada, France and even Cuba (!) …” And as far as that goes, he is correct: Moore did not set out to make a “fair and balanced” presentation of the pros and cons of America’s health-delivery system; he made a film about what is egregiously wrong about it, and then presented how other countries deal with the issue, hoping that some of those measures might be adapted to our own systems to some beneficial effect.

COMMENT: It’s quite true that Michael Moore is convinced that nationalized, taxpayer-supported, “universal healthcare” holds the key to solving the crisis. However, this does not necessarily mean that he could not, intentionally or not, be targeting some of the main reasons why our present system is so screwed up along the way.

For example, the segment of the film dealing with the “yeast infection” incident, which was used as a reason to deny coverage (on a policy whose premiums were paid up to date), AFTER the fact, to a woman who had required cancer treatment at exorbitant cost. The mere fact that this sort of “guilty until proven innocent” treatment of a policyholder, on the most spurious of grounds, is considered standard practice by most of the insurance industry, is not only ethically suspect but morally reprehensible. Add in the further evidence that these corporate gluttons (who are already making absurd amounts on the “float” between premiums taken in and the subsequent claims paid) have their own detective-branches, whose mandate is to seek out any way to avoid paying even the most legitimate claims … and it is a wonder they have not been driven out of business already.

And then there is the shamefully shabby treatment of those who risked their lives and well-being as 9/11 volunteers, and who have been essentially cast aside by the system they tried to help in that time of dire need. (The fact that money raised during that time has been so callously squandered – by governments at all levels, the Red Cross and other institutional entities (much as it was after Katrina, etc.?) – is the greater tragedy, as is the fact that not nearly enough corporate contribution came forth to care for these “after-heroes” of those conflicts.

Goodman correctly attacks some of the reshaping of reality done by Moore, in showing only the best aspects of the Canadian, British and French government-run systems, as well as in presenting an obviously slanted view of Cuban healthcare facilities, at least the ones that the natives get to deal with. (It does seem significant, however, that inhalers for asthma sufferers can be obtained, at the local Havana pharmacist, by the fistful, for far less than one costs when provided by our own Big Pharma-controlled milieu. If this fact was distorted by Moore, I’d like to know how.)

BACK TO CRITICISM:

Another fairly cogent critique comes from Paul Offit, writing in the Wall Street Journal. He begins by relating all of this to a general trend in film, of fictionalized anti-business treatments of pharmaceutical companies (”The Constant Gardener” and “The Fugitive”) and other aspects of the healthcare cartel. He calls Moore for failing to offer either rebuttal space or perspective anywhere in his film, calling it “Sick Propaganda” in the title of his piece. (He does quote Moore’s rather flippant comment when asked why this omission: “They already have their story out there. It’s called the nightly news.”)

Offit then lists a number of things Moore left out of his film, citing statistics showing that American lifespans have increased by 30 years over the past century, vaccinations for multiple childhood diseases are now standard procedure (some would say this is a mixed blessing, since kids today mostly lack the natural immunities that have always prevailed from getting chicken pox, mumps or measles as preteens), and other fairly common-knowledge aspects of the healthcare arena. He makes a valid point, noting that Moore might have challenged Big Pharma on the legitimate level of its marketing practices, pitching to consumers with the “ask your doctor” notion of “magic medicines without side effects,” as well as the promotion of hairloss and virility products over of life-threatening disease-prevention measures.

As the tagline notes, “Dr. Offit is chief of infectious diseases at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine, and the author of the just-published Vaccinated: One Man’s Quest to Defeat the World’s Deadliest Diseases (Smithsonian Books).” His perspective may or may not be influenced by his position within the industry.

I’m not sure I need to say any more here … see you next week