Sicko

[Ryan Scott]

My wife is out of town so I did a two movie day.

I have to say that Sicko, the latest documentary from Michael Moore, might become the most important film of our generation.

I never saw Fahrenheit 9/11, but have been told of the obvious partiality displayed on the part of Michael Moore who is an unabashed liberal wacko. However, none of that was present in Sicko in any way. He skewed the government in general, but as far as individual politicians go, Hillary Clinton got the worst of it.

Instead what I saw was an uplifting, hopeful look at health care in the developed world. He toured Canada, England and France as well as Cuba interviewing doctors, patients and health care experts about services, lifestyle and satisfaction.

He shows how neither of the extreme positions are accurate (most people, even doctors, in socialized medicine are pretty happy, but none of them are perfect systems).

The underlying themes were those very compatible with a Christian world view. The idea was that all people deserve to have adequate health care and that we all have a responsibility to make sure that even people who can't afford it can have this right.

He doesn't suggest what we should do, only that other countries have some good ideas and it might not be a bad idea to check out what they have to offer and maybe borrow and adapt some of them to see if they work here.

I think this movie can wake people up to the issue of health care reform, something, which we can all agree, needs to happen, even if we can't agree on how. Sicko just gave me hope that people in this world can still care about each other. It was well worth seeing.

I'd recommend everyone seeing this movie. It's really good. The only potentially objectionable content is that they show a man's butt as he's getting a shot in one scene and they show a printed document with a profanity in it.

My viewing today got a raucous standing ovation even in the midst of super-wealthy, very conservative Leawood, KS.

[Mark Bolerjack]

I think the subject matter would be interesting, and one we need to explore further, but because of his tirade at the Oscars a few years ago, I will not go to see any of his movies. It was so totally out of place.

[Ryan Scott]

It was so totally out of place.

You're right. It probably wasn't the right occasion, even if he was 100% correct.

I was hoping to not go into Moore's politics, because they really do not have anything to do with this movie. It's so valuable. I'd hope you wouldn't throw out the benefits of this movie because it was made by a deeply flawed individual.

[Mark Bolerjack]

With this movie, I have thought about it.

Now, back to the movie reviews!

[Brad Mercer]

I have a near-iron clad rule about movies. I go for entertainment and avoid "message" movies at all costs, whether the message is spiritual or political. I very seldom have much use for the message, and if they're selling the message it's usually because they can't sell it's entertainment value.

[Ryan Scott]

Well it's a documentary, so it's not like a regular entertainment film. Documentaries by nature are like a visual report of some research. I'm not saying the filmmaker doesn't have a purpose, but if you went by that rule, you'd never see any documentaries and there are some good ones out there.

[Ed Buffey]

I'd like to add my 2 cents, and also reply to a few of the posts here.

I saw the movie (I don't attend very many movies), and the bottom line, for me, is how MONEY has replaced VALUES and COMPASSION in our culture. I believe, in a roundabout way, this documentary raises a lot of issues that Christians need to be talking about.

There were dozens of disburbing stories: HMO doctors who get a bonus for turning down legitimate claims; claims agents who intentionally try to "stall" a claim until the patient dies; of CEO's who intentionally try to bankrupt patients with legitimate claims, etc.

But for me, the most disturbing scene (which was caught on a security camera) was the indigent woman who didn't have a way to pay for her emergency room bill. She was inured, sedated, and obviously disoriented. The hospital put her in a cab, paid the cab driver $20 to dropper her off down the street at a homeless shelter... and the cab driver literally "threw" her from the moving vehicle.

The question raised, for me, was: Is this really the way we treat our poor, our meek, our mentally & physcially-disabled? Is this the kind of country we are building? One that is purely profit-motivated? We are supposedly a Christian nation - is this the example we set for the rest of the world? Are we creating a future that our chilldren will want to inherit?

A good deal of the documentary was investigating the medical systems of countries with universal care. For example, in England, doctors get a bonus if they provide good treatment & keep their patients healthy. The more healthy the patient becomes (lower blood pressure, healthy weight, etc), the bigger the bonus. In the US, it's the opposite - doctors get bonuses from the insurance companies for dumping unhealthy patients.

You're right about the filmmaker's inappropriate comments at the Oscars a few years back (even though, in retrospect, everything he said was accurate). But by contrast, this movie isn't really about politics. He did briefly address how much it costs the HMOs to "buy" our politicians, to keep the system broken. And he was equally critical of Republicans and Democrats. In the movie, he said that Mitt Romney & Hillary Clinton have accepted more HMO campaign money than any other politicians. Now, however, the numbers indicate that Hillary has accepted even more money than Romney. So both camps are to blame (except for, of course, the wacky maverick Dennis Kucinich, who refuses to take money from big tobacco, from defense contractors, from HMOs, from anybody promoting violence in the media, etc...he's an outspoken Christian, by the way).

For me it was not a 5-star movie - it was a bit too long, and actually, somewhat depressing. But definately worth watching, and I believe Christians should be talking about this. And my question to Brad (post above), is simply: what movie doesn't contain a message of some sort? Every author (of everything) comes from a certain perspective. There's no such thing as pure neutrality, pure objectivity - that's what the relativists believe, and it's not possible. As historian Howard Zinn says, you can't be neutral on a moving train. I personally would rather see a perspective that questions dominant thinking, rather than something that just supports mainstream culture. After all, mainstream culture is pretty sicko, too.

If you're going to see some movies this summer, avoid the hyper-violent Die Hard-type movies. Instead, why not try something that's both intellectually & spiritually stimulating?

[Ryan Scott]

So both camps are to blame (except for, of course, the wacky maverick Dennis Kucinich, who refuses to take money from big tobacco, from defense contractors, from HMOs, from anybody promoting violence in the media, etc...he's an outspoken Christian, by the way).


I'm one of Congressman Kucinich's biggest supporters and certainly the biggest here, but he would not claim to be a Christian. I haven't yet heard him say anything that isn't expressing some Christian teaching, but he wouldn't claim it, so it's probably inappropriate to claim it for him. I do love that he won't take money from any big lobbies.

[Ed Buffey]

Hmmm... Maybe I'm missing something here. I've read his book Prayer For America (among other writings), and I thought he was pretty clear about his faith. In fact, I like this book more than most theology books!

I'm certainly not saying that he's proselytic about it, and I certainly realize that most of the time he prefers an eclectic faith over the methods of the religious right. But also, I certainly don't intend to put words in anybody's mouth.

[Ryan Scott]

I think he's very much the post-modern religious person. I'd call him a Christian, but I doubt he fits the definition most people here would have of Christian. He's certainly a faithful follower of god, but he's got a lot of mystic eastern stuff in there as well. I just like the guy. I'm not sure it matters; he's not catering to the conservative evangelical vote anyway.

[Mike Wooldridge]

I consider myself moderate to liberal on most spending and social issues, but Kucinich is too liberal for me. For example, he advocates that all basic utilities be run by non-profit government controlled entities. While that might have some merit, my perception is that he'd have us living in the Democratic Republic of North America. In other words he comes across to me as a socialist.

[Mike Wooldridge]

What is the conservative evangelical vote? In some respects, I am conservative, and even though I am a member of a Southern Baptist church, I do not subscribe to all of the dictates of the Southern Baptist Convention, i.e., that females are not to be in a position of leadership in the church, and that abortion, in every instance, is wrong. George W. Bush does cater to the so called "conservative evangelical vote". However, based on many of his actions and policies during the last seven years, he does not fit my definition of a Christian. The non-capitalization in the spelling of God was, I am sure, an oversight.
The "conservative evangelical vote" as a bloc may be gone by the next election. It really wasn't a factor, overall, in the last election. The "hot button" issues of abortion and gay marriage pale in comparison to the war in Iraq and immigration for most Americans. There is no current Republican candidate who has stirred much support among conservative Christians. Dr. James Dobson was recently quoted as pleading with conservative Christians not to stay home during the 2008 elections.

[Ryan Scott]

The "conservative evangelical vote" as a bloc may be gone by the next election. It really wasn't a factor, overall, in the last election.


I would have said this was true last time, too. It's amazing what $100 million in attack ads can do for bringing issues to the forefront.

[Gina Stevenson]

I'd like to add my 2 cents, and also reply to a few of the posts here.

Welcome to NazNet, BTW, Ed. ;)

There were dozens of disburbing stories: HMO doctors who get a bonus for turning down legitimate claims; claims agents who intentionally try to "stall" a claim until the patient dies; of CEO's who intentionally try to bankrupt patients with legitimate claims, etc.

This I believe; it's bad enough when they seem to get kickbacks for lying about patients when it's not a matter of life/death! 'Experienced this while going through the torturous Social Security system, after working 25 or so years after my back was crushed during college. It got so it was hard to sit all day with it, this one particular dude about in the middle of it (hesitate calling him "doctor," knowing what he did), looked at my x-rays in his office and said, "I can take one look at these x-rays & see why you're in pain!" (tho', thank God, when trying to work at home, giving myself sufficient breaks, I don't go through all that pain anymore, unless I'm dumb enough to overdo lifting---such as my poor dog, or something else---or whatever)

What does he do, then? Writes a letter to Social Security, basically making me out to be noncooperative, tho' he'd agreed to look at the x-rays I brought, as they'd were so new---barely been taken within the last month by a chiropractor I'd finally gone to to try to get some relief (did, somewhat). 'Wanted it to appear he had nothing to go on to verify the reason for the SS case (so he could get his kickback?), after he told me he could readily "see!" the "why" of it. The jerk ... just another example of the "sicko" mentality.


But for me, the most disturbing scene (which was caught on a security camera) was the indigent woman who didn't have a way to pay for her emergency room bill. She was inured, sedated, and obviously disoriented. The hospital put her in a cab, paid the cab driver $20 to dropper her off down the street at a homeless shelter... and the cab driver literally "threw" her from the moving vehicle.

Very disgusting ... and sick! You've listed more than enough reasons for the guy's movie title ... "Sicko."

A good deal of the documentary was investigating the medical systems of countries with universal care. For example, in England, doctors get a bonus if they provide good treatment & keep their patients healthy. The more healthy the patient becomes (lower blood pressure, healthy weight, etc), the bigger the bonus. In the US, it's the opposite - doctors get bonuses from the insurance companies for dumping unhealthy patients.

Again, why was it these people left England, to found America ... ?? We're sure not displaying the compassion that "religious practice" for which they sought "freedom" would prescribe, when treating people like this. Since "taxation without representation" was a part of it, too, was it possibly more about the taxation than the wanting of religious freedom, afterall? Or, have we slipped that far from our roots in a couple of hundred years or so?

If you're going to see some movies this summer, avoid the hyper-violent Die Hard-type movies. Instead, why not try something that's both intellectually & spiritually stimulating?

Oh, please, Ed! I don't know ... it might turn me back into the crusader I used to be ... and that's hard work sometimes! ;)

[Gina Stevenson]

OK. 'Just heard Friday, after posting the other post, re what the dr. said when I took Ma to the urgent care center b/c she had a foot problem the last several days. After checking her foot, asking her some questions, he made the comment: "Hey! Don't stay so healthy!" [b/c she takes no meds at nearly 81]

Hearing that reminded me of this movie. 'Said: "Well, if people stay too well, that cuts into their income, ya know."

Tho' he supposedly said it in jest, it's actually one of those "too true" statements ... tho't of this documentary when hearing what he'd said.

HOWEVER, both Wednesday, and then when they checked it again Friday, they reminded her that she was to see another doctor (nearer home), because of her BP. Have wondered about that, but you don't tell her anything; all the pre-pkg'd foods (frozen TV dinners), pretzels, etc, she eats, I really wondered about the salt, etc .............. So, she might have more going on that she has liked to think. But, again, no one could suggest any doctor visit to her ... not for this ... not for her eyes (but she'll still drive) ... not for her ears (TV is sooooooo loud) ..................... 'called 'denial,' b/c she's "not old!" yet ........