The New Yorker on Sicko
Michael C. Moynihan | June 26, 2007, 3:29pm
In my review of Sicko, I argued that while in the past Michael Moore has had an easy time winning converts in Europe, it's going to be a harder slog with this film. Denouncing the Iraq War and calling Americans, which he clearly doesn't count himself among, stupid ("They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," he told the Daily Mirror) is easy; convincing Brits that the NHS provides flawless, wait-free medical care—for free!—strains credulity. The New Yorker's David Denby thinks Moore will have difficulty convincing Americans too (Hat tip to Alan Vanneman):
Michael Moore has teased and bullied his way to some brilliant highs in his career as a political entertainer, but he scrapes bottom in his new documentary, "Sicko."
...
Moore winds up treating the audience the same way that, he says, powerful people treat the weak in America-as dopes easily satisfied with fairy tales and bland reassurances. And since he doesn't interview any of the countless Americans who have been mulling over ways to reform our system, we're supposed to come away from "Sicko" believing that sane thinking on these issues is unknown here. In the actual political world, the major Democratic Presidential candidates have already offered, or will soon offer, plans for reform. A shift to the left, or, at least, to the center, has overtaken Michael Moore, yielding an irony more striking than any he turns up: the changes in political consciousness that Moore himself has helped produce have rendered his latest film almost superfluous.
Speaking with my friend in Dublin today, I inquired about his level of satisfaction with Irish health services. He replied with an anecdote: The last time he required medical attention was for a broken arm, for which he was fitted with a standard plaster cast. After a few days the cast, which was apparently constructed from recycled copies of the Irish Sun, began to fall apart. He returned to the hospital for a replacement but, after waiting in the emergency room for nine hours, decided instead to head home and piece it together with DIY tape. The Irish system, he said, was "a mess."
Andrew Sullivan's Canadian readers chime in here.
There is, of course, much to say in response to Moore's deification of the Cuban system, though I think these pictures, published in the Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter, will suffice for now. They were taken at a nursing home in the Cuban province of Pinar del Río in June 2004:
More photos here.
Edward | June 27, 2007, 12:17am | #
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-life.html
"The position of the United States is one of the major surprises of the new rating system," says Christopher Murray, M.D., Ph.D., Director of WHO's Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. "Basically, you die earlier and spend more time disabled if you’re an American rather than a member of most other advanced countries."
The WHO cites various causes for why the United States ranks relatively low among wealthy nations. These reasons include:
In the United States, some groups, such as Native Americans, rural African Americans and the inner city poor, have extremely poor health, more characteristic of a poor developing country rather than a rich industrialized one.
The HIV epidemic causes a higher proportion of death and disability to U.S. young and middle-aged than in most other advanced countries. HIV-AIDS cut three months from the healthy life expectancy of male American babies born in 1999, and one month from female lives;
The U.S. is one of the leading countries for cancers relating to tobacco, especially lung cancer Tobacco use also causes chronic lung disease.
A high coronary heart disease rate, which has dropped in recent years but remains high;
Fairly high levels of violence, especially of homicides, when compared to other industrial countries.
kohlrabi | June 27, 2007, 11:13am | #
Joe,
"In case you haven't noticed, pretty much everyone else on the thread sees the rather obvious smear of Moore's patriotism, too. Most of them are endorsing it."
That's entirely irrelevant. FWIW, I think they're wrong as well, but that's beside the point. I will stand by my first statement until I see compelling evidence to the contrary. The original comment was a slam against Michael Moore for claiming all people in a given set are stupid when he in fact belongs to that set. Whether the set is American or Male or what-have-you means nothing to me. MM is the one who identified it. Quoting Proverbs has as much value as comparing me to a spin doctor.
This is all very tiresome. Simply, your claim that Moynihan's article was bogus because of a weak slam on Moore's patriotism holds no weight given what Moynihan actually said. That you and 96% of commenters supply addition meaning and context doesn't change that. Ad Hominim attacks don't change that. Quoting Proverbs doesn't change that.
Consider:
"and calling Caucasian Men, which he clearly doesn't count himself among, stupid ("They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," he told the Daily Mirror)"
"and calling Michiganders, which he clearly doesn't count himself among, stupid ("They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," he told the Daily Mirror"
"and calling Adults, which he clearly doesn't count himself among, stupid ("They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," he told the Daily Mirror)"
Moynihan's statement has essentially the same meaning.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
