BOSTON, Mass. – June 28, 2007 – The latest documentary from filmmaker Michael Moore opens across the country tomorrow. “Sicko” chronicles the failings of the US health care system and celebrates its counterparts in Canada, Britain, France and Cuba…all countries with socialized health care systems.
Some critics call it Moore’s best movie yet. But how accurate is it? WBUR’s Health and Science reporter Allan Coukell gives “Sicko” the “Michael Moore” treatment.
Click here to listen to the story.
Michael Moore’s official web site
Share:
This entry is filed under News Stories.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Comments
I listened to Allan Coukell’s review of Sicko and couldn’t help but feel a hint of hypocracy in the review. To pick his mother to interview, knowing that she’s waiting for elective surgery is hardly representative. I’ll bet that if she didn’t have any insurance or money she’d wait a lot longer here for her knee replacement. I’ll bet the average 16 hour wait in the Canadian ER pales in comparison to local city hospitals.
It seems that he misses the overall point that we have the most expensive healthcare in the world and it’s not nearly the best. While Coukell focuses on average life expectancy which places the US as # 26, he should instead look at overall health care which places the US much further down on the list.
Mr. Coukell must have an interest in the existing heath care system for him to ‘cherry pick’ his statistics as he did. His review of the movie reminded me of the orchestrated opposition to a 20th century heath care system that we experienced in the 90’s.
I’m disappointed at WBUR for having such biased information on the air.
Mike Petit
Sterling, MA
ditto, mike. thank you for speaking for so many of us working on the front lines of our broken healthcare system and on the front lines of activism for fundamental reform. The status quo and “incremental” reforms ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
GUARANTEED COVERAGE FOR ALL WITH PUBLICLY ADMINISTERED FINANCING IS THE ONLY EFFECTIVE SOLUTION. Visit http://www.SickoCure.org for details.
folks, follow the money trail and then connect the dots. you’ll find your answer to WBUR’s biased “coverage” on this issue.
Sincerely and in health, Ann E Malone, RN, MSN
P.S. as Michael Moore said to us in NH recently, another obscene embarrassment is that the U.S. media is focused on arguing about waiting times in E.R.’s and for elective surgery, about the most accurate # of uninsured (45 vs 47 Mil), etc, while in the U.S. we have 45-47 MILLION AMERICANS TOTALLY WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE and the 200 Mil who are “insured” are often unable to get the care they need. It’s like those who argue about the most accurate # of how many people were killed in the Holocaust.
I could not agree more. Thank you, Michael Moore.
In my 7-minute review of Sicko, I try to give a sense of the strengths AND weaknesses of Canadian healthcare – something Moore manifestly fails to do in his much longer film. In focusing on waiting times, I am responding to the movie, which deliberately and wrongly suggests there are no waits in Canada. Waits are not inconsequential. A system that leaves people disabled and in pain for years at a time is not functioning properly.
As I note in the review, there are many ways to compare health systems. But the DALE – disability adjusted life expectancy – is the key measure developed by the World Health Organization for its Global Burden of Disease Project, which issued a “report card” on the health care systems of 191 countries.
An objective listener will find that my review carefully notes the shortcomings of US health care.
Based on Allan Coukell’s WBUR review, I did not have any sense of the impact of Sicko. But after viewing the movie, I feel the reviewer may or may not have had a point–however, it is a point that is at best only tangential to the movie itself.
Michael Moore’s film devotes very, very little time to Canadian waiting times. But the reviewer calling his mom on air, in Canada, and devoting a large portion of his 7-minute review to interviewing her at length about her wait times has the effect of blowing this sidebar issue way out of proportion to the movie’s bigger themes. In addition, using one anecdotal experience was supposed to prove exactly what? A reporter calling a friend on air to get a recipe for Thanksgiving dinner may be entertaining. But calling Mom the patient as the expert on Canadian health care was what? cutesy? smug? certainly gimmicky. Yes, Michael Moore can be gimmicky, but that’s part of his shtik and one takes that into consideration in viewing his movies. Expectations are different for a serious and thoughtful movie review.
After seeing the movie, I agree with the earlier poster–this review was unworthy of WBUR.