Reflection on "Sicko"

602 Words3 Pages
In Michael Moore’s film, “Sicko” he describes the corruption of America’s health care today while comparing it to the universal health care other countries such as France, England, and Canada are exercising. I am very glad Michael Moore produced this film because although it may not be fair to both sides, it is still very informative and sends out the message that health care companies here in America are making a healthy living a luxurious burden rather than a given necessity. The two articles criticizing his film made it a little clearer of the bias he took part in. I believe the first one, by Tom Charity, was from a more neutral stand point rather than a liberal side, like Michael Moore, or a conservative side, like I believe Stephen Hunter is on. Charity described the truth and the overall message that “Sicko” gave, which was that the “insurance companies are making a killing at their expense”, when in retrospect they are supposed to be saving lives. While agreeing, he also points out that the hospitals and service given in other countries is not as nice as it is made out to be. I agree with this and although this may be true, it is after all, free health care. Also, us Americans are used to hotel style hospitals and health care companies spending millions on hiding the fact that they are indeed hospitals. He also points out that “the World Health Organization report cited in "Sicko," which placed the U.S. at No. 37, one spot above Slovenia -- and, if you look fast enough, two places above Cuba.” This is before Moore insisted on taking three 9/11 victims to Cuba so they may receive fairly prices, in this case free, health care. The second article by Stephen Hunter basically said without saying that he does not like Michael Moore and thinks his film stands politically incorrect. Hunter, overall, rants and proceeds to ask rhetorical question after rhetorical
Open Document