Coffeetable Blog

This film is a documentary by Michael Moore, of the Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling with Columbine fame, two of his other films that I suppose are more widely known than the others. In his trademark style of combining "facts" (reader beware, as always) with interviews, he delves into the state of health care in America, and compared it side by side with the health care programs of other countries such as France, Canada, and Cuba. Moore paints a gloomy picture of the American health care system, where American citizens themselves are often not given the attention they need. He attributes this problem to the for-profit model of Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), in which the less they provide health care the better off is the company, which clashes with the original intention of privatizing the provision of health care to make it more efficient and available for everybody. He contrasted this with the health care systems of other countries where he paints a picture of health care that is dependent on a person's need, not on his "coverage", and which can even extend to non-citizens of said countries. Overall, he makes for a case of reform which gives an impression that he is advocating for a single-payer universal health care system. The term "universal health care" basically means that a person should be able to get health care affordably (or even free), promptly, and without conditions attached (such as pre-existing illnesses). Having a single payer implies that a centralized body such as a government agency is to be responsible for the provision of health care, and the compensation of those involved in providing these services.

As with any controversial issue, there will always be a plethora of information available for and against SiCKO (and by extension, Michael Moore himself). Most of these information are beyond the capability of an ordinary person to actually verify and vouch for its accuracy. But SiCKO was successful enough in challenging commonly held assumptions. Having a state-of-the-art hospital in Cuba is one such eye-opener for me, I have to admit I always had a bleak perception of Cuba's health care facilities. Also, the film was able to point out that the manner of delivery of common good such as health care should always be carefully considered, especially if there is a tendency for conflict with the profit motive. My own recent experiences with HMOs have not been encouraging themselves. And I still have to get over the fact that you will actually be penalizing yourself for disclosing a pre-existing condition, rather than getting the attention that you need.

As I can imagine the gargantuan task of having a single payer system (though it has been portrayed as having been implemented successfully in the countries featured) and comparing it with the get-away-with-what-you-can mentality of a fully privatized health care system, I am wondering if there are other alternatives. Can some form of government control actually be useful, maybe provide for regulation on what HMOs can and cannot do, even reining in excessive profit-taking? The question is: who would dare do that?

Let me hear your thoughts on this one.