Movie Review: Sicko

The questions related to healthcare present a substantial interest to all people. The current paper is a review of the documentary film Sicko by Michael Moore (2007). The documentarian presents a clear point of view. He suggests that the existing US healthcare system is inefficient. All commercial elements should be removed, and the national healthcare system should become closer to those systems that exist in Canada, the UK, or Cuba. Moore (2007) provides much evidence, describing those elements that demonstrate the inefficiency of the existing American system. He also focuses on positive aspects of healthcare system in foreign countries. The author primarily uses empirical evidence. Rational or logical arguments are largely absent.

Sicko by Michael Moore

The director also uses emotional appeals. He shows that poor people become unprotected, and their health and lives are threatened. Then, he proposes his solution in the form of the universal healthcare system. It seems that not all optimal sources were used. The director arbitrarily selected aspects and elements of healthcare systems in different countries (Hwang). It seems that his comparison is highly biased. For example, it does not seem that the healthcare system in Cuba is better than that in the US. Healthcare in France and the UK is also associated with numerous problems that were neglected in the film.

The major two issues raised in the video are as follows. The first one is that the existing healthcare system in the US is both inefficient and inhumane. Moore suggests that it does not allow satisfying the needs of the maximum possible number of people. It is also inhumane because the needs of a large number of poor people are completely neglected (Moore, 2007). The filmmaker demonstrates several examples to persuade his viewers. The second issue is that universal healthcare system used in other countries generates much better results. Thus, the documentarian provides some facts that show that the universal system is more socially just than the traditional US for-profit one.

Although the movie is highly emotional and touching, I do not feel persuaded because there is a lack of logical and objective arguments. It is true that a large number of poor people do not receive the decent level of healthcare. However, the entire Moore’s line of reasoning is incorrect. In particular, the US system is not as inefficient as it is described in the film. Moreover, the main inefficiencies (that become evident during Obamacare) are associated with the government intervention in this sphere (Hwang). The current healthcare system in the US has both for-profit and non-profit elements. It seems that they coincide quite effectively. I do not think that higher government involvement in this sphere can lead to any positive results. It seems that it will lead only to additional bureaucracy and inefficient allocation of scarce resources. Moreover, the government may negatively affect innovations and people’s motivation.

I am surprised that the filmmaker suggests that the healthcare systems in other countries are much better than that in the US. In particular, I completely disagree that the healthcare system in Cuba has any advantages over the US system. It seems that Moore is biased, trying to manipulate information in a way to support his thesis. In general, I like this film as it addresses many important issues. However, I disagree with the author’s main idea. The US healthcare system is non-perfect, but the direction of reforms should be opposite. Higher bureaucratization and government intervention are not needed; the situation can be improved only if more competitive and voluntary elements are introduced.