Film Review: Sicko

Being a fan of Michael Moore films, and documentaries in general, I found Sicko to be extremely captivating, and Im not much of a movie watcher. The documentary itself focuses on the healthcare system in America compared to other countries in the world. The primary countries that the United States is compared against are Canada, the UK, France, and Cuba. In all of these countries, healthcare is socialized or provided 100% free to citizens. In the film, Michael Moore himself travels to these countries and visits some of their healthcare facilities such as clinics and hospitals, while exploring the processes and quality of care involved. Despite the fact that there is an assumption in America that causes many to believe that there are always long wait lines, and periods of waiting to receive care for terminal illness, Moore does a great job of documenting that this is indeed purely rumor, and that socialized healthcare in these countries is typically top notch. The film also delves into several very serious stories about men and women living in the United States who have been denied healthcare, which eventually (unfortunately) ended in death. These stories do a great job of highlighting the United States healthcare system as one comprised of corruption, special interests, and capitalism. This film incorporates several concepts that we have learned in class this semester. The first concept from the film that is applicable to the book that is class structure in the United States. Toward the beginning of the film, the story of a married couple was told. The husband had three heart attacks, and the wife ended up getting cancer. This put them in a dire financial situation because they lacked the healthcare coverage required to pay for everything they needed. As a result, they had to put their home up for sale because the situation was simply beyond their financial means. Ultimately, the couple had no other choice but to move in with their 20 something son to essentially avoid being homeless. This serves to demonstrate that when things like terminal disease occur within a family, class structure comes into play. Wealthier families are able to absorb the hit so to speak, while middle class and poor families may be forced to sell everything, including the roof over their head just to be able to stay alive. In addition to class structure, the severity of such events is highly dependent on ones socioeconomic status (SES), another key concept from the book. The second concept from the film that I would like to apply to the book is the concept of race inequality as it relates to healthcare. The film highlights a happily married white woman who had a black husband. They were planning on spending the rest of their lives together but then the husband sadly came down with kidney cancer. Of course, once he was diagnosed with

the condition, he wanted to see if any of his relatives were worthy transplant matches. His youngest brother ended up being a perfect match, but when they went to go apply to have the transplant done, they were denied. Ultimately, the man ended up passing away. This story had profound impact on me personally, and really set me off about how the system of healthcare in this country is not only expensive, but unfair and corrupt. The woman felt as though she was being discriminated against due to race firmly believed that if he were white, he wouldve probably received care. This story most likely involved potential race inequality and discrimination, along with social inequality (the woman mentioned that the CEO of the company wouldnt have been denied coverage, which is probably 100% correct.) The third and final concept that was on prominent display in this film was that of unequal distribution of wealth and income. The film gave a major example of this, and it had to do with the healthcare companies themselves. First of all, these companies were so wealthy, that they were able to lobby the U.S. Government to approve legislation that firmly secured them as the middlemen in healthcare. This legislation guaranteed them a cut of all action in regard to healthcare needs and prescriptions. These companies gave a staggering sum of $800,000 to Hillary Rodham Clinton, and it appeared as though it was roughly the same amount to G.W. Bush. The fact that the top 1% was able to essentially control the passing of legislation is a prime example of financial inequality. In addition to this lobbying, the film showed the story of several people who worked in the call-centers for health insurance companies. They explained that there were multiple conditions which would automatically disqualify people from being able to get health insurance. Some of these included diabetes, bipolar, and gastric bypass surgery. Often times, these callcenters would know right away that these people were disqualified, but they wouldnt tell them. Instead they would send a denial letter home so that the call-center was only spending extended periods of time with qualified applicants who could generate even more money for the healthcare company. This was truly sad to watch. In regards to how the film posed a challenge to the sociological concepts we have learned in class, I will say that there was one particular concept that stood out in my mind, and it was that of class inequality as it relates to healthcare. Typically, those in the middle and upper classes tend to have more than those in the lower class. However, due to the nature of the healthcare system in the U.S., those who live in other countries, regardless of class, actually have equal or more than even the wealthiest of Americans due to healthcare socialization. This is also the

single most important fact I learned from the film, as I was previously unaware that any country except Canada offered this type of government-funded healthcare.