QUESTIONING THE QUESTIONERS

Slow as I am, I finally just got to Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, SICKO, on disc. It was what I expected--intelligent if somewhat biased, entertaining if somewhat manipulative, and ABOVE ALL, thought-provoking. Moore's critics will seem to find his gift for "thought-provoking" to be his greatest sin.

What we should ask these critics is: What is the harm in provoking thoughts? In starting discussions? In looking at things that need improvement in our IMPERFECT system--yes, sorry, folks but there are indeed flies in the ointment! What is the harm in looking at where we need to improve? Isn't freedom of speech, freedom of opinion what we've been fighting for all these years?

Michael Moore is larger than life. He is a gifted film maker and an essayist--but not necessarily a journalist. He is not reporting, he is rabble-rousing, getting people hot and bothered and making them THINK. (I guess one can say the same thing about Rush Limbaugh--two bears on opposite sides of the ring!) If you are a liberal, then no doubt you will nod in agreement with many of Michael Moore's points, and if you are a conservative, you may well accuse him of being one-sided. But are we so insecure as a people that we can't take a hard look at ourselves and find ourselves wanting, in need of change? We champion our capitalist way of life but seem terrified to look beneath the shrink-wrapping to see what's really inside the package.

While SICKO may play fast and loose by presenting only selected facts, one cannot deny that the American health system is broken. Anyone who has been through the mill with a serious illness--or even just attempted to prevent a devastating problem through testing, check-ups and doctor visits--will tell you that the health system itself is more terrifying than the illness. Can anyone (other than bonus-grabbing pharmaceutical and HMO executives) honestly say they feel safer for their coverage? That their financial survival is not troubled by the health care coverage in this country? Unless you are independently wealthy, does ANYONE have smooth sailing when visiting doctors, hospitals, dentists, emergency rooms? And while certain politicians have defensively decried the ills of nationalized health care in other countries, virtually everyone I know from those other countries has backed up Moore's claims--that public health care systems work and make for a more secure way of life. Health care should be government subsidized from tax dollars, as are police, firemen, schools, etc., and should be one of the things government does to aid and protect its citizens. (Of course, it also works in other countries because the drug manufacturers have not been allowed to drive up costs to ridiculous heights, placing coverage exclusions on the most needed drugs, and HMO's have not been dictating who gets treated and what treatments work versus being merely experimental in the name of reducing their payouts.) The American people are not happy, the doctors are not happy, the pharmacists are not happy. So who IS happy with the status quo? The same people who contribute vast sums to election campaigns, perhaps?

But this is all, I suppose, up for debate. My REAL point here is: why can't we look at ourselves and try to improve on our shortcomings? Self-critique is a sign of strength. Just as there are those who opposed the stimulus package and yet offered only criticism but no alternative solutions, it seems that there are folks who just slam the door when health care reform is even mentioned. There are those presently in Washington who are saying Obama is foolish to deal with health care now in the middle of everything. But health care IS in the middle of everything--employment, finances, household incomes, economic problems and basic day-to-day survival of the average American. To say it is not is being worse than ignorant--it is deliberately turning a blind eye to something that should be the right of every citizen. Sometimes it feels as though those who insist on less government are in fact only looking for less oversight of their own activities. Those who squelch the health care discussion are those who have the most to lose by allowing reform to happen.

The very basis of our country's democracy is supposed to be the ability to talk, to argue and, through consensus, arrive at systemic improvements. (Interestingly, in many of the countries that have nationalized health care, they view it as a product of a democratic society, NOT a socialist regime.) If people can't get health care for their children, if people put off major therapies and procedures because they can't afford them or their insurance won't cover them, if people have to choose between medications that will help them and putting food on their table in this, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, SOMETHING IS WRONG.

I have no expertise and can not tell you one plan is better than another or one side is right and one is wrong. I do know enough, however, to be suspicious: if there is no discussion, if we remain in this quagmire, then SOMEONE is responsible for the shutdown. (And it needs to be looked at WHY they won't let the talks take place!)