Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on This Weekend at the Movies

1

"...but itís perhaps the least informative movies about single-payer healthcare I could imagine..."

Hyperbole alert.

Posted by DOUG. | June 29, 2007 4:35 PM
2

'Walking to Werner' is UNMISSABLE - and I know that younger teens are crazy about it - something about this incredible journey is great for folks engaged in self-making, of any age, but particularly the young'uns. If my younger brother was still a teen and not the fabulous twentysomething next-big-thing of the glam-country scene that he is, I would take the train up to Seattle just to get him to see this movie. A doc that is about the real world of the struggle for meaning - and hilarious, and dare I say it? Heartwarming. If you don't love it I'll give you ten bucks.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | June 29, 2007 4:36 PM
3

The movie isn't even about single-payer health care, it's about the failings of the US health care "system." Moore might endorse the single-payer system, but that's not the movie's main argument. The argument is that health care in this country is broken and that medical coverage (preferably provided by the state) should be universal.

Posted by Jay | June 29, 2007 4:43 PM
4

@3: No, that's my point. You haven't seen it yet, have you? Half of the movie and more than half of Moore's emphasis concerns the perfection of single-payer health care in other countries. And I do not use "perfection" lightly.

Posted by annie | June 29, 2007 5:22 PM
5

Yes, Moore endorses universal health care in the movie, yes he shows foreign countries with universal health care systems, yes he's completely uncritical of single-payer, and yes I have seen it. All that said, I still think it's about how our system is broken, which it is, far more broken than the single-payer systems he highlights. It's a moral and ethical argument, one that doesn't require overt economic analysis.

He simply says "this is the ideal ethical health care model to me, these are the counties that are closer to the mark." His argument isn't complex because he's not making much of one, he's not saying "this is how it would work in the US" and I don't think he's obligated to work out those details.

I agree with you if you think he's uncritical and polemical. But I don't see a real argument aside from "health care sucks here, it's better here." On some level I think you and I agree with the the problems with Moore's film making, I just think the argument he's making is basic and polemical- ultimately any argument for universal health care falls back on the simple moral premise that the government has an obligation to protect its citizens. How it would work is deadly important, but Moore's not talking about that- he's saying the U.S. has let down its citizens. As a propaganda piece it's effective and it has the potential to move the debate (at least on the center left) from this bullshit about requiring everyone pay for private insurance to true universal health care. And that could only be a good thing.

Posted by Jay | June 29, 2007 7:08 PM
6

Annie: I don't know if you read Denby's review yet, but you'd probably like it.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2007/07/02/070702crci_cinema_denby

Posted by Jay | June 29, 2007 7:33 PM
7

Does Moore ever address the fact that the French system isn't single payer?

Posted by keshmeshi | June 29, 2007 10:28 PM
8

Like I said, Moore talks about universal health care/insurance, not single payer specifically. Annie just called it that because Canada has a single payer system.

Posted by Jay | June 30, 2007 12:34 AM
9

Oh, and because Moore has advocated for a single-pay system in public forums other than the film.

Posted by Jay | June 30, 2007 12:36 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).