This is a 2007 documentary which seeks to investigate the health care in the United States. The documentary looks into the United States health healthcare by focusing on the pharmaceutical industry and the health insurance. It also focuses on Canada, Finland, France, Cuba and the United Kingdom by trying to compare their universal non-profit health care system with the United States, for- profit non universal health care system. It is alleged that the documentary was made on a budget of close to 9 million and at a gross of 24 million for theaters. The documentary starts with Moore's narration of how he had invited people prior to shooting the movie, to come and share their health care stories and after only a week, his website was flooded with more 24, 000 mails. The huge number of the mails he received could make one to realize how wanting the situation is and draws interest too, to want to hear what they have to say. Moore uses the first three cases in the film as a presentation of the plight of close to 45 million people (Nichols, 2010).
From the documentary, we can deduce that close to fifty million Americans are not insured and those who have being insured usually fall prey of the insurance company scams. Some people who appeared on the interviews appear to have being denied health care when they claimed they had adequate cover. The profitability strategies of the insurance companies is revealed as it is revealed that the insurance companies offered their physicians' bonuses so that they could find ways that the companies could avoid paying their policy holders by meeting their medical costs which in turn increases the companies profits. There is an instance in Canada where Moore interviews a micro-surgeon and the people who were waiting to be attended to at the emergency room. There is a narration by Ronald Reagan which is meant to sound a warning against the danger of the universal health care such as the loss of socialism and freedom (Nichols, 2010).
-
0
Preparing Orders
-
0
Active Writers
-
0%
Positive Feedback
-
0
Support Agents
Health Maintenance Organization's origin is also presented in the taped conversation of John Ehrilchman and Richard Nixon. Nixon's alluding to Ehrilchman's statement which he said was not bad but fine seems like the main reason why there was an expansion of the modern Human Maintenance Organization based health care system. Moore visits the United Kingdom which has a National Health Service which is comprehensive and it is a publicly funded health care system. We learn that prescriptions in pharmacies from people of a certain age is free but compared to the Wales and Scotland where prescription is free no matter the cost of the National Health service. In addition, the NHS hospitals in these countries employ cashiers who are charged specifically with duty of reimbursing the poor people who spent their money on fare to get to the hospitals (Moore, 2007).Moore also visits France where we establish that the government there gives its citizens many social services such as health care, neonatal support and public education for those who volunteered during 9/11. Back in the United States though, it is established that the volunteers of the 9/11 were denied funds by the government for psychological and physical problems. There is the a scene which shows people on boats sailing from Miami to Cuba seeking medication which is offered for the enemy combatants who are detained in the United States. Moore beckons for access pleading for the 9/11 injured group to receive treatment which is at the same level with the one given to the 'evil doers' detained at Guantanamo Bay. They are repulsed and forced to move to Havana where they purchase cheap medicine and are given free medical treatment and they do not present their medical history, only names and birth dates (Moore, 2007).Moore ends the movie by addressing the people and advising them to take care of one another despite their differences. Moore's commitment on the health issue theme is revealed when he bails out Jim Kenefick by sending him money anonymously to cater for the medical treatment of his wife which could have lead to the shutting down of Moore's website due to Kenefick's absence. Moore did that with the intention of not wanting the United States health care system to limit Kenefick's ability to express his views. Moore finishes the documentary with a mocking to the United States government claiming that he will get them to do his laundry until a day when he sees a better day for those who can not receive health care and for the sick (Jacob, 2007).
The documentary uses misrepresentation of facts as its persuasive tactic. It is alleged that Moore misrepresented the facts about the health care systems in countries like Cuba, United Kingdom and Canada. Moore shows these countries as having advanced health care systems which do not have defaults, a thing some of the critics say is not true as the health care systems in these countries is characterized by long waiting lists (Larson, 2009). Deception has been used widely by Moore in his documentary. The main trickery used by Moore is portrayed where he claims to have bailed out Kenefick when his wife was sick and he needed money for her bills in hospital.Moore used visual representation as a way for persuasion as it is alleged that some scenes in his DVD were deleted. For instance, in France it is said that the scene where Moore had an interview with a General Electric was missing. In Norway, the scene depicting the Norwegian Health Care System was also deleted as it is claimed the country possesses the more or less the same kind of health system like France (Larson, 2009).Scare tactics has also been used by Moore in trying to make the people to get to believe his documentary. The depiction of people on a boat travelling to Guantanamo Bay for medication was a scare tactic as it depicted the American Health System as if it can not be depended on by the Americans. The film does not get me persuaded since all there is much evidence against the ways he tried to persuade people. In fact, the movie leaves me with much doubt as am left wondering if I should believe the other scenes which have not received criticism yet (Larson, 2009).