We saw
Sicko a few days ago. The film was very well-done. I hope it encourages some thoughtful debate in this country. I'm glad I saw it.
One particular portion of the film resonated with me. There was a time (not so long ago) when I could not get affordable insurance for myself. I felt badly for the people whom the healthcare system has failed. (And it really, truly did fail some of them.)
Now, an interesting thing is happening. Just about everyone I've talked to
loved the film, and is now singing the praises of universal, free healthcare for everyone in the United States.
I was quite impressed with its message, and though I am in general agreement with the film, I still have to wonder... are any of its viewers considering the other side of the story?
If you know me well, you know I am a fan of thoughtful, respectful discussion. (I think) I try to always dig-up lots of facts and perspectives before making a judgment. After all, it's best to look at every pro and con if you can, no?
I am sometimes accused of being argumentative or difficult, when my real intention is simply to
get people to think. In this hurried society of ours, it seems we just eat-up the information that's fed to us (not just by the media, but
everything...) without stopping to wonder... are we getting all the facts? Sometimes it seems like it's impossible, but a critical and skeptical eye can help us weed-out the garbage.
Sometimes I ask questions that (I hope will) get people to consider something they hadn't thought of. Even if I am siding with Option A, I'll throw-out a question that might sound supportive of Option B. Sometimes these questions are dismissed with a quick "you're dumb, option A is better, duh!" Or even "
Why are you pushing for Option B?" Perhaps I'm just trying to say to them (you)... "think!" There's no harm in playing devil's advocate sometimes.
Why do I do this? It's not some smug way for me to feel superior, nor is it a ploy to say "I told you so." I guess I get some kind of sick pleasure from getting people to
think. Sometimes it'll change their minds, sometimes it won't, but they'll still be all the better if they think about it.
Now, about the film. Healthcare is a complex issue, and some of the film's points are somewhat oversimplified.
And with that, I will now play the role of devil's advocate. Dear reader, I implore you: this is simply a list of things to consider. Don't accept everything I say. Don't accept everything Michael Moore says. Just
think.
Dear readers: If, right now, your stance is "those are good points but I'm not going to consider them because HMO's are evil and the film is still right and universal healthcare is going to solve all our problems," then I have failed. It means I haven't presented a good case, or I haven't persuaded you to consider other factors, which are (unfortunately), more complex than can be presented fairly in a 2-hour film.
Comments are welcome!