Sicko and the Transformative Moment, by Julie Matthaei
Good Economic News, Julie Matthaei, Solidarity Economy
SICKO AND THE TRANSFORMATIVE MOMENT by Julie Matthaei, July 23, 2007
I saw Michael Moore’s latest documentary,“Sicko,” on Saturday night. The movie opens with a man sewing up his own wound, because of his inability to pay for a doctor. Then it moves to a man without health insurance who cut off the ends of two of his fingers while sawing. The hospital told him it would be $12,000 to reattach the end of the ring finger, and $60,000 to attach the last joint of the middle finger; he could only afford the former. Moore moved on to the story of a young girl who had an extremely high fever; her mother, insured by Kaiser, took her by ambulance to the nearest hospital, which refused to treat her because it wasn’t in Kaiser’s network. When the girl was finally transferred to the Kaiser hospital, over the protests of her mother who was clamoring for treatment, she was too far gone to be saved. Michael Moore said he had received thousands of such stories in response to his post on the internet asking for people’s problems with our health care system. Eighteen thousand people die each year in the U.S. due to lack of health care – six times the number who died in 9-11.
Moore moves on to examine why this is happening in a country as rich as ours. He plays a recording of a discussion among Nixon and his cabinet about the bill which created HMO’s – in which Nixon was won over by being promised that the incentives for this bill were all towards reducing health care provision, rather than guaranteeing it to people. He documents Hilary Clinton’s effort to provide national health insurance, and how it unraveled under the financial onslaught of the insurance industry. In one truly amazing sequence, he runs footage of our elected federal representatives filing into a health care hearing, one by one; Moore attaches balloons to each showing how much they were paid to buy their allegiance to the “health care” industry.
But the genius of Sicko is that it doesn’t stop here, in criticism, as Moore’s previous films have. Moore moves on to examine how ordinary citizens’ health care needs are provided for in Canada, England, and France. Posing as a skeptic who has been convinced by news coverage in the U.S. that “socialized” medicine creates long lines, poor treatment, government-oppressed doctors, and lack of choice, he interrogates both patients and medical providers on our behalf in a humorous and educational way. He finds people who are secure in the knowledge that they and their families will be cared for when ill, and who are convinced that it makes sense to provide this assurance to all of their country’s citizens, through taxes. He finds well-paid doctors who can focus on their jobs – to care for the sick – without worrying about the costs, and whether their patient can pay. He finds waiting times in emergency rooms that are far shorter than ours. He finds health outcomes that are superior to ours, including longer life expectancies. And, in his search to find some way in which patients are made to pay, he triumphantly finds a “cashier” window in the British hospital, only to discover that it was there to provide patients with cash to pay for transportation home!
Then Moore talks to the Canadians, Brits and French about how they got their systems – a visionary leader, in Canada; the popular vote in Britain, says Tony Bem; agitation in the streets, the French explain. Democratic systems, and good leadership, at work, they say. Providing something which should be a right for all. What are we waiting for, Moore challenges us.
Moore has finally found the recipe for social transformation – show the problem, and also show the solution. This is a lesson that I, and my students, have learned the hard way over the almost 30 years that I have been teaching radical economics at Wellesley College. Radicalized in 1960s in the anti-Vietnam War, ecology, and feminist movements, and educated in the 1970s by radical economists, I learned, and taught, an insightful and exhaustive critique of the unfreedoms, lack of democracy, and economic injustices of our advanced capitalist economy. My students left my classroom at the end of the semester depressed and paralyzed, convinced of the power of the rich, capitalist class, their ability to exploit and control us, their destruction of nature, their control of Congress. The utopian socialist visions I presented at the end of the class only made things worse, emphasizing how unbridgeable the gap between our present and where we needed to go.
I am not exactly sure how I was shaken out of this mental stranglehold, but somehow I began to be able to perceive the good economic news that was starting to bubble up all around me. Demonstrators unifying in a movement of movements in Seattle in 1999 to oppose the heartless damage to people and planet being done in the name of “Free Trade.” One hundred thousand environmental, anti-poverty, feminist, worker, peace, and other activists from all over the world meeting yearly at World Social Forums in Porto Alegre, Brazil under the banner, “Another World is Possible.” Wealth holders redirecting billions of dollars of investment to support “socially responsible” firms. Thousands of firms, big and small, working under a new bottom line, which adds concern for people and planet to the goal of profit. Fair Trade businesses which let U.S. consumers use their purchasing power to create ecological, living wage jobs in poor countries. As I began to share this news with my students, they were inspired, and left my classroom looking for the special ways in which they would be able to make a positive difference in the world, in this time of crisis and promise.
By 2005, there was enough good economic news to convince my co-author, Barbara Brandt, and me that we are in the midst of a “Transformative Moment,” a potential transition to a new, more just, sustainable, and cooperative paradigm of economic and social life (see our writings on this, under Publications). And by 2007, Germai and I had formed this website, TransformationCentral.org, to visibilize the wonderful diversity of new ways of being and doing economic and social life that are being practiced all around us–so that we can copy them, and improve on them. Like Michael Moore suggests we do with National Health Insurance systems in the rest of the world. We invite you to read our stories, blogs, and links – stories of transformation – and send us your own, so that we can inspire and learn from one another as we build a new and better way of life for us all.
jmatthae July 23, 2007 at 12:18 pm
“Even so, affluenza has reached the point where government interference is necessary to control these wants…”
This statement makes me nervous. I agree that government interference will be a part of the “cure” for affluenza, but I think it needs to have more to do with controlling firms rather than people. The concept of a government controlling the “wants” of the people brings to mind several failed experiments – Cuba, for example. People have natural “wants” that for the most part are perfectly reasonable – we want to be comfortable, we want to be well-liked, we want to be happy. The problem is when unregulated firms go out and advertise, brainwash and capitalize on those wants, attaching false solutions to them. We will be comfortable if we have a big house and an expensive car, we will be well-liked if we wear designer clothing, we will be happy if we keep buying things that make us happy. Yes, now these attachments or amendments to our wants are fully internalized by the public, but I think it makes more sense for the government to go about addressing the cause of the problem – advertisement and unregulated firms, rather than the effect – a public that buys unnecessary and unhealthy products.
I like the idea of limiting options to children, but I think it would be even more effective in the long-run to limit the amount of advertising of unhealthy foods that reaches children. It’s a good first step to take unhealthy food out of school, but the children are still being inundated with advertising outside of school. Kids tend to want what they can’t have, especially when they know what it is and that other kids like it.
Lauren, I really appreciate your comment, but I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. If you read on, I clearly say that the government can’t control the wants (desires) of the people directly. What I was trying to say in the phrase you commented on was that the government will be necessary to control affluenza (whether that be by a carbon tax, limiting the food options to children, or by controlling advertising–which I think is a very good point). I meant that the government (in some cases) will have to control the wants in an indirect way by controlling the causes. I should have been much more explicit in saying that. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Sorry for nitpicking about the wording, Ali. I definitely agree with what you are saying. I’m sort of having an inner debate right now about how much government regulation I want in general and I think I took it out on you!
I think it’d be cool to do something like an ad campaign to teach children about healthy consumption, a mix between regulating advertisement and regulating consumption.
I, too, find it especially interesting to consider the role of government intervention in the context of both affluenza and our country’s current financial situation. We live in a country that very much values capitalism and individualism. Many people are very wary of government intervention and its potential to “rob” the individual of rights and infringe upon our personal freedoms. With lingering Cold War-era taboos against communism and socialism, some people look very negatively upon the notion of government control. However, I believe that the government should hold the fundamental role of acting in the best interest of its citizens. In that context, the government should step in and enact programs that promote the overall well-being of the people. I agree that, in fighting against affluenza and strengthening our country’s economy, government action is necessary and has the potential to bring about a great deal of positive change.