Sicko Ignites Debate on Health Care Coverage

By Anastacia Mott Austin

Recent anti-Michael Moore comments by a Google employee on its corporate blog were followed by a firestorm of public protest and a rapid backtracking and apology by Google, which only served to keep interest and discussion about the movie high.

Though some have criticized it and others have lauded it, one issue seems to keep people on both sides agreeing with each other: our current system of health care needs help. They just disagree about how to go about it.

Critics of the movie (and even some supporters) have called it unabashedly one-sided and polemical, too harsh on the U.S. health care system and too soft on those in place in Canada, France, and Cuba.

Lauren Turner, employed by Google as an account planner, complained on Google’s corporate blog that the movie didn’t show the positive side of the American health care system, and suggested that to counter the movie’s message health-care companies should buy ads from Google.

Hundreds of bloggers responded to her comments and protested that Google had no business taking sides in the issue, and disagreed with her take on it.

Turner finally responded that her opinion was her own and not Google’s, and agreed that a personal opinion on a corporate blog was "not appropriate."

This wasn’t enough for the public, who continued to rail at Turner and Google until Google posted an official apology on the corporate blog.

Google "failed to recognize that readers would – properly, but incorrectly- impute the criticisms as reflecting Google’s official position," said Missy Krasner, a product marketing manager for the company, to reporters. "We blew it."

Krasner added, "In fact, Google does share many of the concerns that Mr. Moore expresses about the cost and availability of health care in America. Indeed, we think these issues are sufficiently important that we invited our employees to attend his film," which almost 1,000 did.

Other criticisms of the movie include using emotional, anecdotal information to put a one-sided point across, and purposely using examples that would further the movie’s message without including those that might provide a more balanced account.

Still, those who have seen it say it accomplishes its mission; to send moviegoers out of the theater shocked about the current state of affairs concerning health care in this country, and motivated to ask questions about it.

Undoubtedly timed to coincide with next year’s presidential election, many reviewers of the film say it could influence political debates about the health care issue. In fact, Moore’s own website for the movie exhorts users to post their own health-care stories and write their congressional representatives, adding that "this film stands a chance of igniting a movement" in an email to his supporters.

He may have a point. In a world increasingly affected by Internet advertising and purposeful web "word of mouth," the message from a film supported by the world-wide community can have considerable power – if the YouTube generation shows up to vote, that is.

Yet other than presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who said, "Michael Moore is right about this!" at the Democratic candidates’ forum last week in Washington, DC, most political candidates don’t want to touch the issue. While they agree that the current system needs help and that "All Americans need guarantees to health-care," no-one is willing to step up with the specifics.

And though Moore’s claim that people leaving the movie will rise up in unison to demand a single-payer universal health care system in America is surely overstated, he may be onto something when he says, "I think the health-insurance industry, the pharmaceutical companies are in for some pretty bad times here. I don’t think people are going to tolerate this anymore. They’re going to demand legislation."

One thing is for sure; the health-care issue in America is a hot-button topic, and the well-timed release of Moore’s film only ensures the debate will continue. While everyone has a different opinion on what needs to change, the one thing that isn’t debated: something’s got to give.