Furthermore, health care in U. S. due to

Furthermore, I am going to use Micheal Moore to demonstrate how controversial issues can be used to attract the audience and how they become a unique selling point of a documentary. He uses a very controversial subject such as health care in U. S. due to he thinks it is in public interest to know the facts and stories that happened to characters in his film. ‘Sicko’ (2007) investigates American health care system and health insurance companies. According to Sicko, around fifty million Americans are uninsured and those who are covered are often victims of health insurance companies’ fraud.

The documentary starts with couple U.S. citizents that are not insured and how they have to deal with the injuries themselves. Reg had an accident and he saw off the cups of two of his fingers. When he went to a hospital he had to choose which finger he can afford to be attached. But the film is not about the people who don’t have a health insurance. Moore investigates the stories of people who have been denied health care even though they were insured. The story is told from both sides of the argument. He interviews people who work for insurance companies and even doctors who have to deny treatments even for cancer, so the company they work for won’t loose money.

Your time is important. Let us write you an essay from scratch
100% plagiarism free
Sources and citations are provided


Get essay help

( he is manipulating people) Moore proves that the health system is really bad. He also compares it to other countries like Canada or United Kingdom. According to Austan Goolsbee, a Professor of economics at University of Chicago, one of the cases would have the same ending whichever health system that would be. ‘In one heart-wrenching case in the movie, a woman whose husband has kidney cancer is told by the insurance people that they won’t allow an experimental treatment that might save his life. But that scene would likely play out just the same way in a nationalized health system.

In those systems, cost-effectiveness decisions get made all the time. Care is rationed. That’s what happens if you offer something for free-you have to make rules about who is allowed to get it. ‘ I don’t totally agree with him, because it was clearly explained in the film that not only that treatment was denied, all other treatments, which were not experimental were denied too. Austan Goolsbee also says: ‘So, to do as Moore wants in the United States, you would need to do more than just overcome the insurance industry.

You would need to cut the salaries of doctors, reform the legal system, enrage our allies by causing their prescription drug costs to escalate, and accustom patients to a central decision-maker authorized to determine what procedures they are and are not allowed to get. Unless every one of these changes comes together, Moore’s new system would end up costing an enormous amount of money. ‘ In my opinion, Moore is aware of the costs of changing the system, but he also knows that it would be more beneficial for everybody.

All these people who are insured and they are still scared to go ask for help in the hospital due to they know that insurance company will still make them pay for the treatment. In his film, Moore is representing the U. S. government and governors from the bad side. I would say that in some scenes he tries to ruin their reputation, for instance Congressman Billy Tosen, who left the Congress to work for a health insurance company because they offered him $2 million. I think that even if he tried to put his message across without using example of Billy Tosen it wouldn’t make such a big impact on the audience.

Roger Friedman of Fox News called the film a “brilliant and uplifting new documentary” and praised Moore for the way in which he lets “very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies” and “criticizes both Democrats and Republicans for their inaction and in some cases their willingness to be bribed by pharmaceutical companies and insurance carriers. ” Film critic Stephen Schaefer of the Boston Globe described Sicko as “a very strong and very honest documentary about a health system that’s totally corrupt and that is without any care for its patients.

” Columnist and movie reviewer Michael Medved wrote “In contrast to his previous films, Moore delivers no entertainment value in this dull, didactic downer; and, as an editorial it’s so completely one-sided that it’s useless with not the slightest mention that ‘free’ medical care actually costs tax money or any conversation with people who disagree with Moore’s pro-socialized-medicine point of view. ” Issues Some of the issues in factual programs are accuracy, balance and impartiality. Making documentaries we need to make sure that we are as accurate as possible.

We have represent and show the real facts. We cannot twist no information or lie. Being impartial within factual programming or keeping balance is slightly harder to do. Everyone has their opinion and before making the documentary, especially about controversial issues; we are already on one side of the argument. But it is important that we try to keep balance and show the another side of the argument as well.

Bibliography; http://www. filmcloseup. com/2007/08/definitions-of-documentary. html 13. 11. 08 http://www. thenation. com/doc/20070716/hayes 13. 11. 08http://laughingsquid. com/wp-content/uploads/sicko_poster. jpg 13. 11. 08 http://www. epinions. com/review/Sicko_Michael_Moore/content_408520461956 13. 11. 08 http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee 13. 11. 08 http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Sicko 13. 11. 08 http://www. michaelmoore. com/sicko/about/synopsis/ 13. 11. 08 http://www. filmeducation. org/secondary/documentary2004/style. html 10. 11. 08 http://www. mediaknowall. com/Documentary/definitions. html 10. 11. 08 http://www. youtube. com 13. 11. 08 http://www. theworld. ae/ 20. 04. 09 Show preview only.