I thought of that as I read the little emailing from Michael Moore this morning. He was talking about the reception for his film, "Sicko." This was reported in the papers a couple days back, but it was interesting to hear his take on the reception to the film:
At the press screening for "Sicko," the Wall Street Journal reported that hardened reporters and critics wept. Even those who have been harsh to me in the past, or who have not agreed with my politics, were moved. Aside from my stated desire that "Sicko" ignite a fire for free, universal health care (and a larger wish that we, as Americans, do a better job of treating each other with a true sense of solidarity and respect), I continue to hope that I can make a contribution to the art of cinema and give people a good reason to get out of the house for a few hours.
At my festival press conference, the only negative word came from the Canadians. Two critics didn't like all the nice things I said about their health care system. Yes, Canadian health care has its flaws, but when I asked the two critics if they would exchange their health care cards for mine, they said "No!" Of course they wouldn't. Canadians live longer than we do and their infant mortality is not as high as ours. Their system is underfunded because their leaders have been trying to push for more American-style health care.
Ah Michael, you've discovered the secret contrarian heart of the Canadian people. Not nice. Polite. There's a difference. I've said it before. I'll say it again: a nation of disgruntled postal workers, one step away from the hockey fight to end all hockey fights.
In a little over a month I'll have been in Canada thirty years. And that contrarian, maddening, party pooper streak that so often infects the film and TV industry here, as it does most industries, well...I'm not sure I understand it any better than I did when I first got here.
But it's fun to watch someone else get blindsided by it. And it's fun to see it reduced and recontextualized in one sentence:
"would you trade yours for theirs?"
"Well, no..."
"There you go."
12 comments:
You finally figured us out! You wanna go? Huh? You wannna...?
I dunno that criticizing him for making the Canadian system appear rosy is all that ... Canadian. Or not nice. They're making the usual critique of Michael Moore - he only puts in the points that support his thesis (and I say that with love of Michael Moore). There's more to infant mortality and longevity than strictly the health care system, for one thing - lots of socioeconomic determinants go into that.
I'd much rather have our system than the American system, but I also believe that neither one is the model any country should be aiming for. And there are just possibly elements of both needed to make a sustainable system. But saying things like that leads to the propaganda that our leaders are trying to turn ours into the American system.
Americans who haven't lived in Canada for a period of time will never get Canada. I mean they expect you to be able to explain the differences to them but where do you start? history, politics, geography, climate - plus the history of politics, geography and climate all of that has a bearing on who Canadians are and what Canada is which is all tied into the health care system and what is right and wrong with it.
There is simply no way to explain all of it to people in the U.S. I know there is no way because Pierre Burton tried and failed and if he couldn't do it, neither can I. But knowing a good deal about both sides of the border I can tell you that Canadian style health care won't work in the states any better than the US system would work here.
Moore and his allies on this issue should stop talking about 'Canadian style' health care and start talking about a 'US style' health care system that covers everyone.
Just my .02
As something of a liberal-progressive, Michael Moore has always frustrated me. I feel like he just contributes to a cycle of anger between different sides rather than trying to make a constructive contribution to issues. . .and it seems like, in this case (of which I'm familiar with from your entry), Mr. Moore does something of the same thing, playing on the emotions without adding something new.
But, to me, Canadians criticizing their system and saying Moore paints the picture too rosy doesn't sound contrary. It just sounds like Moore made the film for Americans, not Canadians, then follows a fairly stereotypical argument: Canada has universal healthcare, they healthier, so, of course, isn't it obvious! Universal healthcare = healthier people. Correlation doesn't necessarily lead to a good answer.
On the other hand, some Canadians see ways to make their system better. That doesn't mean, however, that comparatively they think the American system is better. Forcing people making "open-ended" arguments into reductionist either/or arguments smacks as bad rhetoric to me and puts him somewhat into the same group as neo-conservatives to me (you're either with us, or against us). Why not realize that there's many many views out there, and that he (Moore) probably hasn't seen most of them. . ..
I often like Moore's conclusions It's his arguments that annoy me.
Moore did the same sort of thing in 'Bowling For Columbine' when he claimed that there are just as many guns per capita in Canada as in the U.S. Michael Adams called him on that one in 'Fire and Ice' (in fact, it's less than half). But I prefer to cut the guy some slack. After all, our grass must look pretty damned green from his side of the Detroit River. And I think he should be given credit for making documentaries as popular and accessible as they are today. Without Michael Moore, nobody would have seen 'Super-Size Me' or 'An Inconvenient Truth' outside of a few film festivals.
As for the Can/Am debate, there does seem to be a weird attitude in the U.S. regarding government-run programs that would seem to preclude a public health care system there any time soon. It's as if they equate any sort of government program or public assistance with Communism, or maybe even having a tiny penis, whereas we tend to think of such programs as 'looking out for each other'.
Even our terminology is different. They talk about 'socialized medicine' and 'government programs', while we talk about 'universal health care' and 'public programs'. As if our government was there to facilitate us giving money to each other, as opposed to just taking our money away to be mean.
(See, there I go being an idealist again.)
I still find it funny that a people so proud of their political system won't actually trust their own government to do anything except build roads and invade other countries.
Well, remember that the Individualistic 'Republican' view of government is to protect the citizens [ahem, rich, propertied citizens] while giving them the opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [ahem, try to become a rich, propertied citizen to do what you will]. In their eyes, getting taxed gets in the way of all that [because it's harder for an individual to become a rich, propertied citizen]. And, in general, even though everyone has rights, only the people who are rich, propertied citizens generally have the luxury to exercise those rights.
Somehow, that's equated with freedom and liberty. Don't ask me how. Nonetheless, it does provide for a more cohesive ideology than that of the modern liberal [the above ideology used to be considered liberal, after all].
Let's not have short memories here.
Go back to the 1920's and Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and most of what we think of as the modern social safety net in the USA didn't exist. It took a great President, FDR, to make it happen. That is the legacy of a time when people believed even in the USA that government could and should help. Education, electrification, works progress, the G.I. bill, the interstate highway system -- all government doing good.
Eisenhower - not a great president, but a great general -- warned against the rise of a military corporate complex that would be incompatible with those egalitarian goals.
JFK asked Americans to dream again, and created the Peace Corps.
Johnson talked of the Great Society.
Nixon broke the constitution but went to China.
Carter didn't do much of anything.
Reagan was celebrated but gutted a lot of the good work and regulations, promoted an economic theory that didn't work, made the vast difference in incomes between rich and poor obscene, cut funding to things that improved Americans, talked of ending big government and bled the national debt higher than it ever had been.
Clinton set modest goals, balanced the budget and showed by reorganizing Interior and FEMA that government actually could work and do good.
And now we have a war that no one is being able to ask to sacrifice for, certainly not rich people who could give up their tax cuts, we have a chief exec for whom it is all ideology and politics, except that it isn't because he's less fiscally responsible than even Reagan.
Just because the drift of 30 years means one thing doesn't mean it's writ in stone.
nothing is writ in stone.
the only question is does the USA have enough time before the new Chinese overlords arrive?
The nuclear bomb, WWII and the Cold War ruined everything. . .. =/
Good point about FDR, dmc.
People also forget that in Canada, universal healthcare was not immediately popular. It would not have happened at all if the British hadn't done it first. And, even then, it took a courageous politician in a small, relatively poor province to make it happen. No Canadian politician other than Tommy Douglas would have dared to propose something so bold or been persuasive enough to sell the idea to the people. (John Diefenbaker, for example, endorsed the idea of public health care, but backed down when his own party opposed him.)
The opposition Douglas faced was overwhelming. The doctors, the press, both the Liberal and Conservative parties -- the entire Canadian establishment, in fact -- fought tooth and nail to prevent medicare from happening. The only people Douglas was able to convice were the voters.
People also forget how long it took. Douglas was elected premier in 1942 with universal health care as the central plank in his election platform. It took 20 years for the program to actually be enacted. By that time Douglas was no longer premier.
I don't believe the opposition to universal healthcare is any greater in the U.S. now than it was in Canada in the 1940s and 50s. There are just no Tommy Douglases or FDRs around to make it happen. Certainly not in the Democratic Party.
Heh, imagine if the Clintons continued to beat the drum after having failed to make universal health a possibility back the in the early to mid-90's.
Justin: Perfect invocation of Pierre Berton there! And you're right. If St. Pierre of Whitehorse couldn't explain what makes us tick, who can? It's probably going to take guys like Denis, Alex and John Rogers to manage it. Eventually.
chet: Yep. Medicare was the work of at least a generation, more likely two, and given that we've got a wannabe-privatizer in charge of the Canadian Medical Association at the moment, it could take at least three or four to really make sure medicare survives over the long haul.
I still contend that Moore's best take on Canadians was in "Canadian Bacon" but I'm a weirdo cynic and I used to live in Saskatchewan (about which we will not speak.)
There's also a piece of my mind that is a bit afraid Preznut Ash (anyone else remember "Army of Darkness?") is going to see "Canadian Bacon" and think this is a good idea.
Post a Comment