Flak Magazine Letters
May-Aug 2007
Flak welcomes any and all feedback from its readers. Due to quality constraints, not all letters can be printed in their entirety. Letters may be edited for length. Please send your letters to the writer of the piece you'd like to comment on.
If you'd like your comments to be reprinted on our letters page, please give your full name, city, state, province and country, as appropriate. We will not give out your e-mail address or URL without your permission. Unsigned letters will not be printed.
Send general letters to letters@flakmag.com.
07-25-07
To: Eve Adams
Re: Sicko
Ms. Adams,
I read your critique online (Flak) re: Sicko. I am hoping to see it soon, but I did have have one of many conversations recently re: this problem with a group of docs and one of our local ethicists from the university.
It sounds like your story about your ambulance trip is a testimony for Moore's cause. I think the purpose of this movie is to bring the absurdity of our medical system into our conversations and consciousness so we act.
But Moore has no idea how to do this and makes no suggestions besides a few wistful recollections of the 1993 Clinton health care plan proposal, some exquisite potshots at particularly venal Republicans and the tawdry old call to write our Congressperson.
I'm not sure I want Michael Moore to come up with our plans to fix a broken system like this. I'd rather let him do what he does best...bring attention to whatever it is he's interested in at the moment. I don't think anyone knows how best to do this now...but I think the biggest hurdle is the big money interests (insurance and drug companies) and the people in power saying..."there's not a problem!" That's why we need Michael Moore.
I think I know a few things about health care. One is that between what American's pay now in taxes for Medicare/Medicaid, insurance premiums, and what corporations pay in insurance premiums, we probably already pay for what could be universal health care at some level. I also know that people put off treatments b/c they can't afford to see a doctor... until their disease is so far progressed, not only is it difficult to treat and disabling, it's much more expensive. Something has to change.
I certainly agree with you that socialism/Communism is not the best way to build the best automobile. But I see access to health care as a similar issue to education. We all, I believe, should have the right to a basic, "free" education. We all pay for it b/c it makes our society better. A healthy population, in a similar fashion, raises everyone's quality of life.
I'm in health care and I don't know exactly how to fix this, but I know there is a huge problem, and bless Michael Moore and his drama for putting it in our faces.
Check out this website.
Food for thought from some "experts."
Take care.
Marc Scarbrough, M.D.
Dear Dr. Scarbrough,
Thanks for writing. I'm glad you were interested in the piece, and that my anecdote was taken as intended: a reason why I personally should be a prime candidate to share in the conclusions Moore draws and explains in Sicko. Those conclusions are that 1) health care in the United States consistently fails to "care" and indeed, ironically, often does more harm than good, and 2) some form of universal, government-administered system would be preferable. My dissatisfaction with Sicko has to do with Moore's apparent disinterest in bridging the gap or even telling the story between 1) and 2). As I say, many of us are unhappy with the system, and as you as a doctor surely know, far too many people have stories like mine to tell. We'd probably all like to try the NHS on for size.
I also agree that Sicko is an example of Moore doing what he does best — getting people talking. He's a provocateur, not a politician, and I wouldn't want him drafting a single-payer proposal either! Still, I found the unbridged gap worrisome; Sicko portrays socialized health care as a panacea and does nothing to convince the viewer that it could be truly effective in the United States. I realize that there's only so much a filmmaker can tackle in a hundred-odd minutes; perhaps my critique is best read as a call for a Sicko II, in which Moore might explore in more depth the mechanisms which prevent real change to policy in this country.
I'll echo your blessing of Michael Moore and Sicko for getting these issues onto movie screens and into the collective unconscious; the movie is effective. However, due to its possible adverse interactions with reductive worldviews and unactionable pipe dreaming, I still recommend that it be taken sublingually, with a giant salt pill.
Take care,
Eve
07-25-07
To: Eve Adams
Re: Sicko
I write this to you in the midst of watching Sicko after conducting a compulsory search in regards to contrasting opinions related to the film. I've never actually done this before but I felt compelled to contact you and offer heartfelt praise over your marvelously penned article. Your points are apt and writing verbosely witty. Keep up the good work.
Tyler Smith
06-05-07
To: Jeremy Foster
Re: god Is Not Great
This is in response to your review of the book, god Is Not Great. I am not refuting your review, which appears to be very telling of the book's author, but I am reacting to the person of Hitchens, a sad, misguided shell of a man. According to your review, he is attacking organized religion, but I also get the notion that he attacks God as well. The ignorant pessimist ought to know that having a "religion" is not the same as having a relationship with the Almighty, which he evidently lacks. The author, C.S. Lewis, was a lot like Hitchens, but opened his heart and mind (an intelligent one at that) to the idea that there must be a God of the universe. There are others who finally came to their senses: Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. (What Darwin Didn't Know); Lee Strobel (The Case for Christ), and others. So perhaps there is hope for Hitchens. By revealing himself in his book, he lets folks know that there are people like him who need prayer.
Sincerely,
Pat Smock
