WikiLeaks: Cuba banned Sicko for depicting 'mythical' health

[frigidmagi]

Guardian

Cuba banned Michael Moore's 2007 documentary, Sicko, because it painted such a "mythically" favourable picture of Cuba's healthcare system that the authorities feared it could lead to a "popular backlash", according to US diplomats in Havana.

The revelation, contained in a confidential US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks , is surprising, given that the film attempted to discredit the US healthcare system by highlighting what it claimed was the excellence of the Cuban system.

But the memo reveals that when the film was shown to a group of Cuban doctors, some became so "disturbed at the blatant misrepresentation of healthcare in Cuba that they left the room".

Castro's government apparently went on to ban the film because, the leaked cable claims, it "knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them."

Sicko investigated healthcare in the US by comparing the for-profit, non-universal US system with the non-profit universal health care systems of other countries, including Cuba, France and the UK.

It was nominated for an Oscar for best documentary feature but was also castigated for being naive and tendentious.

The cable comes from the United States Interests Section in Havana (USINT) – staffed by US foreign service personnel and local staff employed by the department of state, the unit is formally a section of the Embassy of Switzerland, although it operates independently of the Swiss in virtually all but protocol respects.

The secret 2008 cable is based on reports from the USINT's foreign service health practitioner (FSHP) of her conversations with local people, unauthorised visits to Cuban hospitals, and experience of helping USINT American and Cuban personnel access healthcare.

The cable describes a visit made by the FSHP to the Hermanos Ameijeiras hospital in October 2007. Built in 1982, the newly renovated hospital was used in Michael Moore's film as evidence of the high-quality of healthcare available to all Cubans.

But according to the FSHP, the only way a Cuban can get access to the hospital is through a bribe or contacts inside the hospital administration. "Cubans are reportedly very resentful that the best hospital in Havana is 'off-limits' to them," the memo reveals.

According to the FSHP, a more "accurate" view of the healthcare experience of Cubans can be seen at the Calixto Garcia Hospital. "FSHP believes that if Michael Moore really wanted the 'same care as local Cubans', this is where he should have gone," the cable states.

A 2007 visit by the FSHP to this "dilapidated" hospital, built in the 1800s, was "reminiscent of a scene from some of the poorest countries in the world," the cable adds.

The memo points out that even the Cuban ruling elite leave Cuba when they need medical care. Fidel Castro, for example, brought in a Spanish doctor during his health crisis in 2006. The vice-minister of health, Abelardo Ramirez, went to France for gastric cancer surgery. The neurosurgeon whoheads CIMEQ [Centro de Investigaciones Médico-Quirúrgicas] hospital – widely regarded as one of the best in Cuba – came to England for eye surgery, returning periodically for checkups.

"After living in Cuba for two and a half years, treating numerous Cuban employees at USINT, and interacting with many other Cubans, the FSHP believes … preventive medicine in Cuba is a by-gone ideal, rather than the standard practice of care," the memo concludes.

[The Minx]

Wow, talk about ironic. Not only did Michael Moore recently pay bail for Assange, but the Guardian is a left leaning newspaper. I wonder what his reaction was/will be.

Meanwhile, many of those who typically criticize Moore most strongly have also been the ones most critical of Wikileaks (i.e. the right wing US media: Fox, Limbaugh, etc.). Will they now jump on this Wikileaks article after having condemned the organization and its founder Assange so thoroughly in recent days, or will they pass up on a golden opportunity to blast Moore for dishonesty in his documentary?

[fgalkin]

Of course, this assumes that US diplomats are unbiased sources, or even remotely resembling competent, which, given the content of other leaks is very far from truth.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[SirNitram]

Wait a minute.

There it is.

Naturally I can't read a word of this. But it looks like SICKO is in fact not banned.

[frigidmagi]

Considering this is a private conservation and the main source is in fact a doctor's own report to them. I don't think we can call this propaganda. Bluntly nations don't keep their propaganda secret.

Also there are outside sources comfirming this like Hilda Molina who states that when the Soviet Union fell, her own hospital was ordered to treat foreigners only who could pay in US dollars (wonder if they accept Euros now?).

Another example is this Canadian newspaper article dated 2004 (pre-Sicko) saying much the same thing.

In other words there is no reason to assume dishonesty in a private cable between diplomats using a doctor as a source and with outside evidence supporting.[/url]

[General Havoc]

Of course, this assumes that US diplomats are unbiased sources, or even remotely resembling competent, which, given the content of other leaks is very far from truth.

Once again, I would like to know from where we are drawing this blanket assumption that US diplomats are all incompetent based on the contents of the leaks? Frank discussion between diplomats is not a sign of incompetence, indeed it is the hallmark of state department officials doing their damn jobs.

[fgalkin]

Of course, this assumes that US diplomats are unbiased sources, or even remotely resembling competent, which, given the content of other leaks is very far from truth.

Once again, I would like to know from where we are drawing this blanket assumption that US diplomats are all incompetent based on the contents of the leaks? Frank discussion between diplomats is not a sign of incompetence, indeed it is the hallmark of state department officials doing their damn jobs.

I was referring to things like taking absolutely uncorroborated information and running with it, like, say, about Google and China.

And the Guardian laps it all up and publishes it as fact.

But, guess what, Moore defends himself and shows and it isn't true:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike- ... -wikileaks

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[General Havoc]

No, Michael Moore says that it isn't true and blames evil right wing media conspiracies out to stifle his noble crusades, etc etc... Which once again has nothing whatsoever to do with the competence of the US Diplomatic corps. The vast majority of the Wikileaks cables that I've thus far read have shown US diplomats acting in the exact same way that one would imagine diplomats in general to act. They're SUPPOSED to report back anything of interest that they've heard, whether or not they've fact checked it fully.

[fgalkin]

No, Michael Moore says that it isn't true and blames evil right wing media conspiracies out to stifle his noble crusades, etc etc... Which once again has nothing whatsoever to do with the competence of the US Diplomatic corps. The vast majority of the Wikileaks cables that I've thus far read have shown US diplomats acting in the exact same way that one would imagine diplomats in general to act. They're SUPPOSED to report back anything of interest that they've heard, whether or not they've fact checked it fully.

If you read the blog, he actually proves that it was not banned, and the guardian has now pulled the old article and replaced it with this one. And no, US diplomats are not supposed to report "everything" back, because then they would be feeding uncorroborated, or outright wrong information to their superiors.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[General Havoc]

The nature of diplomatic exchange is that you are only very infrequently able to corroborate evidence for what is occuring within a country to standards of absolute proof. Ministers who go off the record, for instance, will be absolutely sure that what they say cannot be backed up to such a standard, and yet still expect their message to be passed along. Diplomats are not news reporters, they're the eyes and ears (and mouth) of their government in a foreign country, and are expected to use their best judgment as to what to report back. That's why diplomats, at least in the US, are required to undergo an extremely rigorous set of tests, social evaluations, and background checks before they are set loose on the officials of some other country.

I've been through this evaluation process, Fgalkin. I know more diplomats and former diplomats than I care to count. Anyone who claims that US diplomats are incompetent because they occasionally pass on something other than what's in the New York Times' international section is either woefully ignorant or looking for a political axe to grind.