What happens if you fall sick and are one of 47 million people in American without health insurance?
That's the central question posed by Critical Condition, a documentary that aired last night on PBS as part of the P.O.V. independent film series (P.O.V. is a cinema term for 'point of view'). The documentary follows the stories of four individuals who find, as the site states, that "being uninsured can cost them their jobs, health, homes, savings, and even their lives."
P.O.V. has made a name for itself on the web by developing smart, creative content to complement the films it showcases on-air. So I was eager to find out how they went about creating a website on a topic that is already covered in so many places online. Theresa Riley, director of P.O.V. Interactive, explained her team's approach:
"The POV team spent a lot of time talking with Critical Condition filmmaker Roger Weisberg about his goals for the film and for the website, and about the likely reaction to the film different audiences might have. Then the Web staff and P.O.V.'s outreach team spent time poring over all the great health resources already available online. We never want to duplicate anyone else's efforts in the work that we do on the P.O.V. site, so we linked to the best articles, studies, analysis, polls and organizations… After we felt we had a good lay of the land in terms of what was already available, we began brainstorming special features for the Critical Condition website."
Indeed, the site links to a range of support services and advocacy group websites, as well as information about U.S. health policies and other news and background information. Riley notes that she'll soon add an interactive map that P.O.V. developed that allows visitors to search for health care centers in their towns.
With the film airing in an election year, it's hard not to think about how the outcome of the election will affect the plight of the people profiled, and of the uninsured population as a whole. Accordingly, Riley notes that one of the site's goals is to help people learn about the candidates' healthcare plans, and points to a page of the site showcasing "sites that analyze the candidates' plans in great detail with charts, interactive questions and other side-by-side comparisons."
One of the most interesting resources featured is "You Decide," an "online devil's advocate quiz" produced by PBS/NPR station KQED that explores the pros and cons of adopting a single-payer, universal healthcare plan.
Here is the setup: "How secure are you in your opinion? During the course of this activity, we will ask you four times: Should the United States adopt a single-payer, universal health care plan? Based on your responses, we will argue the opposite points of view. Only your final vote will count toward the results of this poll."
Each time I voted, a new page of fact-based considerations popped up for me to mull over. I tried to answer the questions based on the stories told in Critical Condition: Karen's medical debt, the astronomical cost of Joe's prescription drugs, Hector's struggle to pay hospital bills.
The poll accompanying the quiz shows that 63% of those who complete the activity think that yes, the United States should adopt a single-payer, universal healthcare plan.
I asked Riley if she thought Critical Condition provides any hope that people who are underinsured or uninsured can grasp onto. She replied, "We hope that by raising public awareness — and perhaps public outrage — viewers will become more engaged in this important debate at an opportune moment when the country is seriously debating health care reform."
What do you think? What is the role of documentary films and/or interactive media in public debate? Do you think America needs a universal healthcare plan? Join the discussion.

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
NewsTrust


There is absolutely no valid
There is absolutely no valid reason this country should have ANY uninsured citizens. The money our government squanders is shameful!l Nearing the last few months of this disastrous Bush/Cheney administration, can it ever be clearer to the citizens of this country? Why should ANY child n this country not be entitled to health care? Isn't that a rhetorical question? For the last eight years, this country has been governed/ruled by the wealthy and special interest groups to their benefit on the backs on the disenfranchised and the poor. Look where we stand today. History has proven time and time again that was imminent.
VP debate
I hope Gwen Ifill will disclose her financial interest in the outcome of the election. If Obama loses, her new book due our in January "Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama", won't be worth its weight in scrap paper.
It would be shameful and unfair of her to 'moderate' this debate without disclosing her financial interest in the outcome.
Last debate moderator
I felt that Gwen Ifill did a fair and unbiased job moderating the last debate. I'm not aware of any questions that were slanted against McCain. In fact the topic of foreign policy was greatly in his favor and I thought he took advantage of it. Unfortunately, for the Republican party the issue of the day is the economy and that does not bode well for McCain.
Ifill's right to free speech is a fundamental right that is protected by the U.S. Constitution. This right protects the free flow of ideas, a most important function in a democratic society. Therefore, Ifill has a right to publish a book about race, politics and Obama. I'm not sure whether or not this book will shed a positive light on Obama because Ifill stated that she has not written the chapters regarding Obama yet and she will not do so until after the election. I'm also not aware that Iflll has announced her political affiliations, but I'm assuming she is a democrat. If so this again would be protected by a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution: the freedom of association and belief. Additionally, if Ifill chooses to vote with the democratic party that is also a fundamental right to vote protected under the U.S. Constitution. These are all fundamental rights shared by all U.S. citizens.
Our nation's most supreme moderators the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court enjoy these fundamental rights as well. Should they not be allowed to preside over cases because they have expressed an opinion or belief that has been published in a book and they may have profited from doing so? Just pick up one of O'Connor's or Scalia's most recent books to read what subject they have opined on lately to grasp this concept. If you have a problem with this then you have a problem with the U.S. Constitution, just ask Justice Scalia.
.
Post new comment
- Keep your comments focused on the topic at hand.
- Don't use profanity, personal attacks or hate speech.
- Don't promote a business or raise money.
- When all else fails, think "Golden Rule": Treat others the way you'd like to be treated yourself.
We reserve the right to remove posts that don't follow these guidelines. By submitting comments, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which include more details.