Michael Moore's "Sicko" is hot internet news

[DeeBye]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/15/...in2933538.shtml

Michael Moore's new film Sicko has a release date of June 29, but it's already hit the major file-sharing websites like gangbusters. I don't like or dislike Michael Moore, mainly because I haven't seen any of his previous films. I had no interest in the topics, so I never watched them.

Then Moore comes out and says this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlAB0v8wHdc

He has no problem with people downloading Sicko and sharing it with people as long as they are not doing it to make a profit. Well, with an endorsement like that I knew what I had to do!

Sicko was really odd to watch from an outsider's point of view. I can only speak from a Canadian perspective. I get my health care free, no questions asked. The prospect of filling out forms and relying on a for-profit company to decide what health care I should or should not receive is scary. The only person that should decide what medical care I will receive should be my family doctor, assisted by the specialists that he refers me to.

The best part pf Sicko was this shot of a Tim Horton's coffee shop in my hometown. They gave free Timbits to my son the last time I was there.


Now that I've seen Moore's slanted take on why America should adopt a universal government-run free health care system, I really need to see the rationale for the opposing view. I also want to move to France.

[Raelynn]

All I will say about Moore is to take everything with a grain of salt. Everything I've seen concerning him is that he will take everything possible to make his point, including cutting things in such a way that they don't come across as they actually were.

I have not seen this movie, and my personal feelings towards this topic are much like your's, so I can't comment about this specifically. However, after looking into his previous "documentaries", I don't trust what he puts forth in his movies.

[eppie]

Now that I've seen Moore's slanted take on why America should adopt a universal government-run free health care system, I really need to see the rationale for the opposing view. I also want to move to France.

For some strange reason (economic profit of the rich most likely) the previous right wing government of Holland changed our health care system so that everybody can chose his own insurance company.
There uses to be a general insurance for lower incomes and a more or less private insurance for people that earned more.
Anyway, great fun everybody can choose his own insurance company. So of I course I went for the one that pays my hospital bill and not for the one that sells one of my organs for every time I need medical help. duhh

Of course everybody is obliged to take an insurance.....so you can do everything yourself....as long as you take an insurance.....which of course is a good thing, people with low incomes get financial support for this...which is also a good thing.

The thing is that finally we end up with a more or less the same system with as problems:
--tens of thousands of people that are not insured, and that now will be 'fined'. (we have a policy that anyone should get necessary medical help...so if you are not insured you will have to pay a fine once you are going to need help)
--the whole plan was done to cut costs, but at the same time our choices (of which hospital you want to go to e.g) are limited and the monthly payments are higher.
--the choices go down even more because most insurance companies are being bought by the competition leaving only 4 companies (there used to be tens of them)


So what this plan gave us? 1.More very nice and expensive commercials for insurance companies on TV (great this is something I really need) 2. less choice 3. higher monthly payments 4. hospital that are busier cutting costs than helping patients 5. a group of top managers that receive very nice salaries.


so state health care good: private health care bad

[Flymo]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/15/...in2933538.shtmlI also want to move to France.

I haven't seen Sicko yet, but I have been to the doctor in France and I did have to pay. It wasn't much, about 10 euros, but still that wouldn't have happened here in the other London.

[Hammerskjold]

>He has no problem with people downloading Sicko and sharing it with people as long as they are not doing it to make a profit. Well, with an endorsement like that I knew what I had to do!


Well that's good news I guess, since I refuse to pay to see any of his so called 'documentaries' after I paid to go see 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Fahrenheit 911'.

Moore is quite an effective filmmaker imo, but to hear him call his recent movies documentaries, is like calling a big mac a 'homemade' burger.

I gave his previous 2 flicks the benefit of the doubt, but he lost a lot of credibility with me in 'Bowling' when he also blamed Walmart for selling the bullets, and the company is therefore just as responsible as the 2 perpetrators who actually pulled the trigger. As well, I really find it bizarre the way he painted (iirc) Toronto Canada like it's some sort of utopian, gun safe city where everyone knows your name, and they're always glad you came. And no one locks their doors at night. I don't know which specific part of town he visited, but I get the feeling like it's very likely only exists in the editing room.


I am saying this not as some sort of Moore hater, in fact I think his previous work like Roger&Me and his TV show (On Fox before Foxnews racheted up the insanity level) was a great and necessary work, to serve as a watchdog for corporations gone amok.

But nowadays, pfft. To me, there comes a point when I can see no difference between a left wing propagandist nut and a right wing propagandist nut. Moore has reached that point for me.

[Baylan]

Now that I've seen Moore's slanted take on why America should adopt a universal government-run free health care system, I really need to see the rationale for the opposing view. I also want to move to France.

Eh... no you don't.

France's system has its own problems, though universal health care is probably one of the smaller parts of those problems... In fact, they're actually planning on liberalizing many parts of their economy. There was an article in the NYTimes stating that the party that is currently planning on doing this could win some 500 of the 570 open seats in the French parliament, actually. But I could go on about France for pages... :-)

In any case, universal health care has its disadvantages. Besides the paperwork, the main problems lie in two areas: less incentive for research, and time taken for medical care.

It is important that there be a significant amount of incentive for research, because with less research there is going to be less innovation and worse treatment of patients, from diagnosis to cure. The incentive for most researchers in the U.S. lies within the monetary gain, and while many who put up the capital for research may be doing it for altruistic reasons, at the end of the day, money is in the back of their mind. It is, as one philosopher on the human conscience said (I want to say Hobbes, but I'm not even close to sure), even those that act altruistically gain self-satisfaction for their deeds. Also, in a government regulated system, research is the most likely area to be cut - there is no other place for budget shortfalls to hit. You can't cut salaries more (then there would be no doctors), the machinery used for testing can't be cut out, and the drugs that are already known must be perscribed and paid for, and so research is where there are problems.

As for my second point - my knowledge of the universal systems is fairly limited, but my understanding is that in many cases there is a significant wait between when paper work is filed and when doctors are seen, unless it is an urgent-care situation. An example of the problems with this would arise for someone my age, 19, who is suddenly having health problems. They make an appointment for the doctor, and 6 months later they're seen, in the meantime a disease has progressed in such a fashion that a more complicated, painful, or problematic approach to treatment must be taken. I, as a patient, have lost because of the system.

My solution to all this? Beef up the governments role in the current system, and find the monetary statistical cut-off for where people typically have insurance. Subsidize (and bargain for) those that fall below this line, in an effort to help insure those that cannot afford it. In my eyes, the biggest issue with the uninsured lies in treatment. The government should step in and help resolve the issue. The rest of the citizenry should be maintained in the current system. The advantages to this whole idea lie in that it would help bring down pharmaceutical prices (by bringing the government in to bargain) and help those that are uninsured. The disadvantages? We already have something in place that probably isn't going to change (medicaid) and it'll be mighty tough to this, or something similar, through congress.

Cest la vie, I suppose.

And its 6 am... and I haven't slept yet. So I apologize if any of this is a bit off :-).

-Baylan

[eppie]

I gave his previous 2 flicks the benefit of the doubt, but he lost a lot of credibility with me in 'Bowling' when he also blamed Walmart for selling the bullets, and the company is therefore just as responsible as the 2 perpetrators who actually pulled the trigger. As well, I really find it bizarre the way he painted (iirc) Toronto Canada like it's some sort of utopian, gun safe city where everyone knows your name, and they're always glad you came. And no one locks their doors at night. I don't know which specific part of town he visited, but I get the feeling like it's very likely only exists in the editing room.

O really?? Well I'm an ignorant dutch moron, slightly mentally handicapped and I really thought nobody in Toronto locks their doors, because as an ignorant moron everything I see on TV is true for me, and doesn't make me think a single bit.


These comments on Moore's work were stated here by others in threads about bowling or 911. IT IS A DOCUMENTARY for gods sake, if you are not agreeing with him? Fine, say so, but don't come up again with this blaming Moore for doing some nice cutting and pasting. I mean I guess instead of watching the movie you will now read some 800 page report on the matter right?


The whole difference with Moore and state propaganda is that Moore hopes to change something while state propaganda tries to keep people quiet.
So 90% of people don't have problems with being lied to by the Bush government but they start jumping when Moore makes a movie. Again fine with me, but than just be honest and say that you don't like the conclusions he makes in his movies.

And think about this, whether you like it or not, we live in a society and are influenced by our society. It is very easy to think that e.g. those two columbine shooters were Antichrists on the place to fight against good people......but that will absolutely not solve anything. I for sure didn't 'get' from Moore's movie that Walmart was responsible...maybe you just wanted to think that was what Moore wanted to tell you......the truth my friend is much deeper and not so easy to understand....and that is why you watch a documentary...and afterwards make up your own mind.
And if somebody is not able to make up his own mind after some stupid documentary, he will for sure not be with respect to other more important things in his own live.

[Alram]

to hear him call his recent movies documentaries, is like calling a big mac a 'homemade' burger.

Amen.

[kandrathe]

Now that I've seen Moore's slanted take on why America should adopt a universal government-run free health care system, I really need to see the rationale for the opposing view.

The Case Against Socialized Medicine

Some of the comments are interesting as well, like "When taxpayers become liable for all of your medical expenses, all of your behavior, from the smallest to the largest detail will come under their {the governments} control. Maybe some people don't mind making a trade like that. But I do, and my freedom isn't theirs {the governments} to spend. Not for "free" health insurance, not for anything."

You can buy your own health insurance without an employer, but it is extremely expensive. This is a case where the market has been skewed by government interference. In my State private medicine has all but been been abolished by MN Care. If you are refused by your employers insurance, then you qualify for MN Care and the State (MN taxpayers) will insure you. We are starting to see a shortage of doctors and medical personal now. Two factors drive that, no profit motive for private practice and malpractice law suits. The scariest place in the MN system is the emergency room. See, when you don't have to pay for anything, everything is an emergency room visit. So, if you have a heart attack, you better make an appointment and hope there is a doctor available.

MN Daily Article on Doctor Shortage

[kandrathe]

...
And if somebody is not able to make up his own mind after some stupid documentary, he will for sure not be with respect to other more important things in his own live.

I made up my mind based on research, and have never seen a Moore propaganda film. :-)

The parts I don't like about Moore and his Schlokumentaries are; 1} he is a hypocrit, 2} he is a liar, 3} his solution for all our problems is to take away freedoms, and 4} he is laughing all the way to the bank. Documentaries try to expose the truth through film, while Moore's work instead presents a carefully editing argument as the truth. It is the same as journalistic hacks who butcher their profession to present their case, rather than the news.

[eppie]

The Case Against Socialized Medicine

Some of the comments are interesting as well, like "When taxpayers become liable for all of your medical expenses, all of your behavior, from the smallest to the largest detail will come under their {the governments} control. Maybe some people don't mind making a trade like that. But I do, and my freedom isn't theirs {the governments} to spend. Not for "free" health insurance, not for anything."

Well some note I might add.
The government (in Holland) always made sure there was health care, sometimes there were waiting lists, but they are still there. One of the reasons to change the health care system was this point you mention....many people go to the doctor for every small thing, which most of the time is nothing.
Well to combat that by a system where health care can be bought by money (from the richest) is not something what I'm happy about.
I'm fine with a completely private system (next to the normal health care) where the rich can buy their operations....but this cannot be at the cost of other people.
But I think it is a question of who you trust....I trust my government (although they are a bunch of morons:) ) more than I do some insurance company that tries to cut costs wherever it can. I rather pay a bit too much for some guy who thinks it is necessary to see a doctor with every cough, than that I have to pay everything myself because in point 6,13 clause B it is stated that my insurance company does not have to pay.

[eppie]

I made up my mind based on research, and have never seen a Moore propaganda film. :-)

The parts I don't like about Moore and his Schlokumentaries are; 1} he is a hypocrit, 2} he is a liar, 3} his solution for all our problems is to take away freedoms, and 4} he is laughing all the way to the bank. Documentaries try to expose the truth through film, while Moore's work instead presents a carefully editing argument as the truth. It is the same as journalistic hacks who butcher their profession to present their case, rather than the news.

I have seen Fahrenheit and bowling...it didn't change my mind, as I said, I didn't see new facts (which as you say were lies) I don't understand this criticism.

And stop complaining about 'our freedoms' those are just a question of what you think is important...so don't put everything on the same 'freedom-pile'....yes you have the freedom to buy a gun, but you don't have the freedom to drink a beer before you turn 21, yes you have the freedom to drive a car when you're 16 but you don't have the freedom to smoke some grass, yes you have the freedom to go to war when you are 18 but you don't have the freedom to walk topless on the beach (you probably have, but of course I'm talking about women:) )

This freedom thing is nothing more or less than the things that people find important in a specific country.....to agree with them just because it is freedom seems not to be right to me.

[eppie]

Now that I've seen Moore's slanted take on why America should adopt a universal government-run free health care system, I really need to see the rationale for the opposing view. I also want to move to France.

ps it was about time for a nice debating topic again. The post count was a bit low the last weeks.

Let's see how long deebye manages to stay in this thread before he gets scared away by the tough discussions.:)

[Nystul]

Since Moore loves Canada and Canada loves Moore, the best thing would be for him to move north permanently and enjoy a peaceful life. But that wouldn't be nearly so profitable as bashing the U.S. government and selling the story to the world. There is no real point in debating any policy issues that Moore would put forth, because he is not politically relevant. I get the feeling there will be some major changes in the health care system of the U.S. over the next 10 years or so, but economic realities will prevent from looking like anything Moore would propose. The great thing about writing books and making movies instead of actually being involved in the political process is you don't have to actually worry about little details like funding and practical implementation.

[kandrathe]

I have seen Fahrenheit and bowling...it didn't change my mind, as I said, I didn't see new facts (which as you say were lies) I don't understand this criticism.

And stop complaining about 'our freedoms' those are just a question of what you think is important...so don't put everything on the same 'freedom-pile'....yes you have the freedom to buy a gun, but you don't have the freedom to drink a beer before you turn 21, yes you have the freedom to drive a car when you're 16 but you don't have the freedom to smoke some grass, yes you have the freedom to go to war when you are 18 but you don't have the freedom to walk topless on the beach (you probably have, but of course I'm talking about women:) )

This freedom thing is nothing more or less than the things that people find important in a specific country.....to agree with them just because it is freedom seems not to be right to me.

You present a red-herring dear eppie. We must separate the discussion of the protection of children from the rights of adult citizens. I have no problem with making the age of adulthood less than 21, maybe even 16. But, parents must then be able and willing to teach/protect their own children. Also, when we talk about important freedoms, like the right to defend your family and property, then it is serious. When we talk about the right to get naked and high, then it is not so serious.

[Flymo]

Some of the comments are interesting as well, like "When taxpayers become liable for all of your medical expenses, all of your behavior, from the smallest to the largest detail will come under their {the governments} control. Maybe some people don't mind making a trade like that. But I do, and my freedom isn't theirs {the governments} to spend. Not for "free" health insurance, not for anything."

That's just plain nonsense. You might as well say when taxpayers become liable for children's education all of your behaviour comes under the government's control. There is absolutely no connection between funding of healthcare and government control. And if you have a free healthcare system you don't have to use it - as with education, you can pay to go private if you want.

You can buy your own health insurance without an employer, but it is extremely expensive. This is a case where the market has been skewed by government interference. In my State private medicine has all but been been abolished by MN Care. If you are refused by your employers insurance, then you qualify for MN Care and the State (MN taxpayers) will insure you. We are starting to see a shortage of doctors and medical personal now. Two factors drive that, no profit motive for private practice and malpractice law suits. The scariest place in the MN system is the emergency room. See, when you don't have to pay for anything, everything is an emergency room visit. So, if you have a heart attack, you better make an appointment and hope there is a doctor available.

It doesn't have to be like that, and I suspect the problem is that MN Care is not properly funded. Here in the UK we also have both a free healthcare service and a private one. I get private health insurance as part of my salary package, but I've never signed up to it because the free healthcare is perfectly adequate. We have too many doctors, not too few - newly qualified doctors are currently making a big fuss because there aren't enough jobs to go round. That's partly because our government messed up a new incentive-based pay scheme for doctors and we currently have the best paid doctors in Europe, but even so I suspect our healthcare costs a lot less than it does in the US.

[kandrathe]

That's just plain nonsense. You might as well say when taxpayers become liable for children's education all of your behaviour comes under the government's control. There is absolutely no connection between funding of healthcare and government control. And if you have a free healthcare system you don't have to use it - as with education, you can pay to go private if you want.

No. That is exactly the point. Our education system is crap, BECAUSE the government is involved. I do pay the bulk of my state and local taxes for education, and I DO and WILL send my children to private school. One other point. Many private schools are being discriminated against by the "pro public school" legislatures of States.

It doesn't have to be like that, and I suspect the problem is that MN Care is not properly funded.

No it is funded. One problem is that hospitals are "For Profit" enterprises, and the LAW requires people to be cared for resulting in red ink for health care providers. The insurance providers are "For Profit", so they determine the price for drugs, for a procedure, and the health care workers salaries. Huge profits for the HMO, fixed salaries for doctors and escalating tort insurance.

Here in the UK we also have both a free healthcare service and a private one. I get private health insurance as part of my salary package, but I've never signed up to it because the free healthcare is perfectly adequate. We have too many doctors, not too few - newly qualified doctors are currently making a big fuss because there aren't enough jobs to go round. That's partly because our government messed up a new incentive-based pay scheme for doctors and we currently have the best paid doctors in Europe, but even so I suspect our healthcare costs a lot less than it does in the US.

Ask your doctors to come over here, and I believe we still offer free Green Cards for doctors and nurses.

[Flymo]

No. That is exactly the point. Our education system is crap, BECAUSE the government is involved. I do pay the bulk of my state and local taxes for education, and I DO and WILL send my children to private school. One other point. Many private schools are being discriminated against by the "pro public school" legislatures of States.No it is funded.

So government shouldn't fund education either? That is an interesting point of view.

One problem is that hospitals are "For Profit" enterprises, and the LAW requires people to be cared for resulting in red ink for health care providers. The insurance providers are "For Profit", so they determine the price for drugs, for a procedure, and the health care workers salaries. Huge profits for the HMO, fixed salaries for doctors and escalating tort insurance.

I don't understand this insurance point, which your previous post said stopped doctors working for MN Care if I undestood it correctly. Surely if a doctor is in private practice they may get sued for malpractice and need insurance, but if they work for a government organisation it is the organisation that would get sued and so they don't need insurance? That's how it works here anyway.

[DeeBye]

Since Moore loves Canada and Canada loves Moore, the best thing would be for him to move north permanently and enjoy a peaceful life.

I don't think Canada loves Moore. He's a filmmaker that likes to talk about us, so he interests us.

[Nystul]

I don't think Canada loves Moore. He's a filmmaker that likes to talk about us, so he interests us.

Close enough... you can have him anyway. Please? I was thinking somewhere in northern Alberta would be just great.