comment #1

Larry says ...

It's this sort of childishness, disguised, amazingly, as sophistication, that prevents us from having a serious debate about health care in America.

comment #2

gruver1 says ...

It's people like you, Larry, calling the much-needed publicizing of a horrendous institutional situation a form of "childishness," who are road-blocking and deriding to no real purpose. Anyone who watches this film and comes out with your attitude has a serious intellectual and intestinal blockage going on.

comment #3

BurmaShave says ...

Dear God, Jeff and D.Z. really are the same person.

comment #4

christian says ...

btw, SICKO did boffo business in ny. this film is a hit. nyah!

comment #5

BurmaShave says ...

BOFFO! I'll definetly put it on my skein. Looks like a real laffer. I hope it has healthy B.O. before moving on to a long life in ancillaries.

comment #6

christian says ...

looks like sick pix has long life ahead...

comment #7

York "Budd" Durden says ...

I still don't understand why Grindhouse didn't play.

comment #8

York "Budd" Durden says ...

Did I just post that? Or did I just think it out loud?

comment #9

BurmaShave says ...

How did you get here? This is not your beautiful wife. This is not your beautiful home. My God! What have you done?!

comment #10

NYCBusybody says ...

There's little Kucinich.

I'd seriously offer him my vote as an Indecent Proposal for a night with his wife. Rowrrrrrrrrrr.

comment #11

jeffmcm says ...

Christian, just remember that a NYC audience is not representative of the rest of America.

comment #12

christian says ...

no but it's a good sign the shows are selling out. i think this film will attract those that normally would not see a moore film. and if the film only does well in urban markets, it didn't hurt F911.

but clearly nycbusybody does represent some parts of america...'cept he's in new yawk ballin' hotties.

comment #13

Edward says ...

I'm glad someone is trying to keep this debate alive, but it needs to move beyond talk to action!

comment #14

SpinDozer says ...

'Recent polls show that universal access to health coverage is by far the country’s top domestic policy priority, and that nearly half of all Americans say they support the single-payer system extolled by Mr. Moore in “Sicko.”'

Obviously, this film is not keeping debate alive, but should help in improving the 'action' when that comes. As much as healthcare needs to be reformed, I do not want team-Bush to be the ones doing it.

'But the success of Mr. Moore’s previous films guarantees “Sicko” the kind of mass audience rarely associated with health care reform. His last movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” became the top grossing documentary ever, taking in $119.2 million domestically in 2004 (five times as much as Mr. Gore’s movie in 2006).'

All reports are that this film is very good. I'm quite sure that there are some sophisticated people who will be so discouraged by Moore's presence, that they will be unable to continue with the debate, leaving the rest of us to carry on somehow. Even though the Cato Institute and other RightWingers are gunning for the film, its nothing new to a Michael Moore film and I'm not too concerned about its box office, it'll do miles better than any other doc on this subject or 60 minutes or frontline for that matter.

comment #15

malibugigolo says ...

"corporations" are to dems what "terrorists" are to republicans....you must have a vague blanket group to blame everything on. Specifics? That only leads to trouble.

Also Larry is right. "It's this sort of childishness, disguised, amazingly, as sophistication, that prevents us from having a serious debate about health care in America."

Answers? Sheesh...let's just talk about questions.

And attack people like Wells, who needs to stop being a dolt.

comment #16

R. Hunt says ...

First of all, "Sicko" is a great film, and a surprisingly optimistic one. The message is "how do we make health care work?", not "let's beat up on the health care industry". I'm not sure how the usual Moore-bashers will find much of an argument against it.

comment #17

JD says ...

Here's the thing, R. Hunt. Most of the Moore-bashers don't watch his movies anyway. They just know that Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly call it propaganda and that's all they really need. I've had countless arguments with people who denounce Fahrenheit 911 or Bowling For Columbine but, as soon as the conversation veers into specifics, they lose interest. The other thing that people often forget is this: Moore is not loyal to a single political party. He used to criticize Bill Clinton constantly when he was president -- and it sounds like he's critical of Hillary in Sicko -- and he supported Ralph Nader in 2000. He's an independent thinker who articulates a sincere and informed worldview. You may disagree with him, but unlike the Bill O'Reillys of the world, he doesn't take directions from anyone.

And Larry/mailbbugigolo, don't you think the absence of a serious debate about health care has anything to do with the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry, its campaign contributions and/or the thousands of lobbyists fighting to maintain the status quo? Or is the real problem a movie that is currently playing on one screen?

comment #18

SpinDozer says ...

'I'm not sure how the usual Moore-bashers will find much of an argument against it.'

They won't, but they will erect straw men in order to give the illusion they have not only an arguement, but moral outrage. It can be kind of amusing to watch them seethe like worms left in the sunlight, if you're into that kinda thing.

comment #19

sunny says ...

The pavlovian anti-Moore reactions are getting exceedingly tiresome, but obviously the coditioning has worked quite well. Even many llberals drool on cue.

comment #20

Stephe96 says ...

I like to think that most intelligent people understand that Moore simply presents anecdotal evidence and cheap stunts to make his rather shaky points. You can find 30 or so people who have had a horrible experience with ANY system or organization. So what? Is anyone honestly persuaded by that nonsense? I could make a movie and interview 30 people who had wonderful experiences with the US healthcare system. Would that mean it was a perfect system? Nope. Likewise, I could also make a movie and find a bunch of Canadians who had a horrific time navigating the healthcare system in Canada. What would that really mean? I honestly feel sorry for people who come out of a Moore movie and feel "smarter," thinking they've just seen a serious "documentary." But, hey...he's found a large audience willing to be duped and it's made him a multi-millionaire. You can't argue with that kind of success.

comment #21

JD says ...

Moore isn't duping people, Stephe96, he's presenting them with evidence that either rings true for them or doesn't. You're basically arguing that there's no such thing as truth in documentary unless you make a 28-hour movie with thousands of examples. What people like you never comprehend is that Moore's film's are not stand-alone films intended to include all sides of an argument. They are rebuttals to the status quo. As Moore has said himself, we really don't need the HMOs' side of the story because we already get it every night on the evening news. And if you genuinely believe that HMOs are motivated by the best interests of the American people -- rather than profit -- you're the one who's being duped.

comment #22

sunny says ...

"They are rebuttals to the status quo. As Moore has said himself, we really don't need the HMOs' side of the story because we already get it every night on the evening news."

Just so.

comment #23

Stephe96 says ...

This is exactly what I'm saying. Moore presents anecdotal evidence with no interest in presenting opposing viewpoints...or even facts. It's essentially meaningless. As for this:

"As Moore has said himself, we really don't need the HMOs' side of the story because we already get it every night on the evening news."

I don't even know what this means. Are HMOs running ads or something every night arguing their case?

comment #24

sunny says ...

" don't even know what this means. Are HMOs running ads or something every night arguing their case?"

No, but corporate media bias slants toward CORPORATIONS. Whodda thunk it?

"This is exactly what I'm saying. Moore presents anecdotal evidence with no interest in presenting opposing viewpoints...or even facts"

Ummm, just because Limpdick says Moore doesn't deal in facts doesn't make it so. During the incessant corporate media takedown of F9/11, all they "debunked" were straw men.

comment #25

JD says ...

"This is exactly what I'm saying. Moore presents anecdotal evidence with no interest in presenting opposing viewpoints...or even facts. It's essentially meaningless."

In a court case, would you expect the prosecution to provide evidence for the defense? Probably not, and yet we still accept that the prosecution should be heard and may even be right. I think the problem here is that you have really conventional views on documentary filmmaking, as if there's a "right" and "wrong" way to make a non-fiction film. Haven't you ever seen a documentary by Fred Wiseman, Jean-Luc Godard, Emile de Antonio or Peter Davis... or are they all hacks, too?

comment #26

D.Z. says ...

Stephe: "You can find 30 or so people who have had a horrible experience with ANY system or organization."

Yes, but we're dealing with 50 million.

"I could make a movie and interview 30 people who had wonderful experiences with the US healthcare system."

But you'd of course omit any information on how much they can afford to pay into it or whether they've had any problems regarding emergencies and/or complications.

"Likewise, I could also make a movie and find a bunch of Canadians who had a horrific time navigating the healthcare system in Canada."

Perhaps, but you don't see them travelling to the U.S. for cheaper medicine.

"I honestly feel sorry for people who come out of a Moore movie and feel "smarter,"'

No, it's called being informed, which is more than you can say from the conservative-owned media.

'thinking they've just seen a serious "documentary."'

His films are more researched than Bush's policies, anyway.

"But, hey...he's found a large audience willing to be duped and it's made him a multi-millionaire."

And Bush found himself a bunch of religious fanatics who were willing to be duped to make Halliburton richer. What's your point?

"Moore presents anecdotal evidence with no interest in presenting opposing viewpoints..."

Actually, he does take into account the other side's POV. It's just that their comments don't have any substance, which is why his films might seem so "one-sided".

comment #27

sunny says ...

All very good points, D.Z.

comment #28

jeffmcm says ...

They aren't all good points and their presentation contributes to a political culture of smugness and confrontation and not progress and cooperation. DZ sucks.

comment #29

christian says ...

funny how one of moore's most debated points in F911 -- that the bin laden family was flown out of the country days after the attack -- is true and the trip was possibly chartered by osama himself:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml

whateva. crits cant nix boffo bo fo SICKO!

comment #30

Stephe96 says ...

"funny how one of moore's most debated points in F911 -- that the bin laden family was flown out of the country days after the attack -- is true and the trip was possibly chartered by osama himself"

This was never "debated." But Moore tries to give the impression that evil Bush allowed the bin Laden family to escape in order to protect his oil business relationships, blah blah blah....

Too bad the facts get in the way. First of all, saying "the bin Laden family" as if they were Osama's parents and close siblings is laughably inaccurate. Most of Osama's hundreds of relatives have barely even met the guy! They had nothing to do with 9/11 and they were allowed to leave for their own safety. (By the way, since when do the conspiracy nuts concede that Osama himself had anything to do with the attacks?!)

Second of all, the FBI cleared the bin Ladens to leave, and this was approved by Richard Clarke...the same guy Moore uses as an expert in "Fahrenheit 911!" Well, which is it, Mike? Is he an expert or simply a puppet of the evil Bush regime? Can't have it both ways!

Oh well. What's really funny is how footage of Moore interviewing Roger Smith has turned up in the "Manufacturing Dissent" documentary. Oops! Kinda undermines the entire point of "Roger & Me," but Moore isn't the sort who would allow the truth to get in the way of a good story!

comment #31

Stephe96 says ...

Oh, and one more thing: according to the 9/11 Commsion Report, no Saudi national was allowed to secretly fly out of the country during the ban on commercial flights in the US. But Michael Moore won't tell you that. It screws up his conspiracy theory.

comment #32

christian says ...

but they did fly out right after the attacks. and the report shows that the fbi was not very thorough and if the flights were chartered by osama...but it's not enough to be family friends of the guy who attacked us.

comment #33

Stephe96 says ...

"but they did fly out right after the attacks. and the report shows that the fbi was not very thorough and if the flights were chartered by osama...but it's not enough to be family friends of the guy who attacked us."

The flew out, legally, after the ban was lifted on September 13th. So what? Do you think Bush should have illegally detained innocent people? For how long? Should they have been sent to Gitmo? Tortured for information? Imagine the, ahem, "documentary" Michael Moore would've made had THAT happened!

This is why the drooling Bush-haters have zero credibility. No matter what happens, they'll scream "Bush sucks" until their voices are gone!

comment #34

christian says ...

that group accounts for 74 percent of the us population now.

comment #35

BurmaShave says ...

This whole thread really makes me want to move to Lex Luthor's new island in the Atlantic.

comment #36

Nate West says ...

"This is why the drooling Bush-haters have zero credibility."

Bush = less than zero.

comment #37

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "They aren't all good points and their presentation contributes to a political culture of smugness and confrontation and not progress and cooperation."

How is it progressive to cooperate with willfully
gnorant, xenophobic, war criminals and their apologists? You sure you're not really one of these guys, dude? http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=22419

Stephe: "But Moore tries to give the impression that evil Bush allowed the bin Laden family to escape in order to protect his oil business relationships, blah blah blah...."

Yes, because we all know he cares about renewable and clean energy.

"First of all, saying "the bin Laden family" as if they were Osama's parents and close siblings is laughably inaccurate. Most of Osama's hundreds of relatives have barely even met the guy!"

They don't have to meet him to know what he's doing or where they could find him.

"They had nothing to do with 9/11"

Other than indirectly funding the terrorists...

"and they were allowed to leave for their own safety."

You forgot mention that they were allowed to leave when every major flight was shut down for everyone else.

"(By the way, since when do the conspiracy nuts concede that Osama himself had anything to do with the attacks?!)"

Well he did supposedly give orders from his hospital bed...

'Second of all, the FBI cleared the bin Ladens to leave, and this was approved by Richard Clarke...the same guy Moore uses as an expert in "Fahrenheit 911!"'

Clarke doesn't have the final say on those things.

"What's really funny is how footage of Moore interviewing Roger Smith has turned up in the "Manufacturing Dissent" documentary. Oops! Kinda undermines the entire point of "Roger & Me,"'

Not really, because the point of Roger & Me wasn't really about getting an interview.

"Oh, and one more thing: according to the 9/11 Commsion Report, no Saudi national was allowed to secretly fly out of the country during the ban on commercial flights in the US."

Please! The 9/11 Commission's as reliable as the Warren Commission.

"The flew out, legally, after the ban was lifted on September 13th. So what? Do you think Bush should have illegally detained innocent people? For how long? Should they have been sent to Gitmo? Tortured for information?"

No, but if they're potential informants, they should be interviewed.

comment #38

le corbeau says ...

"Please! The 9/11 Commission's as reliable as the Warren Commission."

Out of the mouths of babes.