Well, clearly his lawyers didn't do that great of a job on this one. ;)



Isn't there a gun culture though? Shit, I remember going to the gun show in Pamona, Ca before Columbine happened and they shut it down. The film is really hard hitting and does highlight a good fact by showing the American Health care and comparing it to the Health Care systems of other countries. You may not have heard of anyone who's coverage was denied but that's not to say it doesn't happen. I volunteered some time a bit back at an old persons home and besides them telling me how cute mittens, their cat was. Health care, the cost of medication and stories about that were rampant. So I suppose it's just who you talk to.

I find it mindboggling that anyone, especially Americans, would argue that the gun culture in the US is "made up".

Do yourself a favor and rent Moore's first documentary, Roger and Me. It is easily his most entertaining film, even though like his others it has a bleak side to it--it's about how the downsizing of the GM plant in Flint, Michigan devastated the town. But it features a lot of Moore trying to get to speak with the GM executives, and getting hassled about it.

I bet if Michael Moore said the sky is blue, his bashers would argue that he is somehow wrong.

Your kidding yourself if you think this is an accurate account. Everyone knows that the Healt Care industry needs to get fixed. We could argue all day about Moores intensions in every film he makes. Believe what you want but NONE of Moores films have been as "accurate" has he has presented them. I am not going to get into a pissing match with you or anyone about this but the accuracy and truth of events in his films has been taken to task many times and facts have been presented in all cases to prove he flat out has stretched facts and details to make it fit his films.

There aren't a lot of stated statistical facts in his latest film. I remember back when Bowling and Farenheit came out, people were picking apart the numbers he brought up, asking for citations and comparing them with other sources. But I think the main statistic he constantly mentions in this is which countries have people living longer and less child-deaths. Other then that it's just stories from people all over the world explaining what their government does for them.

I just finished watching and it is absoultely terrifying. I had broken my femur a year or two ago, and while my insurance didn't give me much of a hassle (my father works for the MTA of Manhattan and they aparently have really good insurance), I remember looking at the bills they were covering.

I broke my leg a block from the hospital. Literally. The right place mark shows where I broke it, the left is where the hospital is.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/8...led2pn6.th.jpg

The bill for the ride alone was reaching $1000 dollars. I can't imagine the price for treating for life-threatening ailments. Ugh.

I'm gonna raise my future family is Canada.

the child mortality number is a difference in how statistics are kept

one time around 10 years ago i was in an italian hospital. luckily i wasn't the one sick since they used glass IV's. place literally looked like something out of a 50 year old movie

canadian health care isn't cheap. costs something like 5% of your salary in taxes and you have to buy some healthcare yourself since they only cover the basics

I finally saw a preview for this Doc and I think I will pick it up when it comes to DVD.

the child mortality number is a difference in how statistics are kept

I still think this argument is full of holes. Alot of countries don't operate like the US does delivering babies too immature that later go on to have lifelong problems and the costs to society are even more staggering. I'm not sure I feel that our high infant survival rate is necessarily a good thing. Preemie babies have alot of problems and doctors today are delivering them earlier and earlier (HBO had an excellent documentary on this). Even this week there was the story of the couple who delivered sextuplets and 3 of the babies have already died. The other 3 are in really bad shape and if they recover, they will have lifelong problems and require alot of care. I'm not sure it's such a great thing that those babies "survived" at only an early 20 weeks of development. I don't feel it's ethical and it needs to be addressed in this country.

Anyway, I just saw this movie. There were many things that I liked, but unfortuantely, I don't share Moore's optimism that people in this country will willingly adopt such measures. Too much profit, too much ego is on the line. If it's one thing Americans have been brainwashed with it's that you don't step on authority's toes and you don't kill the goose who lays the golden eggs. Healthcare is the gravy train for so many in this nation, it would take some sort of cataclism to ever make a change. Some say the boomers will be that impetus, but I think it will just be like any other welfare reform, it will be cut and future generations will sit back and say, "Well, I knew it wouldn't be around for me when I get old, so I'm not even planning on it." Capitulation again and the masters will be pleased.

While I am certainly glad to live in Canada where health care is free, it is not all inclusive. We do not have to pay for the cost of our emergency room visits, surgeries, or GP appointments, but we do pay for dentists, eye doctors, prescriptions, etc. The big cost to us is our drugs, which can cost enormous amounts (although certainly not limited to Canada, and apparently still cheaper than the US). I think that for some reason, many people get the impression that absolutely everything related to health care is free in Canada, which is certainly not the case. It is certainly a hell of a lot cheaper overall than it is in the US though, especially with the cost of surgeries.

As for lineups, while you can probably get through an ER visit within an hour or so, some people have to wait months for certain tests, and some have started to actually visit other countries to get tests done more quickly (there was a story in the Globe and Mail about this a few months back).

It's funny you said that. I was going to say that Moore could do a documentary on the sky being blue, and I would have my doubts.

This film could be 100% factual and I would not be sure about it due to the inaccuracies in his previous films. And that is a shame, because I feel that these are causes that deserve to be examined and brought to light.

But the way that Moore manufactures facts to elicit emotions from people is just wrong. It's too much effort to try to sort through the BS that he throws at you, to determine what the morsel of truth is that he started with.

It's much easier to get my facts from DVDTalk Political Forum. :D

...I spot a flaw in your argument.

Setting aside questions of bias and accuracy (which are endemic to the any documentary), the problem I have with Moore movies is twofold.

First, you know going in exactly what his conclusions will be: variations on the theme "America is uniquely flawed and Europe/everyone else has better ideas". He specializes preaching to the choir, I've never known anyone who wasn't already firmly in Moore's camp change their mind as a result of one of his movies.

Second, his movies are almost never a cohesive whole: they're generally a bunch of points that don't coalesce into one unifying theme. The more I think about Fahrenheit 911, the more I didn't really understand what he was driving at (other than Bush=baaad).

Lastly, he already covered this topic in an episode of TV Nation over a decade ago, so I know what he's going to say...

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the issue with preemies? Can you clarify?

With the Minn. case the docs wanted to reduce the number of babies before they were born, but the parents refused.

in europe they don't do as much premature baby and end of life care as here. if the doctors think you are going to die, they let you die. unlike the US where if the family says so they will keep you alive on machines. or in the case of an extreme premature birth they keep the baby in an incubator for weeks or months.

in europe it's so bad that if you san google news you will see a lot of stories about investigations into doctors who go farther than kevorkian ever dreamed of here

biggest issue that moore doesn't address is that here in the USA people want the absolute best care since USA is #1 and they want someone else to pay for it. there was even a story in the NY Times recently how thousands of surgeries are done needlessly because there is little evidence that they work or improve the patient's situation

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the issue with preemies? Can you clarify?

People like to talk about the high infant survival rate in the US vs. other countries. I'm just trying to make the point that just because we have a high infant survival rate doesn't mean everything is all rosy. Healthcare in this country doesn't ever like to deal with death. They don't like it when people get old and they certainly don't like it with a baby. Everyone must be saved at all costs.

But if you look at what's really happening, you have babies being born earlier and earlier "who survive". Everyone has a "feel good" moment that technology has saved the day. Unfortunately, when you look at the aftermath, you see kids maturing with alot of problems, both physically and mentally. HBO had an excellent documentary on what it means to have a premature baby (I'm talking really early - like early 20 weeks) and just how many of them are being born nowadays. One boy they focused on would basically never go to school, never hold a job, never have any semblance of a normal life and always would require 100% care. The parents did not know what would happen to him when they died. It was very sad because people have this idea in their heads that saving every single baby who comes along is always the 100% right thing to do. Without technology, the boy in the documentary would never have lived. With technology, he can live forever, but he didn't seem to have much of a life. High infant survival rate means nothing if the babies have no quality of life.

I'll watch it when it comes around.

When I woke up in a hospital after my motorcycle accident I was happy to be alive. Not so happy afterwards when UHC wouldn't pay the full coverage amount since I did not notify them that I was taken to an out of network hospital within 48 hours....even though I had a mild concussion, short term memory loss, had no clue what was going on.

I'm still disputing it over a year later.

Yer askin' fer a belly full-o-lead, ain'cha?

:)

Heeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! :)

Now as for the higher infant mortality rate in the US, this has been addressed numerous times on another forum but here it goes... The "that's because the US just tries to save more babies" argument only tells part of the story. This raises the question of why do so many babies need saving? And the true culprit here is the lack of early prenatal care (first trimester), especially in the poorer segments of the population, blacks and hispanics being the most affected. This is due to a mixture of lack of education/prevention/access which are all essential components of a good health care system. It's not the quality of care available in the US that is being questionned here, it's the quality of the health care system. Which also includes cost, the US system being incredibly costly, wasteful and inefficient.

Watched it yesterday. I do not care for his politics, but his films are always entertaining in the least. He made some good points in the movie, but it was way too black and white.

Damn, loved the info about the french time off....Id love that here!!

Great film, the best out of the ones I've seen. I'm sure he glossed over some points, and there were a few of his stats that had me scratching my head, but otherwise I was moved. He knows how to tug the heartstrings.

My question is this. When does insurance coverage completely stop someone from getting needed surgery?? For example, the women whose husband died because he didn't get the bone marrow transplant?

Isn't it better to go into debt (any way you can) if you really believe in that surgery?? Deal with the money issue afterwards!

A personal example, my next door neighbor and his wife were BROKE, but they had HMO insurance from his job. The were having a baby and had a hard decision ahead of them. The doctor told them the baby needed to be delivered a month (maybe more...dont remember) early. They had the choice of going with their doctor's hmo recommendation or another specialist (who was better at this procedure). They went with the specialist and then received a $40k bill that their insurance obviously wouldn't cover (since it was outside their network). BUT, they felt it was necessary for the safety of their premature-born son. Now, he is healthy and about 2 years old, but they are having to pay off the $40k.

One lady said in the movie (about a quote from the insurance companies), "Your denying payment, not care". There is truth to that.

Up here in Canada, you could be taken to a hospital miles away because the closest hospital's emergency dept is probably at capacity.

Yeah, thats the thing with MM movies....he picks the worst examples and best examples. He doesn't explore the middle ground. In this case, the good things about US healthcare and bad things about other country's universal healthcare.

The above theaters will have a sneak preview of Sicko this Saturday night.

I bet if Michael Moore made a documentary using only sunset shots titled "The Sky Is Orange", his fans would claim the "blue skyers" were part of a smear campaign.