It's actually pretty bad compared to Fahrenheit 9/11, which did over 27k per screen the first weekend. Good for a documentary, but somewhat worse than the other major releases last weekend. Probably will end up in the $15-20 mm range when all is said and done..

I would say it will pick up. It's pretty common sense that documentaries don't open big... but gain momentum... You look at the biggest docs: 911, columbine, Penguins... they all had word-of-mouth momentum.
I saw it and most of the theater cried at scenes... that's word of mouth material right there...
Not Moore's best though... it got repetative.. but it also got some of the people in my theater really upset... which is good movie-making. Bravo.

moore's biggest mistake was releasing it on p2p which is how i saw it last week and how a lot of people will see it via word of mouth.

if this thing bombs financially it will interesting how the Hollywood money men treat him next time he wants to make a movie.

I try not to link our own stuff, but I'd post a link to this column no matter what site it was on...Kurt Loder's review of "Sicko" is the best critique I've read anywhere. He absolutely blows Moore out of the water.

The full article is here, it's worth reading. Point by point obliteration of Moore's major ideas. I want to post the entire thing here but it's way too long.

and of course Moore doesn't mention that Kaiser was the first or is still the only HMO out there that started covering AIDS patients. After they were infected I think.

Frontline did a nice piece about it years ago. they even took on several members from SF's gay community on their board of directors

You guys slamming the concept of single-payer health care, what's your alternative? Why do we stand alone among Western democracies in refusing to guarantee health care to someone who needs it? Yeah, the British system may have its problems, as do the French and Canadian systems, but people in those countries also overwhelmingly prefer their systems to a U.S. style system.

Canada recently polled its citizens on its country's greatest accomplishment ever, and the runaway winner was its national healthcare system.

I think I'd kind of like a system where I didn't have to worry about losing my insurance if I lost my job, or getting turned down for insurance because of pre-existing conditions or whatever.

Bottom line for me is, there are somewhere around 45 million people in this country who don't have health insurance. The number of people in other Western-style democracies who are uninsured: Zero.

For the MILLIONTH time -

1. Health Savings Accounts. Like the Earned Income Tax Credit this would be given once a year to those truly in need. A lump sum deposited each year into that person's Health Savings Account - to be used exclusively for health care issues. The amount could roll over if not used. The account holder could then CHOOSE the provider of his or her health care whenever medical care was needed. In this system NO ONE goes without health care (and CHOICE is the big advantage here).

2. Tort Reform. Democrats beholden to the Trial Lawyers hate this one, but with the skyrocketing costs of malpractice insurance a true form putting caps on "pain and suffering" awards would drive premiums back down. WAY down. (Compensatory damages would not have caps - if someone loses $250,000 for 6 years of lost income then they get $250,000 in compensatory damages.)

3. Increase penalties for FRAUD. Put people in jail - put them in jail for longer terms, increase fines - make it painful to be involved in fraud. At least 10% of the annual increases in insurance premiums are due to fraud.

There you go (again) - problem solved, no radical solutions costing TRILLIONS of dollars needed. No "goverment run health care," no loss of choice in health care providers (some people, like my entire extended family, actually like Kaiser, and I know others who like Blue Cross/Blue Shield).

First off, because health care is NOT a right. Look up the Bill of Rights, you're not going to find it.

Second, because it is expensive.

Third, because there are other ways - like I noted above - to do it. The Democrats don't want Health Savings Accounts because it gives freedom and independence to a block of voters who are used to being dependant on government to provide many necessities in life, and it's the Democrats who constantly try to buy their votes like drug dealers giving out free samples to make people junkies (in this case, government benefit junkies).

Fourth, because every time any American government (Federal, State, Local) has tried to run hospitals it's been a complete disaster (Walter Reed, King/Harbor, etc, etc, etc) with people DYING because they went to a government hospital rather than a private hospital. When people die on the floor in the ER waiting room because none of the nurses or doctors give a damn you see the true example of Government Health "Care."

Why not try smaller steps like I noted above rather than GAMBLING that Congressmen can actually write a bill with all the details right, and then FURTHER GAMBLING that the government can actually effectively administer something larger than the entire size of the government? (More than double government, that's what it would take for the government to run health care)

Our government has not shown an ability to be efficient and effective at anything in the last 70 or so years. What would make anyone believe that they can suddenly become geniuses and get something right? Something this big and this important, no less?

Too many people live in LaLa Land when it comes to the reality of this issue. This government simply isn't capable of running Universal Health Care. It would be nice if they were that good - but they're not, and you all damned well know it.

from MMore's mailing :

Too many people live in LaLa Land when it comes to the reality of this issue. This government simply isn't capable of running Universal Health Care. It would be nice if they were that good - but they're not, and you all damned well know it.

Well, somebody needs to be running things. An infant family member has missed milestones since birth and now when we need a pediatric neurologist to provide some help, we have to wait 5 freaking months! This is with full insurance and in a major metropolitan area. Something is terribly wrong. I wonder if this child was in Canada if anyone would care that she couldn't walk. We should have been on the boat to Cuba with Moore. Maybe someone there would have been able to help us. $2 trillion and if a kid can't walk, maybe someone will help you in 6 months.

B5Erik, if you want to know who's living in lala land, try looking in the mirror.

depends where you live since where i live you can get an appointment with any specialist in a few days. if you want really good or one of the best you have to wait. metropolitan area can mean a lot of things depending where you live

going to canada and living in the middle of nowhere won't make the wait shorter

if you want really good or one of the best you have to wait.

This is not an issue of trying to see the best specialist, this is an issue of trying to see "a" specialist. We pay over $15K per year for our insurance and live in one of the top 20 largest cities in the US. It's not a problem with the insurance. If a child cannot walk, why can't the healthcare system accomodate for that? I never had much of an issue with the system until I really needed it to be there. I suspect those who tout how great it is are in much the same situation. Hopefully they will never need to depend on it as they may find themselves in a similar situation with people saying come back in 6 months.

I think this all comes back to the profit motive in healthcare. Maybe it's not profitable for this town to have more than just a few pediatric neurologists who are constantly booked. That seems inherently wrong and no better than the socialist systems that people are deriding. If healthcare here doesn't provide the service because of cost, how is that any better? We spend alot more for the same outcome.

OK, let me ask you this - take profit and money out of the equation and what do you get?

Fewer doctors. Especially fewer specialists. When you have to pay as much as you do to get through medical school, and when it takes as much time and effort as it does, do you think these guys would do it for a government 9 to 5 paycheck?

Hell no. The truth is that specialists should probably get paid more to attract more people to the jobs. Pediatric Neurologists are in short supply? Don't go to Canada. EVERYTHING is in short supply there. Don't go to the UK where even simple things like dental appointments need to be booked months in advance. You have to give people incentives and motivation to spend 10-12 years of their lives preparing for a career (and to be a specialist that's what you're looking at). There is no incentive or motivating factor like money. If the government takes over doctors will not make as much money. The lure of big paychecks will be diminished and there will be an even bigger shortage of specialists in the future.

It is unfortunate that that child is in a tough situation - and I feel for you (I really do - my daughter had to have eye surgery and it took 9 months to get it done, but it got done). But have you looked into other health insurance providers? Has anyone looked at going outside the network and paying the extra to do so (if the provider covers part of out of network coverage - many do).

And, in the end, if it takes 5 months at least it gets done.

But would you really want to have a government employee running that child's surgery just to get it done faster?

I didn't care about time frame as much as I did the quality and competence of the surgeon when my daughter had her eye surgery - and the guy was great!

Government run health care will make sure that doctors meet minimum requirements - but not much more. Most health care providers make sure that their surgeons are good - because lawsuits get expensive. You think you'll be able to sue the government for malpractice? Good luck.

It's American arrogance to assume our way MUST be the right way...same way we believe the death penalty must be right; Christianity must be the only way to heaven; football must be a better sport that soccer; etc.

Well, I'll chime in here. I saw the movie last night and thought it was pretty good. I like Moore's films. I know that he slants things, but he also raises a lot of valid arguements and gets people talking and that's a good thing.

As for our health care problems, I don't know what the answer is. I've always paid for my own coverage, sometimes when I couldn't even really afford it, I'm just super paranoid about getting seriously hurt and not being covered. That being said, my premiums constanly go up as my coverage goes down. I pay about $150 a month and I'm 33 years old. I've never had a serious injury, but I routinely visit the doctor and have had x-rays and procedures done. My insurance will typically cover a chunk of what I'm billed, but my 'deductibles' are so high that I'm often paying full price for things. I recently hurt my shoulder and needed physical therapy. I found out that I need to pay the first $5000 before any benefits kicked in. So on top of my monthly premiums, I found myself paying $500 a month in physical therapy. I ended up stopping therapy because, while helpful, I just couldn't afford it anymore. THAT is the state of health care in this country. There's a large group of people that have health care policies that are like books of tax code. I honestly don't even really know what all I'm covered for. I just have the best policy that I could afford and I know that it will only cover me for certain things. That's scary. And it's sad. People don't go to the doctor because they know they're not covered. Then the problems get worse and then life threatening, and THEN they go to the ER and what could have been prevented turns into a huge problem and those costs get passed down to the rest of us.

Would I rather pay a 20% sales tax and know that I'm covered regardless of what happens? Never have to worry about deductibles and ridiculous drug prices, and pre-existing conditions that may exclude me from recieving the care I need? Hell yeah.

I think the big point in Moore's film, for me anyway, is that people think they are covered, but there's an industry out there whose sole job is to cut costs and deny you coverage. We pay for the best policy we can afford. In my case, that's a policy that isn't full coverage. Nowhere near it.

http://www.wbur.org/weblogs/commonhealth/?m=200707

Mass just past a law requiring people to buy insurance or face penalties and people are already complaining it's too expensive. they want it free

Just saw the film, in a word, outstanding. 91% on RT says it all. Definately The Film To Beat in the documentary category.

So, a 20% sales tax on top of a 5% to 8% State sales tax (depending on what state you live in), on top of Federal income tax, Social Security, State Income Taxes, Property Taxes - basically, you'd be working to pay the government. I pay about 33% of my total income in various taxes (as do most of you), add 20% and that's 53%. That's jacked up. I'd be forced into bankruptcy. I'd lose my home and my family would be homeless.

And what about those who don't even make as much as I do (I don't make a ton of money, just enough to get by)? It would be a disaster.

Sales taxes are essentially regressive because they hit the poor much harder.

Is that really a good idea?

See, you have choice - you can shop around to see if there is a better fit for you. There are a lot of options out there, but you do have to take the time to research it and find the best provider and plan for you.

I have never had a problem with coverage for my family, and I've had multiple surgeries, my daughter has had surgery, my wife has had minor surgical procedures AND of course she had to go to the hospital to give birth (I received a copy of the bill that Kaiser paid on our behalf - over $18,000 dollars, and we didn't have to pay a dime of it).

There are some bad providers out there. Even some good providers have bad plans that are designed to save you money on your premiums, but you gamble that you won't need major care. It takes time and effort, but you can find a better plan than you have now.

Define "needs' it.

Emergency rooms cannot turn people away if they don't have insurance. Actually, they shouldn't even be collecting insurance or payment information until AFTER you have been seen.

don't forget that if we are going to be like Europe, the 20% sales tax is on food as well

IF...and that's a big "IF"...Moore submits it to the Academy for Best Documentary consideration. He didn't do that for his 9/11 movie, opting instead to submit it for Best Picture consideration (of course, it didn't get nominated). I guess you have to choose one or the other according to Oscar rules.

Do you have some reason to think it won't be submitted for Best Doc?

I believe the reason F9/11 was submitted for Best Picture consideration was to allow him to broadcast on network tv (prior to election, if memory serves)which the doc rules would not allow. I don't know that he has any such plans for Sicko.

Holy shit! Moore ripped Wolf Blitzer a new one tonight! You can see the video here:

Link to Video


Also, at Moore's website they've already put up a response to the hit piece CNN did on him right before his appearance. Pretty much blows them out of the water. Here's a link to his website where he responds to the CNN charges:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/ne...e.php?id=10017

Go Michael!

That was pretty good. I can understand how he got pissed because they essentially lambasted him right before the interview.

They lambasted him, but they presented the facts that he doesn't want people to know.

Sanjay Gupta's report mirrored what I've been saying all along - and CNN's no conservative network. Moore's got an agenda, and that is made clear in that report.