An unexpected review (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html) by FOXNews.com's film critic:
Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity.

Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations. Moore smartly lets very articulate average Americans tell their personal horror stories at the hands of insurance companies. The film never talks down or baits the audience.

At a press conference on Saturday, Moore said, "This film is a call to action. It's also not a partisan film."

Indeed, in "Sicko," Moore criticizes both Democrats and Republicans for their inaction and in some cases their willingness to be bribed by pharmaceutical companies and insurance carriers.

In a key moment in the film, Moore took a group of patients by boat to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba because of its outstanding medical care. When they couldn't get into the U.S. naval base, Moore proceeded onto Havana where the patients were treated well and cheaply.

This has caused a great deal of controversy, with the federal government launching an investigation into the trip, which officials say was in violation of the trade and commerce embargo against the Communist country.

Moore, explaining the flap over the trip to Cuba in a press conference, said, "This administration flaunts the law, flaunts the constitution."

Moore now claims the U.S. government says his Cuban footage may be illegal, and Moore said he made a second master copy of "Sicko" and had it shipped it to France immediately just in case of potential government issues.

That's great news since we need people like him to get some important issues out to the masses

Used to like Moore's stuff before he became a douchebag a couple years back so this one sounds promising

Fair and balanced.

Fair and balanced.
Are you referring to FOX News or Michael Moore?

It applies to neither.

haha

What, did you assume that because Friedman writes for Fox he'd be told to give the film a thumbs down? Toeing the company line Or Else is the sort of thing you find in "liberal" media.

Now that's "fair and balanced." :rolleyes:

Anyone else watch the Moore/Gupta bout last night on Larry King? (I know I'm getting old)

Definitely want to see the film, but Moore is such a pompous ass now it pains me to contribute to his fat pockets

Gupta pointed out that Moore cherry picks his data from different organizations....Using the lowest and highest figures possible to try and make his movie more convincing...Of course Moore is now famous for doing this type of reporting

He also got onto him for Sicko trying to convey the message that health care in France, Canada and England is FREE....The uninformed masses won't come away from the film knowing those countries pay MUCH higher taxes due to their health care systems being ran by the gov't

Thought Gupta handled himself rather well and Moore was just blowing hot air as usual...He did say he liked the film and the fact it will generate discussion

Anyone else watch the Moore/Gupta bout last night on Larry King? (I know I'm getting old)

Definitely want to see the film, but Moore is such a pompous ass now it pains me to contribute to his fat pockets

Gupta pointed out that Moore cherry picks his data from different organizations....Using the lowest and highest figures possible to try and make his movie more convincing...Of course Moore is now famous for doing this type of reporting

He also got onto him for Sicko trying to convey the message that health care in France, Canada and England is FREE....The uninformed masses won't come away from the film knowing those countries pay MUCH higher taxes due to their health care systems being ran by the gov't

Thought Gupta handled himself rather well and Moore was just blowing hot air as usual...He did say he liked the film and the fact it will generate discussion

I watched about 5 minutes of Moore's diatribe against CNN about the war...And turned the channel. He is to the left what mAnn Coulter is to the right. Bad representation.

One thing you have to remember is Michael Moore's movies are all propaganda. Moore wants to influence the audience so he uses figures that suit his case well. Like him or not, the guy is very good at what he does. He knows how to use statistics to favor his ideals, realizing that most Americans are too ignorant, gullible, or lazy to look for an alternative source of information.

He also got onto him for Sicko trying to convey the message that health care in France, Canada and England is FREE....The uninformed masses won't come away from the film knowing those countries pay MUCH higher taxes due to their health care systems being ran by the gov't

By the time you factor in insurance premiums, co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses we pay in addition to our taxes, the disparity is not quite so "MUCH".

By the time you factor in insurance premiums, co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses we pay in addition to our taxes, the disparity is not quite so "MUCH".

Among the lower income earners, Canadians fare quite well. That's primarily due to the fact that the government over there steals money from those who create wealth and jobs and awards that money to people who didn't bother to get an education or gain highly marketable skills.

That's the antithesis of social justice.

I really don't care about the disparity. We can't all be rich or even well-off. It's not society's job to make sure that we are. In Canada, they have a serious problem with educated people leaving for the U.S. An astounding number of highly educated Canadians leave the country every year. Of course, Canada will be quick to point out that they take in highly educated immigrants from the rest of the world which "effectively replace" their Canadian-born workers. I think that's an interesting counterpoint, but I'd be interested to know what Canadian employers think of these high-skill employees with degrees from third-world universities.

By the time you factor in insurance premiums, co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses we pay in addition to our taxes, the disparity is not quite so "MUCH".

The point Gupta was making is the film conveys the message that those countries get free health care and it's not the case at all...They pay for it with higher taxes

The point Gupta was making is the film conveys the message that those countries get free health care and it's not the case at all...They pay for it with higher taxes

Actually, the wealthy pay for it with higher taxes.

.. it's what they [purposeful use of indefinite pronoun] call a "progressive" system... I call it robbing from the rich to give to the poor.

Are you saying the wealthy should have to pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the poor?

Are you saying the wealthy should have to pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than the poor?

Let's look at what the poor often pay in America.

First off, many poor don't end up paying taxes AT ALL. They simply receive 3-4K checks for popping babies out (which they can't afford to take care of). Considering that fact, I don't see how unless I was violating federal law, I could ever pay less than the poor who are getting my money while producing offspring they can't afford to take care of.

At any rate, no, the poor shouldn't pay more than the wealthy. It would probably be more fair to have them pay the same.

Get rid of all deductions, loopholes, etc. Tax everyone at 15% (or so) across the board. Otherwise, yes, I think it's immoral to punish success.

immoral???

Only in the religion of capitalism.

Thou shalt not steal.. thou shalt not covet..

Morality of capitalism?

Get rid of all deductions, loopholes, etc. Tax everyone at 15% (or so) across the board. Otherwise, yes, I think it's immoral to punish success.

I could go for that.

I could go for that.

Under such a plan, the Bill Gates of this world would have to actually pay the same effective rate as the rest of us. The folks who actually need the money to support their small businesses and employees, the upper middle class and the low end of the rich -- I'm thinking the 100K to 400K range, would have more money.

I would eliminate deductions for charitable giving and finally, I'd like to see the income of churches taxed.

Vote Midtowner, (I), 2008.

Thou shalt not steal.. thou shalt not covet..

Morality of capitalism?
Government taxation is not stealing.

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21)

Government taxation is not stealing.

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21)

It is when that taxation is not intended for the legitimate aims of government, e.g. wealth redistribution. Why should I have to work so that some loser who cut class and did drugs and popped out babies as a teenager can get an earned income credit?

Where is that in the Bible?

All I'm saying is that I believe Jesus has a different perspective on that view.

All I'm saying is that I believe Jesus has a different perspective on that view.

Ah.. so Jesus would forcibly take money away from those who earned it and redistribute it to those who were lazy?

Have you heard of of the Year of Jubilee?

"All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need."

Acts 4:32-35

Yet it doesn't say that it was okay for any of them not to pull their own weight, does it?

If you're advocating communism (as it seems you are), you can count me out. I work harder than the average person and I intend to enjoy a higher standard of living because of that.

Finally, what these people did was voluntary rather than compulsory. Your scripture here serves as a poor example. They gave because they wanted to, not because they were told they had to do so or be thrown in prison.

Yet it doesn't say that it was okay for any of them not to pull their own weight, does it?

If you're advocating communism (as it seems you are), you can count me out. I work harder than the average person and I intend to enjoy a higher standard of living because of that.

Finally, what these people did was voluntary rather than compulsory. Your scripture here serves as a poor example. They gave because they wanted to, not because they were told they had to do so or be thrown in prison.
I'm advocating Christ's message. Seems odd that a Catholic would say, "count me out."

Have you heard of of the Year of Jubilee?

I looked it up. I can see where you're headed, but the concept is not on-point. The rules here seem to serve a different purpose than wealth redistribution. There is no hard theory given, but first, it should be said that the rule only applies to land and slaves -- both of which are supposedly truly "owned" by God. Effectively, it means in ancient Jerusalem, you couldn't own land in fee simple (as Wiki says), but that's wrong.. you'd just have a fee simple, alienable by a term of years subject to God's allodial fee.

The purposes vary from the above mentioned to ensuring that the land remained in the hands of the original Israelite tribes.

At any rate, it's not on point. If an Israelite under this scenario was a non fee-holder, he'd stand to receive nothing under these rules (unless he sold himself into slavery and was subsequently released). I'd assume, however that any such sale into indentured servitude would have taken into account that it was only for a term of years rather than for life. Further, this rule probably helped to stimulate the economy insofar as indentured servitudes were concerned because there'd always be a light at the end of the tunnel.

We're talking about reapportioning wealth forcibly, by law from the productive to the lazy. This doesn't happen in the Bible. The beggars there where wealth was reapportioned were not lazy people (if you were lazy in that society, more than likely, you just died).. these were the physically or mentally handicapped, or those who were discriminated against due to disease, national origin, etc.

You are certainly reading it much differently than I do and most biblical scholars do... but that's not surprising.

Roman taxes in the 1st Century were used for infrastructure... building underground heating, plumbing, roads, bath houses / gyms, common areas, water ducts, and wars. The tax rate was 1 - 3%.

In the 4th Century Rome decided to start using its tax money to feed, house, and clothe the poor universally. This was less because Rome found a caring Caesar and more because Rome was feeling very threatened by Christianity's acts of financial kindness and wanted to try to beat them at their own game and in return draw more people back to Paganism.

That is all for my historical hyperbole. Please continue. :)

I saw SICKO at AMC last night and was impressed. I went in verryyy skeptical, but he did a super job and no matter what you think the ultimate solution should be, it's a must-see film if you care about the future of our country. This Michael Moore film is definitely more grown-up than some of his others. I'm not a fan of MM, but this is really a great film. Eye opening. It's passed most of the fact checking too by some media outlets and others, which impressed me even more. See SICKO at the AMC or catch it on DVD, you won't regret it.

I had a friend ask this afternoon if I wanted to go see Sicko. As my post above says, I have already seen it and was impressed. I told her I had seen it but would be up for seeing it again. So, off we went tonight. It's even better the second time. It's just an amazing film. She agreed with what I said above, no matter what you feel the solution needs to be, or what you feel about Michael Moore as an individual, the film should be seen by as many as people as possible. Liberal, Conservative, Communist, Nationalist, Whateverist, it doesn't matter. There's not a lot to argue about with this incredibly well-presented movie. It sure puts a lot of things in perspective.

in the past i havent really cared for MM, but i saw this film and it was great. as a recent college graduate with insurance it really hit home, it isnt about giving out free healthcare to the poor, its how much us insurance having citizens are getting screwed in a FOR PROFIT system.

With all of my co-pays, what prescriptions are covered and what is not,my yearly deducatables on top of what im paying out of each paycheck - i can honestly say im afraid to go to the dr. Its scary seeing how you can have insurance and be a good paying customer for years, and if something goes wrong and your insurance decides to drop you - have fun in court while your fighting for your life.

The really scary thing is the idea of a lifetime cap. Most people's insurance has a set fixed limit of around $1 million. If the total of all of your medical bills for your entire life adds up to that amount, then you're pretty much screwed. Your choices are to try and find another company that will take you (not likely at that point), apply for Medicaid (if you make too much money they probably won't take you), or apply for a private assistance program (if you don't make enough money they probably won't take you). So if you're an average American who happens to have a chronic disease like hemophilia, or if you must have a few major surgeries, each of which could easily run in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, it really could be no time at all before you max out your insurance and have no options.

Midtowner - you are implying all poor people are lazy. I don't think thats the case. My brother is technically poor, but he works his butt off. He isn't the least bit lazy.

I saw this movie the other day. As usual, Moore is a great performer and editor.

Fortunately for Moore, most of his ticket buyers are very uninformed and simply consume the garbage he pumps out.

I admire him for his ability to further his ideas so well - but the movie should be called SLICKO because that's exactly how he produces everthing he does.

Her's some good reading.... Hospital Clínico Quirúrgico (http://www.therealcuba.com/Page10.htm)

But you can't fault the guy for trying to make a difference in the world.. At least he's trying to do something postive.

There is no doubt that we have a health care crisis in this country.