Saw Sicko

[hiawatha]

so, he sent it anonymously and then announced it in the movie?

[jason nyc]

Just saw Sicko- VERY thought provoking. Especially like when the editor of the most anti-micheal moore web site had to shut it down due to his wife's illness and his need to raise money, micheal moore sent him the needed money anonomously. Those of you who wouldnt usually see any moore flick- check it out.

[ERICUEMS]

Saw it too. I couldn't find a thing I disagreed with. Is it Irreverent? Absolutely! Is it Relevant? ABSOLUTELY!

[reesern1963!]

I'm going tonight. I can't wait!

[CrankyChrissy]

Touche, Hiawatha.

[insenescence1]

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

M. Moore has about as much credibility to promote an activist view on health care as Scott Peterson does on domestic abuse.

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/video/deadmeat/

He lied shamelessly in his last film, so as the saying goes, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. And those of you enchanted with this film should think about this.

[nuangel2]

i have never seen a mm movie .but i intend on seeing this one.

[nursey57]

I can't wait to see it-Thanks jason!

[bryan]

QUESTION TO MICHAEL MOORE:

Do you think you have the chance to win over some more people, the kind of people who wouldn't have seen a Michael Moore film a few years back?


ANSWER:

Yeah, but I won them over not just by making this film but because they remember that crazy guy in the ball cap was one of the first to say that we're being led to war for fictitious reasons and that it wasn't going to work. Now, after all these years, people are seeing that's exactly what happened. So if I turned out to sort of have my finger on the pulse that time, maybe the next time it might be worth listening to what I'm saying.

ME: Not so! He is off the mark.

I promise I wanted to be open minded. Saw another interview and he didn't come accross as quite the fanatic. But his smugness and superiority has dragged out his lack of credibity for me again. Will be hard to take him seriously.

Site above would aid in making a better judgment call - we need less single minded focus because SOMETHING has to be done in the interest of people - not just "I'M RIGHT, I WANT IT MAY WAY"

[CrankyChrissy]

I think what you're saying is similar to my thoughts on the subject. The US health care system is such a travesty. It is SO in need of effective reform. A Michael Moore style "expose" which includes many elements of distortion and misrepresentation -- due to the beehive under his baseball cap -- serves as an impediment to clear-eyed, effective reforms. Of course, to be fair, he does an excellent job depicting the atrocities perpetrated by insurance interests and other profiteers.

[PWhite]

From my POV.......here's my take..

Whatever it takes to "Wake People UP" to how things really are and work is alright by me.

[leigh]

I disagree with the assumption that radical healthcare reform will positively affect public health, I think there are other factors which deserve to be noted as well, such as chronic illness, end of life care, obesity, 300 million plus people, porous borders, blah blah blah. I don't think universal healthcare coverage will solve the problems we face with costs.

I support Bowling For Columbine because I am an advocate for gun control. I think it is ridiculous that Wal Mart can sell guns and people can attend these stupid gun shows... we are too obsessed with guns.

Control the borders
impose tighter regulations on gun sales
lower the speed limit on the highways
impose a consumption tax on cigarettes and alchohol... a big tax.
Give bonuses to public health nurses ( or raise the pay enough to make the job very competitive and sought after )
have a mandetory education session with families regarding end of life care options in the ICU.

If Peady is reading this, these are my ideas for improving costs in healthcare. Unrealistic and idealistic, but improving public health is what I wish the most for America.

[Confed]

Gun control. If it wasn't for that pesky thing called the "Bill of Rights" we could have gun control....Which one of these rights can we pick and choose to deny?

I would like to see more people advocate for crime control. Things like Columbine are more likely to happen when there is not the threat of immediate, effective retaliation.

[peady2]

"Things like Columbine are more likely to happen when there is not the threat of immediate, effective retaliation."

I might agree if it were not for the fact that these mass killings were perpetrated by people who were most likely mentally ill. Therefore, "immediate, effective retaliation" would not exist, unless you are referring to the "right" for every other one of those students to have opened fire on the perpetrators, using their own guns.

As for that 2nd Amendment "right" I believe that it is obsolete in today's world. I don't believe the drafters of the Bill of Rights could have been capable, nor should they have been expected, to foresee the type of society that has evolved. While it once may have been a necessity, the "right" afforded us by the 2nd Amendment is outmoded and should be re-examined as to its efficacy and safety in modern times. Not being a scholar of Constitutional Law I have no idea if the 2nd Amendment could be modified in any way, but I would think that since the 21st amended an amendment it could be done. But I do agree with dusty that gun control is important. I see no reason why it would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment, as any citizen who proves him/herself capable and responsible should then be able to apply for and receive a gun permit.

Dusty, I agree with most of what you said above-good ideas that would have an impact on healthcare costs. But you left out a biggie-insurance and pharm reform, to stop these entities from bleeding the public by lining their own pockets. I happen to believe that healthcare is a "right" of every American citizen, whether ot not the Bill of Rights stipulates it as such. We need reform-maybe not universal healthcare in the sense of the exact same care for everyone regardless of ability to pay. We are a capitalistic society and as such those that could afford to pay or have private insurance should be able to continue to do so. Those who can not or do not have access, but do not qualify for medicare/medicaid, should still have access to free basic medical care and I personally would have no isssue with my taxes supporting this.

BTW, since we are talking about the Bill of Rights, whatever happened to the 4th Amendment? You know, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

[peady2]

I believe they were brilliant as well. However no one could be expected to foresee how our society would evolve over 200 years later.

For our citizens with NO healthcare access, even delayed healthcare would be better than none at all. I personally don't think I want universal healthcare for myself-I would rather continue with private insurance and see caps on insurance company and pharm profits. If that makes me a commie-so be it. So I guess I have to say I am against universal healthcare-but I am for a plan that would provide basics, especially preventative care, to the un-or under-insured.

BTW dusty-did you realize you are a closet liberal? LOL!