'Sicko' Shows Michael Moore's Maturity as a Filmmaker

[fuckin crazy]

ROTFLMFAO  your post have been the brightest part of my day . Keep it up

[stolat]

^ yeh, you'd be hungover today!

[sandman]

Conspiracy theories, anyone?

You should know all about conspiracy theories, since you pushed Iraq/WMD so hard back when it all started.

If anybody asks a question you throw out "conspiracy theory" as soon as you get the chance. Of course, nobody has ever smeared anybody, or undermined another before, it must be some sort of "conspiracy."?

that quote was not mine. it was all from an article i posted.

moore is upset this move leaked. i think that is obvious. he's begging his fans (guilting them really) to see it in the theaters. not that there's anything wrong with that, it is a business.

[stolat]

Hopefully his film will make it to theatres!

[The Dog]

Conspiracy theories, anyone?

You should know all about conspiracy theories, since you pushed Iraq/WMD so hard back when it all started.

If anybody asks a question you throw out "conspiracy theory" as soon as you get the chance. Of course, nobody has ever smeared anybody, or undermined another before, it must be some sort of "conspiracy." 

that quote was not mine. it was all from an article i posted.

moore is upset this move leaked. i think that is obvious. he's begging his fans (guilting them really) to see it in the theaters. not that there's anything wrong with that, it is a business.

honestly, i doubt this will have a huge impact.  most people downloading movies from the net are young and probably wouldn't have gong to see this movie anyways.  what young person cares about the health care in this country?  this is going to appeal to movie goers in their late 20s (maybe) and up.

i doubt it'll really affect him that much.

either way it sucks for him - god damn pirates! 

[SLCPUNK]

that quote was not mine. it was all from an article i posted.

moore is upset this move leaked. i think that is obvious. he's begging his fans (guilting them really) to see it in the theaters. not that there's anything wrong with that, it is a business.

Yea, but you still used it.

Moore said himself he is not upset on Letterman, but don't let facts get in the way or anything.

[sandman]

cause if michael moore says it, it must be fact. 

[SLCPUNK]

cause if michael moore says it, it must be fact. 

How stupid are you?

You are saying he is "upset" while Moore said he was not on TV last week. I think the man is the best source on how he actually feels about something.

[sandman]

cause if michael moore says it, it must be fact.?

How stupid are you?

You are saying he is "upset" while Moore said he was not on TV last week. I think the man is the best source on how he actually feels about something.

i think he's talking out of both sides of his ass.

similar to the "anonymous" $12K check he sent.....which he then mentions in the movie. 

(didn't realize i had to spell that one out for you. sorry to see you're in a bad mood today. again. cheer up, big guy.)

[SLCPUNK]

i think he's talking out of both sides of his ass.

I think you are putting words in his mouth and attacking that-typical loony banter.

[The Chad Cometh]

Moore is known for taking one side of an argument and exaggerating it to ridiculous proportions through highly selective editing.

Having said that ... the health system in America is truly attrocious from what I understand.

[stolat]

The censors may still find a way to ban this film before it reaches the cinema - so in this context and at this stage the leaks make for an interesting turn of events.......

[sandman]

Moore is known for taking one side of an argument and exaggerating it to ridiculous proportions through highly selective editing.

Having said that ... the health system in America is truly attrocious from what I understand.

you're first statement is correct. which is why in the end, moore's docs make him a ton of money, but have virtually no effect on the issue at hand (F-911 for example).

you're second statement is a bit drastic IMO, but "attrocious" is a relative term.  the U.S. healthcare system needs improvement. but so does every other healthcare system in the world. there are many positive aspects of the system in america. and i believe this system is fixable, without a major makeover to mirror the systems in France or Canada (or Cuba  ).   

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Moore is known for taking one side of an argument and exaggerating it to ridiculous proportions through highly selective editing.

Having said that ... the health system in America is truly attrocious from what I understand.

you're first statement is correct. which is why in the end, moore's docs make him a ton of money, but have virtually no effect on the issue at hand (F-911 for example).

you're second statement is a bit drastic IMO, but "attrocious" is a relative term.  the U.S. healthcare system needs improvement. but so does every other healthcare system in the world. there are many positive aspects of the system in america. and i believe this system is fixable, without a major makeover to mirror the systems in France or Canada (or Cuba  ).   

don't worry about France, we're getting to where you are now  ....

[SLCPUNK]

you're second statement is a bit drastic IMO, but "attrocious" is a relative term.  the U.S. healthcare system needs improvement. but so does every other healthcare system in the world. there are many positive aspects of the system in america. and i believe this system is fixable, without a major makeover to mirror the systems in France or Canada (or Cuba  ).   

Take the profit out.

Problem solved.

Canada's health care system puts ours to shame.

[The Dog]

you're second statement is a bit drastic IMO, but "attrocious" is a relative term.  the U.S. healthcare system needs improvement. but so does every other healthcare system in the world. there are many positive aspects of the system in america. and i believe this system is fixable, without a major makeover to mirror the systems in France or Canada (or Cuba  ).   

Take the profit out.

Problem solved.

Canada's health care system puts ours to shame.

agreed - it might be all semantics, but 40 million Americans without health care is pretty "atrocious" to me.   

[sandman]

what do you mean when you say "take the profit out?" canada's system is basically a hybrid - it's not funded 100% by their taxes (which are significantly higher than the U.S.).

i'm not that familiar with their system though. in fact, there's plenty i have to learn about our system. so i'm not gonna make any judgements.

i'm aware of some positives, and plenty of negative aspects in the canadian system, including ridiculously long wait times for medical care, and i believe some families cannot even find a family doctor to take care of their babies.

[sandman]

you're second statement is a bit drastic IMO, but "attrocious" is a relative term.? the U.S. healthcare system needs improvement. but so does every other healthcare system in the world. there are many positive aspects of the system in america. and i believe this system is fixable, without a major makeover to mirror the systems in France or Canada (or Cuba? ).? ?

Take the profit out.

Problem solved.

Canada's health care system puts ours to shame.

agreed - it might be all semantics, but 40 million Americans without health care is pretty "atrocious" to me.? ?

LB - maybe you can explain the "take the profits out" comment.

also, where did you get the 40 million number? i've heard people say 45 million. BUT, i've also heard that that number is grossly overstated and misleading due to the way the categorize the uninsured.

not to mention many people with access and the ability to pay for insurance, choose not to.

[SLCPUNK]

not to mention many people with access and the ability to pay for insurance, choose not to.

I'd like to see that stat, where did you get that from?

Most Canadians I talk to are pretty happy with their health care system. The "long wait" shtick I hear often from those against socialized medicine, but rarely from those who participate. (I guess you haven't been to an ER any time in the last 10 years either...there are guys in there with musket wounds waiting to be seen.)

[sandman]

not to mention many people with access and the ability to pay for insurance, choose not to.

I'd like to see that stat, where did you get that from?

Most Canadians I talk to are pretty happy with their health care system. The "long wait" shtick I hear often from those against socialized medicine, but rarely from those who participate. (I guess you haven't been to an ER any time in the last 10 years either...there are guys in there with musket wounds waiting to be seen.)

unfortunately, i've been to the ER a few times in recent years. always overcrowded, but they do an ok job of prioritizing, and everyone gets brought in within a few hours. in canada, they wait for MONTHS for routine surgery.

i was uninsured for 2 years during my final college years. my cousin works for boeing as a contractor. he makes $55/hour and doesn't purchase health insurance. but he just went in and paid $1,000 for a full body MRI.

one of my best friends is an ER nurse at johns hopkins. traveling nurse gets paid hourly with no benefits - he doesn't purchase health insurance either.

here's an old article. if i find something more recent i'll post....

The Census Bureau recently reported that the number of Americans without health insurance rose in 2002 to around 43.6 million, up from 38.7 million in 2000 but below the record 44.3 million who were uninsured in 1998. With health care costs increasing, many public health advocates are worried that this number might rise further. Why do more than 43 million Americans lack health insurance? Who are they?

A common assumption is that most uninsured Americans simply cannot afford the cost of coverage. However, the evidence points to other factors in many cases. For example, during the last decade, the ranks of the uninsured have increased among affluent households and decreased among low-income households.

- From 1993 to 2002 the number of uninsured people in households with annual incomes above $75,000 increased by 114 percent.
- The number of uninsured in households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $75,000 increased by 57 percent.
- By contrast, the number of uninsured people in households with incomes under $25,000 fell by 17 percent.
- About three-quarters of the rise in the number of uninsured over the past four years has been among households earning more than $50,000 per year, and almost half of that has occurred among households earning more than $75,000 per year. In fact, almost one-third of the uninsured now live in households with annual incomes above $50,000 and one in five live in households earning more than $75,000 annually.
 
Another common assumption is that most uninsured Americans simply have no access to affordable coverage. Yet according to research by the public policy arm of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, approximately 14 million uninsured adults and children are currently eligible for government coverage, such as Medicaid or the State Children?s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), but have not bothered to enroll. Consider this: Virtually all children from low-income families are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP. Yet the parents of more than five million eligible children have failed to enroll them. In addition, close to nine million nonelderly adults qualify for Medicaid but are not enrolled.
 
Young adults (18-24) are less likely than other age groups to have health insurance, averaging 70.4 percent in 2002, compared with 82.0 percent of those 25 to 64 and 99.2 percent of those aged 65 and above. Indeed, according to the Census Bureau, 41 percent of the uninsured (17.9 million) are between the ages of 18 and 34. Good health is common in younger people, which may help explain why so many of them don?t obtain health insurance. They consider other uses of their money more valuable.

For example, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 2001 Consumer Expenditure Survey, households headed by young people between ages 25 and 34 spend more than three times as much of their income on entertainment and dining out as on out-of-pocket health care expenses. For even younger heads of household (18-to-24-year-olds), the annual expenditure on entertainment and dining out is almost five times more than out-of-pocket spending on health care. By contrast, households headed by individuals ages 65 to 74 spend almost 50 percent more on out-of-pocket health care than on entertainment and food away from home. If the young uninsured had unmet health needs, they likely would shift some of this discretionary spending into health care.

Many people assume those without insurance are not covered for years. However, when measured on a monthly basis, spells without health insurance tend to be of short duration. Census Bureau data show that about three-quarters (74.7 percent) of these spells are over within one year, while only 2.5 percent last more than three years. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association found that of those uninsured households with incomes below $50,000 who didn?t quality for public coverage, nearly half (5.7 million) were uninsured six month or less.