Even Fox News Praised It
Michael Moore’s Newest Film Hits Boise Early
By Jill Kuraitis, 6-19-07
Want to be the first on your block to catch Michael Moore’s new documentary “Sicko”? Show up for the first screening of the film in Idaho next Thursday, June 28 - a day earlier than the nationwide premiere.
Moore’s latest documentary is poised for even higher attendance than his “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which shattered all previous box office records for a documentary. “Sicko” has received critical acclaim both abroad and in the U.S., including a favorable review from Fox News’s Roger Friedman: “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.”
The film focuses on the paradox of American health care: the U.S. has achieved a level of medical technology and expertise that is unmatched throughout the world, yet tens of millions of Americans are not able to access or use this system. America spends more than twice as much per capita on health care as France, and almost two and a half times as much as Britain, yet it falls short in almost every key indicator of public health when compared with other developed nations.
The premiere event will be presented by the Ada County Democrats on Thursday, June 28 at the Flicks in Boise. A 6:00 p.m. reception will include hors d’oeuvres and a no-host bar. The film will begin at 7:00. Tickets are $25, which includes the reception, movie, and a chance to win door prizes. For more information, call 331-2128 or send an email to adademocrats@adademocrats.org.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
How many Republicans have you met you can instantly expound on "F9/11" or Gore's "Inconvenient Truth", yet haven't seen either? I've personally met at least 30-50. These are people who refuse to learn. They are afraid to line up what they think they know with modernity. They are Republicans.
See: http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/2007/06/kyle_smith_on_m.html#more
Remember - alot of people in North America didn't participate in the America Revolution against England; they waited to see who wins!!
Words are CHEAP - ACTION is expensive and can HURT!!
Jay J
Craig I view everything I see with a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thought. But as one who is in the trenches everyday on health care issues in this country I applaud the efforts of bringing this issue to the forefront and beginning a debate. No MM is not a journalist nor does he claim to be one. Then again neither are most of the sources you cite but they do claim to be journalists. I don't see the health care crisis being on the top of anyone's agenda and if this is what it takes to begin a discussion then I'm all for it. Nobody's rallying around anyone but I do know that I can't swing an IV without hitting someone who hasn't been harmed by our system. Knowing what I know about the movie little in it will be revelatory to me. I just hope its a catalyst for change.
Please Craig by all means tell us who should we be rallying around on this issue?
What is important is not to have a cult of personality but rather a healthy discussion of issues untainted by the the likes of MM who hustle calamity for their own profit. We should rally around goals and expected results. For example see: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/medicarehealthinsurance/i/nathealthins_2.htm
It's easy.
Again, I expect nothing. Not an aspersion on you, Craig; I don't think MM is generally inaccurate. I think you are parroting something you heard, and like.
Please prove me wrong. Heck, we'll all benefit either way, if we all are eager to learn.
The healthcare debate is far too important to let the likes of MM and his sullied reputation sidetrack it.
Thats some messed up logic right there, Craig.
I read through a lot of Hitchen's bloviating and I've read a lot of the arguments against F9/11 and few, if any, of the arguments actually make sense.
Moore's F9/11 film was rushed through, it didn't have the latest intelligence and even today information is trickling out about it. Yet the main stances of the film still stand up today. Thats pretty good for a documentary made so quickly on an event that many in the political spectrum didn't even know all the details.
It's evident you don't like Michael Moore, but you need to think about the fact that a lot of people do like him, they do respect him and they will watch this film and will gain a lot of understanding about the current crisis in health care. I think thats a lot more important than your petty little hissyfit about MM.
MM is an unnecessary distraction to the important healthcare debate. He is a calamity hustler for his own personal gain. He takes the "artistic license" for entertainment films and applies those methods to films labeled as "documentaries." There are many refutations of his works that expose his lies and distortions. They are not hard to find.
Back to heathcare, look at the NY Post column that I linked above. Separate from the MM discussion are serious remarks on nationalized healthcare. That's where the debate needs to go.
And you've found another black kettle in Christopher Hitchens? You actually cite to Christopher Hitchens for the proposition that MM is nothing more than greedy opportuntist? You mean the Christopher Hitchens that described Mother Teresa as a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud. http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/ The liberal turned communist turned neocon depending on how many people he could outrage? Still on the lecture circuit I see.
Nobody's asking Moore to fix jack. He is merely pointing out the irony and hypocrisy in the obvious as your above cited Kyle Smith acknowledges. Sullied reputation? Yeah maybe we should wait to let Bush or Cheney fix it. That half trillion we spent on an self defeating war could have paid for a few kidneys. But given that they are too busy actively obstructing the race for a cure for Alzheimers and diabetes, I'm not sure I'll hold my breath waiting for their solution.
I read the NYPost (Moonie paper), and there are no lies cited. There's just twisting of twisting. Sure, MM cherry picks, and the critics cherry pick, but that's not lying. Again, I find no lies, no untruths of intent, in his work.
I resent people taking what they may not agree with into slander. It's so easy on the know-nothing Right.
http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=221294288&p=zzyz94994
>>>>>>>>>
Furnish slams Michael Moore
02/06/2007 - 12:38:30
Elton John's partner David Furnish has hit out at filmmaker Michael Moore for criticising the US healthcare system.
The star - who lives in England - insists new movie Sicko is inaccurate, and has praised America's medical services - branding it "the only place to get good treatment".
He says: "I completely disagree with Michael Moore. With my own father, when he was ill, the only option was to hire a jet and fly him to America. It was the only place to get good treatment."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Then there is criticism by Canadian journalists of MM generally and Sicko specifically.
http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/215801
Do the ends justify the means when someone plays fast and loose with the facts? Cut the puppet strings that intiate crafted knee-jerk predictable responses.
Healthcare costs, quality, and accessibility need to be addressed by intelligent problem solvers, not calamity hustlers that pocket millions from milking other people's misery.
From the LA TImes: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-movie22jun22,0,5962985.story?coll=la-home-center
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'Sicko' leaves top Democrats ill at ease
Leading candidates are sidestepping direct comment on filmmaker Michael Moore's proposals for universal healthcare.
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer
June 22, 2007
...Instead of greeting the film with hosannas or challenging it head-on, however, the leading Democratic presidential candidates have sidestepped direct comment on Moore's proposals.
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois and former Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina all have staked out positions sharply at odds with Moore's approach. But none of them is eager to have that fact dragged into the spotlight.
If Moore's fire-breathing proposal catches on among party activists, who tend to be suspicious of the private sector and supportive of direct government action, the candidates' pragmatic, consensus-seeking ideas could look like weak-kneed temporizing — much the way their rejection of an immediate pullout from Iraq has drawn heated criticism from antiwar activists.
In "Sicko," the filmmaker calls for abolishing the insurance industry, putting a tight regulatory collar on pharmaceutical companies and embracing a Canadian-style government-run system.
Advocacy groups are already planning to use the film to pressure the Democratic hopefuls.
"The candidates haven't sensed the political fever in this country that fundamental change is called for in the healthcare system," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Assn. "What we are going to do is call on the candidates to reconsider their positions."
Stoking the passions of rank-and-file Democrats for a government takeover of the healthcare system amounts to political folly, respond some liberal veterans of Washington's healthcare battles.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This will strengthen marriages, lessen the financial strains, and eliminate half the bankruptcies. It will lower auto insurance and homeowner liabilities rates, and reduce lawsuits, since we’ll all get the care without costing each other.
It will lower public liabilities, such as schools and parks.
It will equalize the country = same basic boat = freedom to be decent
I suggest the cost structure of healthcare be laid bare, and a target of cutting each cost driver in half be sought. For example, the regulatory compliance reporting. One exception, do not cut the pay of healthcare workers.
With D's in control of congress where are the bills before the president allowing US citizens to fill prescriptions in Mexico and Canada? Where are the bills seeking to have US citizens pay no more than anyone else in neighboring countries for the same pills?
I can't tell if Craig is merely wrong, or slinging mud himself. Either way, he's not correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Substandard Conditions at VA Centers Noted
90% of More than 1,000 Problems Reported Are Routine, Officials Say
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 22, 2007; Page A12
A review by the Department of Veterans Affairs of 1,400 hospitals and other veterans care facilities released yesterday has turned up more than 1,000 reports of substandard conditions -- from leaky roofs and peeling paint to bug and bat infestations -- as well as a smaller number of potential threats to patient safety, such as suicide risks in psychiatric wards.
The investigation, ordered March 7 by VA Secretary Jim Nicholson, found problems such as rugs loaded with bacteria from patient "accidents," ceiling and floor tiles with asbestos that needs to be removed, as well as exposed pipes and other fixtures from which mental patients could hang themselves...
<<<<<
Both VA and military heathcare facilities are government run.
wow.
>>>>>>>>>
Inspection report puts VA's future in question
Senator tours site after harsh review of mental health units
M. Alexander Otto
The News Tribune
TACOMA - Inspectors issued the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Health Care System a "preliminary denial of accreditation" because administrators failed to make mental health units safer after a suicide at the Seattle VA hospital...
The inspections of the Tacoma, Seattle and Bremerton facilities found other problems in addition to those in the mental health units. That is not unusual when the commission inspects large medical institutions.
The report cited inadequate medication management, incomplete patient assessments and records, clinicians relying on out-of-date physicals before surgery and inadequate follow-up with patients,
It also found nurses providing care without doctors' orders, missing instructions on how patients are to care for themselves, miscommunications between medical providers, handwashing problems and insufficient review of patient outcomes.
Johnson said groups at the hospitals had been assigned to tackle and fix those and other problems as soon as possible.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Of course, you knew that, right? You're just leading us on with the whole Republican schtick about "government sucks", right?
Because the commenter above was correct. Those hospitals run directly by the VA tend to be a lot better than those run by contractors.
>>>>>>>>>>
'It Is Just Not Walter Reed'
Soldiers Share Troubling Stories Of Military Health Care Across U.S.
By Anne Hull and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, March 5, 2007; Page A01
Ray Oliva went into the spare bedroom in his home in Kelseyville, Calif., to wrestle with his feelings. He didn't know a single soldier at Walter Reed, but he felt he knew them all. He worried about the wounded who were entering the world of military health care, which he knew all too well. His own VA hospital in Livermore was a mess. The gown he wore was torn. The wheelchairs were old and broken.
"It is just not Walter Reed," Oliva slowly tapped out on his keyboard at 4:23 in the afternoon on Friday. "The VA hospitals are not good either except for the staff who work so hard. It brings tears to my eyes when I see my brothers and sisters having to deal with these conditions. I am 70 years old, some say older than dirt but when I am with my brothers and sisters we become one and are made whole again..."
Among the most aggrieved are veterans who have lived with the open secret of substandard, underfunded care in the 154 VA hospitals and hundreds of community health centers around the country. They vented their fury in thousands of e-mails and phone calls and in chat rooms...
Sgt. William A. Jones had recently written to his Arizona senators complaining about abuse at the VA hospital in Phoenix. He had written to the president before that. "Not one person has taken the time to respond in any manner," Jones said in an e-mail.
From Ray Oliva, the distraught 70-year-old vet from Kelseyville, Calif., came this: "I wrote a letter to Senators Feinstein and Boxer a few years ago asking why I had to wear Hospital gowns that had holes in them and torn and why some of the Vets had to ask for beds that had good mattress instead of broken and old. Wheel chairs old and tired and the list goes on and on. I never did get a response..."
<<<<<<<<<<
Underfunding drives many of the problems. When Washington turns a blind eye to the problems and a deaf ear to the pleas like Senators Boxer and Feinstein received, we should have a pretty good idea of the health care model to be instilled on the rest of us.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010860.php
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For example. True or false. Walter Reed is a VA hospital. The answer is false. The VA has nothing to do with Walter Reed, which is an Army hospital. That's why the Secretary of the Army took the fall.
...
Look, the VA has its problems. Because the White House and Congress won't give it the funding to honor past promises to veterans, it now has to limit new enrollments to vets who have service-related illness or who can meet a strict means test. It's also having trouble ramping up to meet the needs of the unexpectedly large number of young vets diagnosed with mental illness. But despite these challenges, the fact remains that the VA enjoys the highest rate of consumer satisfaction of any American health care system, public or private.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Damn that government! Who do they think they are, getting such high ratings from their customers.
Must be time to bring in private contractors to hose it up. Got any in mind, Craig?
Australian medicine does have long waiting lines for non-life threatening issues, BUT there are systems of private health care that are more capable to deal with those. Private insurance is required for those that earn above a certain amount, leading to more users of private institutions where waiting isn't a necessity, freeing up spots for low income/dole-income individuals. The system isn't perfect, yet, but as the kinks are worked out it's becoming more and more feasible and more of an example for the world.
There is not one single country that models their health care after the US. The only reason other countries seek medical care here is because of the ability to get immediate care at high quality, due to the qualifications the government forces upon our doctors.
And no, an 18 month wait isn't "standard" in Canada. It's not the norm, it's an exception.
I have read many sources including http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1973.cfm
It contains a lengthy comparison of the present US system to other countries. Note the extensive list of citations to backup the claims.
And you trust them? Says a lot about you and your opinions on this matter. Thanks for clearing it up for all of us.
But to attack the points themselves, lets get a feel for where Canadian health care has been. They are ranked 30th by WHO, while American health care is ranked 37th. Their rates of cancer deaths are over 10% lower than in America. Their main problem? Not enough doctors or nurses. The way the Canadian Government is working to reduce waiting? Multifaceted plans that include increasing the doctor to patient ratio and direct plans to decrease waiting times.
The Heritage Foundation used a report by the Frasier Institute that came up with the 18 month waiting time while an independent company contracted by the Canadian government came up with a much lower number.
A little information about the Fraser Institute:
>>>>>>
The Fraser Institute is a libertarian think tank based in Canada. In terms of Canadian political terminology, it is fiscally conservative. .... Its mandate is to advocate for competitive markets which would, according to their philosophy, better provide for the economic and social well-being of all Canadians. It is critical of government spending, high taxes, government deficits, and generally any government action that cannot be supported by Libertarian principles. For example, it supports free trade, closer integration of the Canadian economy with the United States, privatization of government services.... The Fraser Institute is also skeptical of the need for regulatory action against global warming
<<<<<<<<<<<
The CIHI came up with averages from 1 Month to 12 Months and it varied greatly by province. As well, with the openings of private health care systems in Canada (similar to Australia) waiting times are expected to continue to fall to the point where they are similar or better than the US.
Plans to retain and regain many of the Canadian doctors are also in motion and will also reduce wait times as the increase in doctors becomes effective.
But you can continue to believe the Heritage Foundation (it isn't worth the time to even read, although I have). You may also want to look at the Australian Health Care system or any of the other myriad systems set up around the world that are far surpassing the American Health Care system.
When you are down to using the most partisan of groups, the most ideological, then you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Heritage Foundation is a group that has an ideological mission and socialized health care isn't part of that mission. Their mission is to take our country into a 100% capitalist/dog-eat-dog direction. They have long been the focus of independent groups that try to fact check what the think tanks are putting out.
I thought I gave Craig the opportunity to adjust tactics, to put forth data that wasn't created by ideologs. There is data out there that supports other ideas around health care, some that only need a slight adjustment to our current system of privatization. Unfortunately those people aren't voicing their ideas as loudly as the think tanks.
It raises an interesting point about the process. The overhaul of our national health care system is fraught with peril due to the control of the legislative process by the minions who have most to lose in the overhaul, insurance providers. Thirty some years ago Ralph Nader proposed a nifty idea for a simple low cost method by which people could access their employee benefits. What came out the other end was a draconian legislative code enactment known now as ERISA whose provisions arguably did more for the insurance industry than anything they could have thought up themselves. We have to remove money from the legislative process or we may end up with something worse.