Faves for this Web page

• Sri - Jul 19 2007 | sicko, movies

  anyone want to see this some tiem this weekend?.

  Quoted: SICKO reviews from the nation's top critics and audiences. Also includes movie info, trailer, poster, photos, news, articles, and forum. Also known as Sicko.

  • mohit - Jul 19 2007
    

    already saw it. thanks though!

  • jigna - Jul 19 2007
    

    I'd be interested. What day? I'm going to Med Fest on Sat afternoon if you want to come.

  • Sri - Jul 20 2007
    

    I am free tomorrow, sat or sun night. plus I am free all next week!!
    I am home woohooo!!

  • jigna - Jul 20 2007
    

    Yay! If you don't get to seeing it this weekend, let me know and I'll go with you next week.
• sung - Jul 09 2007 | sicko, movies, movie review

  just finished watching the movie SiCKO by michael moore - after watching it all i can say is i wanna move to either france, england or canada and also wonder if there's a way to remove the insurance company all together in people's lives here in the US.

  Quoted: SICKO reviews from the nation's top critics and audiences. Also includes movie info, trailer, poster, photos, news, articles, and forum. Also known as Sicko.

  • jigna - Jul 09 2007
    

    Sweet. I want to see this movie soon. If you're cool with paying high taxes, then you should def move to those countries ;) France even reduced its working days, so you wouldn't work as much! And some places give you 10 weeks worth of vacation. Ok, now I want to move there too.

  • ms.kruse - Jul 09 2007
    

    I'd rather be a waitress or a janitor in France than have a professional/decent job in the States. If Derek was up for moving I'd leave in a second!

  • sung - Jul 09 2007
    

    yeah - the movie talks bout france and how they have 35 hr work weeks, unlimited sick days, the doctor will write you a note stating you need 'x' amount of time off to recover (the example they gave was 3 months for a dude who spent it at the coast of france) which is paid, a government paid nanny to come and help new mothers... etc... etc... etc... the list goes on and on. as for the high tax thingy he (michael moore) points out that in these countries college (higher education) is free so basically the only things you have to pay for is rent, car and food. which when you think about it don't need that much to do.

    wonder what it takes to become a french citizen...

  • ms.kruse - Jul 09 2007
    

    I wish being half French helped! But one's grandparents' grandparents being citizens probably doesn't count towards dual citizenship. I think your parents have to be from the country.

  • tomfakes - Jul 09 2007
    

    French people smell...

  • tomfakes - Jul 09 2007
    

    The problem with this movie (I haven't seen it yet) is that is very one sided. They didn't highlight the woman in the UK who didn't get the cancer drugs she needed because she lived in the wrong district. A few streets away, those drugs would have been paid for.

    Lots of edge cases in all the systems will always look stupid.

  • sung - Jul 09 2007
    

    agreed - i'm sure all systems have flaws... but when you're faced with two evils i say go for the lesser of the two. by at least what the movie is proposing the US health care (insurance) system is by far the worst in the western world.

    i hear graphic designers can become citizens in canada... should look into that.

  • shiwani - Jul 09 2007
    

    melissa, you should look into dual citizenship! my friend sean's grandfather is from ireland and he was still able to get dual citizenship. some countries in the EU are pretty lax.

  • akabagel - Jul 09 2007
    

    Great, I'm all in favor of Michael Moore supporters moving out of the US.

    He makes propiganda, not documentaries.

  • jigna - Jul 09 2007
    

    ha. I know documentaries are thought to be objective, but I've never seen that happen. It's mostly subjective, no?

  • shiwani - Jul 09 2007
    

    yeah, i think at the end of the day who you choose to interview, how you edit the interviews, and what facts you include/exclude are all very subjective decisions. i almost think it's better that we just acknowledge documentaries are more like personal essays and go from there...

  • akabagel - Jul 10 2007
    

    Of course his movies are subjective, but thats not the point. Moore's past films (and I would bet this one by extrapolation) are completely devoid of any sort of honesty. His movies are not simply biased; they are deliberately deceptive. He edits clips from speeches together to make people say things that they never have. He has no problem telling outright lies. His method is to mislead the viewer into believing what he wants by any means necessary.

    I will give Moore credit for making good entertainment – his films are very successful. But it is a shame he does it by disguising them as the truth. Anyone who believes what Moore says without checking is a fool.

  • Rosana - Jul 10 2007
    

    it's about time the issue of access to healthcare in the US be brought up in a documentary; even if michael moore is very opinionated and the product is subjective. at the very least this will elicit some kind of debate in a society who otherwise seems completely oblivious to this very important issue.

  • akabagel - Jul 10 2007
    

    Yes, that is true. Regardless of the truthfulness of his movies, it is good that they gets people thinking about the issues.

  • sung - Jul 10 2007
    

    discussed this with my girlfriend whose a doctor to get their view point. she stated that the doctors do feel that insurance companies are little fucks - but that it's the system that we have and they have to work with them. as for the stuff michael moore states in the movie - his only showing one aspect.

    it's really simple. we (US) have better facilities for procedures and such while other countries which has universal health care does not. meaning - basic medical stuff is better in these other countries but try to get anything more serious done and you're shit out of luck. the wait can be painful. but of course in the US you have to pay for these procedures up the ass - but at least you have quick access to them.

    so what can be done? well from what i've been told doctors (a lot of them at least) are very aware of the costs and try to keep costs down as much as possible for their patients and try to provide free 'sample' drugs to them whenever possible. also there are state run / community hospitals which will never turn anyone away.

    she also stated she's seen more cases (as of now) of doctors trying to provide too much help - meaning they know what it takes to make the patient better - but the patient refuses to take the care (even if it's free - in instances where the patient is homeless and such).

    sorry bout the long comment - here's a summary.
    universal health care = good basic care / bad specialized care / care for all
    us health care = good basic care / good specialized care / amazingly bad costs / care for some

    insurance companies = assholes
    pharmaceutical companies = not much better

    (my opinions fyi)

  • matt - Jul 11 2007
    

    Just something my Dad mentioned as we were watching TV last weekend: How much $$ are drug companies spending on TV ads? Someone is paying for that crap --- yeah, it's us. These ads are jokes; do they really influence patients? He's never had a patient tell him they've heard about a drug on TV and should they be on it.... He could be in the minority though - regardless, commercials for drugs seems like a huge waste of money.

    Anyway, healthcare here is in a sorry state - patients and doctors are well aware. However, healthcare in those other countries isn't all green grass and roses either - taxes are very high, scheduling your treatment is sometimes a major hassle I'm told, and the best options are usually only available to the wealthy that spend extra $ on private care (yes, they have private care there too) - that's money above and beyond what they already paid in their taxes. I do like the idea of some basic universal care though - but to say universal covers everything and people love it is false.

    I'm personally not a huge fan of gov't - do we really want to put this in the hands of people like George Bush when they come to power (he's not the last one people will dislike this much)? Administrations change every 4 or 8 years - checks and balances don't always work.

    We're sort of screwed at the moment. In the private sector, it's all about profit and competition which has led to great innovation but also to huge profit taking (but r&d takes $$$$). In the public sector, opinions change and things take a long time.

    Hopefully the debate continues and something can be done. My 2 cents.