Sicko it's about the "broken health care industry", it's an advocate for a socialized form of national medicne, and i may just be Mr. Moore's best flm yet.

Do you plan to go see it?
Have you seen It?
What did you think about it?

Do you think this movie is an improvment compared to Michael Moore's other works?

As for myself i just saw it...And i thought it was moving but thats all i'll say for now.

Shinsen89

I personally dont know if i'll see this, despite it being an important issue. i might someday tho. but ive never really like michael moore that much. i dont know why, but there is just something about him i dont like and trust. ive never seen any moore films cause alot of people tell me he "sucks". Altho i heard the columbine ovie was good. ehh...i really need to see his stuff, but knowing my brother he'd get pissed if he saw watching any of his movies.

But anyway, my newspaper gave the movie a surprisingly good reveiw for a moore film, and saying how there wont be anything interesting in theaters after Transformers, i might just go see it.

whilst i dislike michael moores films, and believe him to be nothing more than an annoying american (offence guys and girls, and anyone inbetween)

BUT

i have read his books, which touch similar topics, and have loved them, films arent good for michael, but his books get the point across very well

Hmm, I used to watch his TV show a while ago, but he always seemed to me like someone who was more focused on annoying people and insulting without any respect than on actually criticising something. I saw "Supersize me", a very interesting movie about the McDonalds chain of food, and well, it was a criticism about it, but it was made in a proper way, not just accusing McDonalds but also the people who aren't responsible and self-controlled. If Michael Moore did his movies this way, I'd probably watch them all. But I'm not fond of his way of doing movies at all.

"socialized form of national medicine" is the worst thing for us now. i know everybody wants it and health care shouldn't be coasting so much but giving free health care is not the way. every country who has free health care has crappy medical equipment and might as well just have a big stick and go "Ooga booga ooga booga". Thats why a lot would be doctors come here to learn. thats also why transplant patients come here to have the surgery. because on the free health care plan they are on a waiting list that goes on forever and is like battlefield triage. the ones who need it the most get it first. no matter how long you were on the list. well, no i didn't explain that last bit right.... here let me just quote something:

"One of the greatest dreams of American liberals is a nationalized health care system similar to the one in Canada. They argue in favor of such a system because they believe health care is a basic "right," and because they believe the current system is flawed beyond repair. As with most problems, they advocate government solutions, not private enterprise solutions. Unfortunately, the government has an abysmal record of correcting problems, and American health care would be no exception.

First, let's examine the "right to health care" claim. Obviously, there is no right to health care established in the U.S. Constitution. However, we do have a moral right to health care, some will argue. Unfortunately, those who make this argument do not understand what a "right" is.

A "right" is the ability and autonomy to perform a sovereign action. In a free society founded on the ideal of liberty, an individual has an absolute ability to perform such an action - so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of another individual. Health care is not speech: In order for you to exercise a theoretical "right" to health care, you must infringe on someone else's rights. If you have a "right" to health care, then it means you must also have the right to coerce doctors into treating you, to coerce drug companies into producing medicine and to coerce other citizens into footing your medical bill. This is Orwellian. "Freedom" for you cannot result in slavery for others. Thus the concept of a "right" to health care is an oxymoron: It involves taking away the rights of other individuals.

Surely, though, we can agree that doctors, the pharmaceutical industry and insurance companies earn excessive profits, you say. Well, that depends on what your definition of "excessive" is. Doctors literally hold the lives of their patients in their hands. How much is someone who saves lives everyday worth? The same is true of pharmaceutical companies. While it has become fashionable to condemn their profits, the fact is that these profits fund medical research, which leads to more medicines being produced, and, consequently, more lives saved. Insurance companies spread the cost of health care among many people who might not otherwise be able to afford it, and thus make health care readily available for many.

While on the topic of profits, we should examine them. The word "profit" is considered to be a dirty word by many on the political left, but why? What makes a profit bad? Nothing. On the contrary, profits are very positive. When you come to class in the morning, there is a good chance you either drive a car or ride a bus. Do you think the bus driver and the workers who built your car or the bus did so that you could get to school on time? Of course not, they did because they wanted to make money. Yet their pursuit of a profit benefited them as well as you.

Adam Smith once said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest." As we have seen, profits and self-interest are not bad things.

Let's pretend, for a moment, that the left gets its way, and the United States adopts a universal health care system. This profit motive will effectively be removed. Doctors will then be government employees, and, as such, have far less accountability, as well as lower pay. Could we still expect the best and brightest to strive to be doctors? Probably not. More than likely, they will pursue other careers where they can make more money.

Some love to bemoan the fact that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations without a government health care system. Yet they rarely note that the United States produces disproportional amounts of the new, life-saving drugs, largely because of the profits drug companies make. Will we continue to produce these drugs if we abolish the profit motive? Not likely. Chances are, they will not be produced at all, and more people will needlessly suffer and die as a result.

When we examine countries that have embraced socialized medicine, we find long waiting lists, expansive red tape and little concern for the individual. Do you really want to be told which doctor to go to? Do you want to wait years to have necessary medical procedures performed? If so, then socialized medicine is for you.

But if you believe in individual rights, competent health care and sound economic policies, we must get the government out of the doctor's office." - John Brown

Wow thats a mouth full, but this thread isn't about wether you support a Universal Health Care System or not it's just wether you liked the movie, and if you think it was an improvment from his previous works...And if you have any plans of seeing it. But i guess when it comes too michael moore people want a debate!

Shinsen89

Haven't seen it yet. I personally am unsure as to whether we should have a Universal Health Care System or not. There are pros and cons to both private and public health care.

I haven't seen the movie. I will wait when it comes out on DVD. I agree, the Amerikan health care system is a mess. (I know, I work at a hospital !) Something needs to done about it so all Amerikans (Adults and children ) may enjoy some of the best in medical care. It's the classic class warfare scenario.

It's the classic Haves vs. Haves not.