Comments:Michael Moore's new film 'Sicko' leaked via P2P

Move to Canada!
Why doesn't this fat fuck move to Canada? And I am not saying it in the usual if you don't like America, why don't you leave manner. This ignoramus, who exploits the working class while pretending to fight for them, has done nothing but declare his love for Canada in his films.

From Canadian Bacon through Bowling for Columbine to Sicko, everything is perfect in Canada. He even releases his films through a Canadian company. This disgusting pig is only in the movie business to make money. --SVTCobra 15:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you seen Sicko? If not, you're not in a position to comment on the movie. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I have not seen the film. But I am commenting about Michael Moore, not the film. However, I am relying on this article, for the information that he, in fact, advocates a Canadian-style universal healthcare system in Sicko. If he doesn't then mea culpa, otherwise I feel quite well positioned to make the comments that I made. --SVTCobra 18:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You would do well to watch the movie rather than letting your media-formed preconceptions prejudice you against a film that never advocates a Canadian-style health service. The movie points out that the U.S. is the only western country where many people cannot afford healthcare and those who believe they can are then refused on technicalities to improve the bottom line of the HMOs. Health of the populace is not something you can put a price on. People in Cuba have a longer life expectancy than Americans because they have free at the point of delivery healthcare - nobody is scared to go to hospital. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And what exactly do you know about whether people in Cuba are afraid to go the hospital or not? Please tell me that Sicko isn't your source for that tidbit. Also, I will address your comment about life-expectancy in Cuba (speaking of media-formed preconceptions), but I'll need to do some research first. --SVTCobra 19:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll save you the research. Life expectancy in Cuba is 76.21 years. In the U.S. it is 77.12. I was wrong there, but I still think you're defending the indefensible - a system built to profit from people being sick.  Canada's life expectancy is 79.43, France's 78.76, and the UK's 77.66. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's where I picked up the stats, U.S. is ranked number 42 in the world. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice try on the switch-a-roo. I am not defending anything. I never said the American system is better than any other system. You are the one defending Michael Moore. I contend that he is a self-serving elitist who manipulates the truth and who for some reason seems to always bring up Canada as being better. BTW, the Wikipedia List of countries by life expectancy, which uses the CIA factbook as a source, has the US at #45 at 78.00 and Cuba at #56 (77.08). Canada is #13 (80.34), France #10 (80.59), UK and the EU as a whole are tied at #36 (78.70). Basically the same order as your source (although the absolute numbers tend to be slightly higher for each country. Here is what I can find on what Michael Moore actually proposes (although I don't know if that is how he presents it in the movie). It is deliciously void on how to implement such massive changes. --SVTCobra 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well implementation isn't the hard part for a change like that, nationalizing stuff is incredibly easy. Getting people to go along with it is hard. To take Canada as an example, we didn't always have a national health care system, and when it was put in, it really pissed off some of the doctors. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cuba is often mistaken for having higher life expectancy because they have way more doctors then the US or Canada (or most anywhere else), which in many peoples mind make them think that life expectancy would go really high, which it doesn't in reality (I would assume because they don't have as much money for medical equipment, with the US embargo and all, but i really don't know why). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it mean anything to you? You seem to want to see the man silenced because you've taken a personal dislike to him. You had not made that apparent earlier except by your use of swearing. You also seem to forget that politicians work for the people. If Michael Moore can convince enough people that the healthcare system in the United States needs a major overhaul it is the job of the government to work out how to do it. If he's making as much money as you seem to think, why would he take an interest in an issue like this? Anyway, I'm not trying to defend him from what you've written - you simply resorted to ad-hominem. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So true, I have great personal dislike for Michael Moore and ad hominem is a logically flawed way of arguing. I don't want to silence him per se, but I do resent the pro hominem (if you will) that surrounds him. He serves up deliberate disinformation through contrived situations in his "documentary" films and receives standing ovations at Cannes. People can't wait to swallow his bullshit (oops I used another curseword). I recall one European friend of mine who, after watching Bowling for Columbine, thought it was commonplace for American banks to hand out firearms to people for opening a checking account. To think Moore didn't become wealthy after Farenheit 9/11 grossed $120 million in the US alone, with a budget of $6 million, is like thinking Mel Gibson didn't become rich(er) from Passion of the Christ. I do think that the fact that Farenheit 9/11 is the only American film to be legally distributed in Iran since the 1979 revolution speaks volumes (I know that argument is deeply flawed, logically). I think that Michael Moore chose this subject, not because he cares about it, but because he can sell tickets by making his own country look bad. Again, I have not seen Sicko but does he bring up the fact that many Canadians go to the US for surgery because the lines at home are too long or because the government considers the surgery to be elective? --SVTCobra 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * At least someone has the balls to stand up and say whats bad...and if it takes his movies to do it then so be it. Healthcare blows here. I cannot get it unless I want to pay 200+ USD a month. But if I quit my job apply for section 8 housing...move into a homeless shelter, sure...then I will get all the health care I need...when I am dying. Bowling for Columbine was a great film and shocking...anyone who didn't understand the fact that it was one bank, maybe a few others NOT mentioned, and who did not hear him say that specific bank, need to watch the movie again. I hope he makes one about Virginia Tech...that will show us MORE how stupid we are when it comes to protecting ourselves whether it be healthcare or guns. DragonFire1024 03:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

God bless those pirates :D  To me, he seems a little too eager to give his opinion to everybody about everything.--67.72.98.112 17:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken US healthcare
This problem really needs to be addressed. America is the only industrialized country which suffers from this problem so much. --65.42.231.93 18:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you soliciting responses? If so, could you please be more specific as to what "this problem" is? --SVTCobra 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to solicit responses, but I am perfectly open to them. The problem is that 71% of Americans say the U.S. health care system today is in 'a state of crisis' or has 'major problems'.
 * The U.S. spends more per capita on health services than any other country in the world, but lags behind many other countries on such health indicators as life expectancy and infant mortality. In fact, despite the costs, the U.S.'s health care system was only ranked 37th by the World Health Organization. Another problem is that about 46 million Americans are currently uninsured, including 8 million children.
 * Other problems with U.S. health care include the overhead costs, lack of access to preventative care, an unwillingness to allow customers to buy drugs from across the border, and the fact that there are 500,000 registered nurses not employed but 100,000 vacancies in the field.
 * --65.42.231.93 03:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

AHIP
The AHIP is just a bunch of blowhards who are trying to cover the ass of the insurance compaies. How dare they say that people are getting low-cost and quality healthcare in the United States. The only people that benefit from the U.S. healthcare system are the greedy Insurance Companies and the buisinesses that use and support the companies (also the bribed members of congress that continuously allow the Insurance Companies to exploit the American people). P.S.: SVTCobra ...Fuck Off
 * Hmm, in the quote in this article they say that Americans need "work together to make sure that everyone has high-quality, affordable healthcare." They don't seem to say that it is currently being provided. Also, I know a few doctors who are making a pretty good living off of the current system. As to your final request, no, I am not going to fuck off. --SVTCobra 22:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I also know that the reason you wait like 7 hours in the ER is so they can get paid more...oh and here they charge an automatic 250.00 USD just to see the triage nurse and get admitted to the ER. That does NOT include medical attention other than admission. DragonFire1024 03:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 85% of people in the US have healthcare, and unlike in Canada, they don't have to wait months just to get a checkup. 72.8.96.166 05:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, 100% of people in Canada have healthcare. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How long do the other 15% in US have to wait? Bawolff ☺☻ 06:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 85% is a load of crap...Please back that up. DragonFire1024 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation
It shouldn't be surprising that an inhaler costs less in Cuba—Cuba does not respect US patent laws (this is the big one), does not have the same kind of quality control that the FDA puts on stuff, and have cheap labor. I think it'd be a shame if US Health went the way of Canada—all of the Canadians I know (and I know quite a few) complain about the Canadian healthcare system, and those who know the difference wish it were more like the US system. (Free healthcare is better than none, but Canadian healthcare is not at all as nice as US healthcare). 72.8.96.166 05:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The patent system and what may be more stringent controls shouldn't be enough to account for a 2400% increase in price. Should it? --Brian McNeil / talk 06:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * FDA? HA! Lets see...Fen-phen, Thalidomide...the FDA doesn't know its head from its ass...and My favorite one: "Its like a one trick pony" in the FDA. DragonFire1024 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As a Canadain, I must say that you know Canadians with vastly different views then I know. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Man, do you even know what you are talking about? What do you know about patents or FDA regulations? This is the one thing that anoys me in the net, every moron that knows nothing about anything expresses their opinion as if they were experts.--200.10.179.254 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just like you. DragonFire1024 18:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * US health care is broken. Waits are long, millions are uninsured, and there are paperwork nightmares. I sure am glad I pay a premium for better care.. --65.42.231.93 01:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can MM Talk?
Can michael moore talk? If he goes to hospital, there need to be two beds set aside! Symode09 16:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WOW! What a cleaver remark!--200.10.179.254 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh
I think the only thing to be learned from all of this is that (no matter where one lives) health care could always be better. Everyone will always be bitching that "in country X they totally don't have to deal with this kind of crap," and while that may be true, people in country X have other crap to deal with that could be even worse. But if Michael Moore wants to expose flaws in the American health care system, why not let him? I can't see what bad could come out of it... 67.86.86.217 18:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't hear of a serious attempt to outright ban him..... Fephisto 22:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)