'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml)
Is Michael Moore's prescription worse than the disease?

Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair — writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko," Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry — a juicy target — and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed.

There's a man who mangled two of his fingers with a power saw and learned that it would cost $12,000 to save one of them, but $60,000 to save the other. He had no health insurance and could only scrape together enough money to salvage the $12,000 finger.

There's a woman whose husband was prescribed new drugs to combat his cancer, but couldn't get their insurance company to pay for them because the drugs were experimental. Her husband died.

Then there's a woman who made an emergency trip to a hospital for treatment and subsequently learned her insurance company wouldn't pay for the ambulance that took her there — because it hadn't been "pre-approved." And there's a middle-aged couple — a man, who suffered three heart attacks, and his wife, who developed cancer — who were bankrupted by the cost of co-payments and other expenses not covered by their insurance, and have now been forced to move into a cramped, dismal room in the home of a resentful son. There's also a 79-year-old man who has to continue working a menial job because Medicare won't cover the cost of all the medications he needs.

Moore does a real service in bringing these stories to light — some of them are horrifying, and then infuriating. One giant health-maintenance organization, Kaiser Permanente, is so persuasively lambasted in the movie that, on the basis of what we're told, we want to burst into the company's executive suites and make a mass citizen's arrest. This is the sort of thing good muckrakers are supposed to do.

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film.

Read the rest here:

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1563758/story.jhtml

It's actually a pretty decent read. Too long to post the whole thing here.

That correction footnote at the end of the review is hilarious.

im a moore fan, but i wish he would tone it down just a smidge, so that people would actually debate his idea's rather than the man himself (not accusing anyone here, just in general). i think he is one of the most important and provacative journalists (?) of our time, but is constantly dismissed by 3/4 of people because he is percieved as the liberal rush limbaugh (not even close!).

that aside, i think unquestionably that it is time for universal health care. i think complaints against "SOCIALLIST HEALTHCARE" are a bit of hot air. they differentiate between priority levels. if you need it quick, your going to get it. there are going to be a couple horror stories in any system, so a few anectodal stories about some ho with a bad knee for 16 mnths really doesnt seem like the end of the world to me. think about what would happen to our precious free market hospitals if everyone who needed health care was actually getting it.

one other thing that bothers me about our system is that specialists make something like 300% more than general practitioners. which means that our best and brightest are giving silver spoon whores boob jobs and ass implants rather than actually providing a benefit to general society (some might argue here). this differential is much more substantial in our free market system than what the commies have, and probably to our own opposite-of-benefit.

more importantly, on an ideological level, i think its inherently wrong that were supposedly the greatest country in the world and we dont all have health care.

Wanting people to consider the message and not the messenger is a nice thought, but it won't happen.

To Moore's credit, anytime his facts are challenged, he's pretty much up for an open debate, and 99% of the time the other "accusing" party refuses to participate.

From the recent interviews that I have seen with him, he seems to think that people will embrace this film no matter what their ideology, since he's critical of both parties.

Again, I say that's a pipe dream. The film will be dismissed an dismantled 30x over by the neocon talk show hosts, some of which won't even bother to watch it first. And the "dittoheads" will follow in lockstep.

I look forward to seeing it, FWIW*, even though I feel like I've seen it already with all of the clips that I've watched.


*even though Kurt Loder didn't like it

Loder should stick to music.

Wanting people to consider the message and not the messenger is a nice thought, but it won't happen.



Agree on that. Newt had some good ideas on education that Hillary even liked, but once peeps knew it was Newts idea...'flush'

A blogger from Google sounds off:


Does negative press make you Sicko? (http://google-health-ads.blogspot.com/2007/06/does-negative-press-make-you-sicko.html)
6/29/2007 09:47:00 AM
Posted by Lauren Turner, Account Planner, Health

Lights, camera, action: the healthcare industry is back in the spotlight. (Not that it ever left the stage.) Next week, Michael Moore’s documentary film, Sicko, will start playing in movie theaters across America.

The New York Times calls Sicko a “cinematic indictment of the American health care system.” The film is generating significant buzz and is sure to spur a lively conversation about health coverage, care, and quality in America. While legislators, litigators, and patient groups are growing excited, others among us are growing anxious. And why wouldn’t they? Moore attacks health insurers, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies by connecting them to isolated and emotional stories of the system at its worst. Moore’s film portrays the industry as money and marketing driven, and fails to show healthcare’s interest in patient well-being and care.

Sound familiar? Of course. The healthcare industry is no stranger to negative press. A drug may be a blockbuster one day and tolled as a public health concern the next. News reporters may focus on Pharma’s annual sales and its executives’ salaries while failing to share R&D costs. Or, as is often common, the media may use an isolated, heartbreaking, or sensationalist story to paint a picture of healthcare as a whole. With all the coverage, it’s a shame no one focuses on the industry’s numerous prescription programs, charity services, and philanthropy efforts.

Many of our clients face these issues; companies come to us hoping we can help them better manage their reputations through “Get the Facts” or issue management campaigns. Your brand or corporate site may already have these informational assets, but can users easily find them?

We can place text ads, video ads, and rich media ads in paid search results or in relevant websites within our ever-expanding content network. Whatever the problem, Google can act as a platform for educating the public and promoting your message. We help you connect your company’s assets while helping users find the information they seek.

If you’re interested in learning more about issue management campaigns or about how we can help your company better connect its assets online, email us. We’d love to hear from you! Setting up these campaigns is easy and we’re happy to share best practices.

As for Sicko, all I can say is -- go easy on that buttered popcorn.

And the subsequent, "OMG, people actually read my blog!" post:


My opinion and Google's (http://google-health-ads.blogspot.com/2007/07/my-opinion-and-googles.html)
7/01/2007 09:03:00 AM
Posted by Lauren Turner, Account Planner, Health

Well, I've learned a few things since I posted on Friday. For one thing, even though this is a new blog, we have readers! That's a good thing. Not so good is that some readers thought the opinion I expressed about the movie Sicko was actually Google's opinion. It's easy to understand why it might have seemed that way, because after all, this is a corporate blog. So that was my mistake -- I understand why it caused some confusion.

But the more important point, since I doubt that too many people care about my personal opinion, is that advertising is an effective medium for handling challenges that a company or industry might have. You could even argue that it's especially appropriate for a public policy issue like healthcare. Whether the healthcare industry wants to rebut charges in Mr. Moore's movie, or whether Mr. Moore wants to challenge the healthcare industry, advertising is a very democratic and effective way to participate in a public dialogue.

That is Google's opinion, and it's unrelated to whether we support, oppose or (more likely) don't have an official position on an issue. That's the real point I was trying to make, which was less clear because I offered my personal criticism of the movie.

Update: For those of you who haven't noticed, there's a further perspective live on the main Google corporate blog that sheds more light on the company's views. As for me, I wholeheartedly believe we should work to improve the quality of health care in America and support the discourse that will drive this change.

I haven't seen Sicko (have had the opportunity, but I'll wait for a legit DVD and Netflix). But, the one thing that stands out from what I've heard is that at least he talks about other "big government" healthcare systems besides Canada. So many of the counter arguments I've seen (including the right-winger Loder cites in his movie review) amount to "Canada has all these problems, and everywhere else the taxes are too high, so American-style healthcare is the way to go". I don't think that the Canadian way is necessarily the way to go, and we're getting to the point that the combined taxes + insurance costs make us pretty much like those high-tax socialist countries anyway.

Like some have said, all I hear is Sicko and Moore, Sicko and Moore, nothing on the solutions that came out of the movie.

Can anyone help me out here on this youtube posting? thx

4bs_LBXD69w

Saw Sicko about a week ago (thanks BitTorrent). It's not very different from his other films, and in fact this one is toned down a bit. The only time it really gets shaky is when he puts himself on camera, which he does a bit, toward the end. But the first half is pretty much money, and his facts seem to check out for the most part.

You can hate Michael Moore for being fat and annoying, but if you want to label him a liar or a crappy filmmaker, you're going to be disappointed this time around.

EDIT: The movie is not about "solutions." He's a movie guy, not a politician. All he's doing is documenting the problem and how completely unnecessary it all is. It's not his job to provide solutions. If you can't find a blatantly obvious "solution" somewhere in the world, you've got to be fuckin' blind. Every other industrialized country in the world is happier with their health care than we are.

EDIT2: Kurt Loder is a huge Madonna fan. Madonna. I think that closes the case on Kurt Loder.

I've heard that too...that its more factual than his previous movies.

What Michael Moore seems to be famous for (for better or worse) is that he likes to perform "stunts" with his movies. This one is pretty free of stunts, until the end. The movie is mainly made up of interviews with various people about their experiences, with voiceovers and graphics. Pretty dry, actually. I skimmed over the first few minutes on the DVD and I thought it might be too boring.

Saw Sicko about a week ago (thanks BitTorrent). It's not very different from his other films, and in fact this one is toned down a bit. The only time it really gets shaky is when he puts himself on camera, which he does a bit, toward the end. But the first half is pretty much money, and his facts seem to check out for the most part.

You can hate Michael Moore for being fat and annoying, but if you want to label him a liar or a crappy filmmaker, you're going to be disappointed this time around.

EDIT: The movie is not about "solutions." He's a movie guy, not a politician. All he's doing is documenting the problem and how completely unnecessary it all is. It's not his job to provide solutions. If you can't find a blatantly obvious "solution" somewhere in the world, you've got to be fuckin' blind. Every other industrialized country in the world is happier with their health care than we are.

EDIT2: Kurt Loder is a huge Madonna fan. Madonna. I think that closes the case on Kurt Loder.

I think I have a mancrush on you, mich. You are what I like to call a "Thinker".
I'm glad I got you to join this board.

Zip, have you seen it yet?

Zip, have you seen it yet?

No I haven't. I usually wait til movies hit the "Dollar Theatre", or they come out on HBO. As a matter of fact, I never saw "Fahrenheit 911". What's your opinion on that one?

I saw F911 but I didn't think it was as good as Bowling for Columbine, and I think he definitely bit off more than he could chew. Trying to chronicle all the scandals of the Bush years is like saying you're going to write an encyclopedia: It's a foolish thing to do unless you're dead serious about it. Michael Moore is, when you get right down to it, not really to be taken seriously. He tends to be glib about what are really serious matters, and when he shifts gears from Mr. Wacky Stunts to Mr. Serious Journalist it really doesn't come off as being very genuine.

If he had tried to focus his attention on a smaller idea - the depletion of the military, or the relationship between US government officials and the Saudi royal family, or the companies that stood to make tons of money for no other reason than because a war was happening - that might have made a better movie, but trying to wrap it all into one just makes him seem like a crank.

He's got to either be more adult about the topics he covers, or he's got to stop trying to change people's minds and focus his efforts on poking fun at stuff. I get the feeling that Michael Moore is a very skilled filmmaker, but he lets his passion drive too much of the time and it gets him into the occasional wreck.

I'm not sure he really understands the difference between, say, himself and the late great Peter Jennings. But there's a big difference.