“Sicko” — a review — Save your money!

If for no other reason, I'm glad Moore decided to take on this topic because he has a gift for getting a national dialouge going on difficult, controversial issues.

I definitely don't think free universal health care is a good solution. You are right when you point out the problems associated with it in other countries. I personally like the idea of spreading the Massachusetts model across the nation.

Thanks for keeping us current. We don't watch TV. The big TV has been disconnected from the cable for about 18 months. We don't watch the little TV in my bedroom. So I haven't seen any advertising or any of the controversy over the film. I appreciate the information and opinions. I don't think I'll go to the movie, if it even comes to town. We rarely go to movies but do rent videos. This sounds like one to avoid.

 -- Gretchen

As you rightly identify, Teri, Michael Moore is a consummate self-publicist - a sort of shock-jock of the moving picture world. It can get rather in-your-face and annoy some.

He's lifted the lid, though, and provoked at least more awareness of the gross iniquities and inadequacies of our health 'care' systems. Maybe Moore's over-the-top approach is the only way that gets the most people listening?

It's never wise to manipulate or 'creatively use' statistics, but this is indeed what most governments do a lot of the time! Gvts know that the vast majority of people never verify the numbers or read the actual reports and documents behind their claims etc. It's sad if Moore has resorted to this same 'creative' tactic. But he has proved, once again, that such biased spin works to get peoples' attention!

Like you, I think he's on a sticky wicket if he's trying to say that 'universal, free' healthcare is so much better than the American Way.  Clearly, it ain't!

I confess, I started to watch 'Sicko' and could only stomach about 33% of the film. For me, personally, it's far too painful to watch - I know these issues firsthand, I'm still living them, I don't need convincing or jolting out of a nice, comfortable, innocent reverie.

The very best we hope for are healthcare systems that actually put peoples' health and healing first, second and third as their priorities - instead of profit and cost-efficiency and resource-saving. In reality, I guess that the best we can hope for is that Moore's film evokes a universal healthy, open debate on the problems - which is why I tend towards applauding his efforts. Even then, despite his best efforts, I sadly think that my hopes will be dashed: it looks very clear to me that, however a health care system is set up, the profit motive will always win over the 'soft' outcomes...that is, people's health will always come second to how much other people can benefit from the gains that they personally can make out of ill-health.

The ancient Chinese had an excellent way of dealing with this: in mediaeval China you only paid your doctors when you were well and healthy!!