FDAreview.org is a nice critical review of the safety and efficacy of the FDA itself.

My friend Jason wrote a great post about "Sicko": http://rfjason.livejournal.com/542551.html

Michael Moore distorts the truth so much that even when I agree with his views, I disagree with his portrayal of them.

However, he was excellent in that short-lived television show called TV Nation. Because it was a comedy show, his extremism didn't bother me so much. They pulled all sorts of stunts. One time they discovered a gated community that didn't let outsiders in, even though it was a public road. So TV Nation put up their own gate just outside the entrance/exit and didn't let the residents out. Quality.

Dishonest criticism leads to a poor understanding of the actual problem and thus means reform is more likely to be misguided. It makes the problem worse, not better.

I find it pretty funny that you said this immediately after acknowledging that you are criticizing a movie you haven't seen.

Personally, I think I'm smart enough to understand that anecdotal evidence != real data and draw the appropriate conclusions.

Those points aside, here's a CNN article that says Moore's numbers are more or less correct.

I have read detailed investigations of Bowling for Columbine and brief investigations of Farenheit 9/11. They made it clear that Michael Moore is deeply dishonest and cares about manipulation far more than the truth.

Be careful here. I've read some "investigations" of MM's claims that told a few half-truths themselves. If you're getting your information from MM's ideological compatriots, it's probably trustworthy. If you're getting it from right-wingers, I would check deeper. Maybe you already have.

My experience of Moore is that he doesn't ever explicitly lie (well, he's definitely made the occasional mistake, but I mean not often enough to be sure he's doing it intentionally), but he spins and lies by implication all the time. I remember watching "Roger and me" and being completely disgusted at what he was doing. He showed rows and rows of broken down houses in Flint, for instance, with the implication that fat cats running GM were personally responsible for all that unemployment.

So I don't like the guy at all, but I think he's closer to say Lee Atwater than to Limbaugh/Coulter et. al.

Hahaha! My opinion is the deciding vote?

I wouldn't go so far as to say he's a scumbag. He's on the same level as everyone else who goes too far in trying to prove their side of things. I don't think he realizes that he's gone too far.

Nice try, but I don't think Seema listens to me.

I've come to realize that extremes, even ridiculous ones, are necessary.

I kind of have a love/hate relationship with Michael Moore. He clearly distorts the truth, but he does so in a direction that I mostly support, and which often lacks that sort of distortion and sensationalism.

I like MM because he's a good counterpoint for the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs of the world.

This is one of those cases where I think theory and practice diverge.

I wish that we had an educated electorate where we could have honest, factual discourse. Unfortunately, people like us are the exception rather than the norm.

I don't like the fact that we have a world filled with people like Coulter, Limbaugh, and the other rabid lying scumbags. However, the sad reality is that we do, and they have an amazing amount of power in this country. The other sad fact is that the American public responds to sensationalism much better than rational discourse. I see MM as a counter-balance to people like Coulter-- someone who lives at a far enough extreme that he can help keep the canoe balanced.

I also don't see MM and academic philosophy as being at all related-- I don't expect him to adhere to academic standards. He's a shameless sensationalist, and if you judge him in that arena then you start from a much more realistic perspective. I don't think PT Barnum would meet your academic standards either, but he was (as far as I can tell) one hell of an entertainer.

What I *really* hate is that the general public seems to need this sort of BS in order to form an opinion on anything. I don't know what to do about that, though.

I detest all enemies of the truth - whether they are libertarians like John Lott or liberals like Michael Moore.

I realize that you acknowledged it, and it's been brought up by someone else in this thread, but by ranting about this movie which you haven't seen, you come across as surprisingly like Michael Moore himself.

I'm fairly sure that Patri can support his opinion on Michael Moore based on prior movies, I doubt it would be hard.

Certainly. But there is a certain selection bias at work here. There are countless "enemies of truth" who are at work constantly, and who's influence is much greater than Michael Moore, and who's transgressions are much more insideous and wretched.

For whatever reason, the only propagandist on Patri's "enemies list" is Micheal Moore.

Dick Cheney, Bill O'Rielly, Ann Clouter, Ralph Nader, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Howard Stern, and just for fun... Alex Trebek.

I'm with you on Michael Moore, everything I've seen him do just seems so obviously manipulated that I don't want to watch anything else that he's done.

The thing that I'm guessing that will be missing from Moore's evaluation of healthcare, is the cause and effect. He will put forward a lot of anecdotes that say that british or canadian healthcare isn't too bad, and helps a lot of people, and he will put forth a lot of anecdotes about how people in the US die in hospitals or whatever. He'll couple this with information about how the US spends huge quantities of money on healthcare, and then he'll let adjacency imply causation.

What he will undoubtedly NOT do is analyze whether there are systematic economic causes for the runaway costs, rationing, and quality control problems in the US, and he will certainly not analyze whether basic economic theory has anything to say about how to fix the problem in any way other than simply socializing medicine. He certainly won't say that socializing medicine is the same thing as forcing you to only buy medicine from the government.

You asked for honest, thoughtful works criticizing the US health care system. I don't have any such favorites that deal with the system as a whole, but here is one that deals with childbirth in particular:

Fish Can't See Water, by Dr. Marsden Wagner

Newt

The first (and only) Michael Moore film I saw was Fahrenheit 9/11. It was so blatantly manipulative and propagandist that I came out of it mostly just pissed off about how dishonest the whole thing was.

Despite agreeing with some of the core ideas -- e.g. Bush isn't a good president, the Iraq war was based on a false premise -- I felt compelled to argue (in my mind) against every point he was making as I sat there watching it because they were so flawed and misleading. I very quickly stopped even caring what points he was trying to make. I just felt bad that I had given Michael Moore money and influence, and that there were lots of people who would actually be swayed by his movies.

MM is trying to make money from a movie, not $olve the "U$ healthcare cri$i$". He'll make a movie out of any hot button i$$ue because it get$ butt$ in the $eat$.

What about a movie about the plight of the homeless in America? How many millions of people are living on the street (without health insurance!) with whole host of problems. Not much money there.

What about the new monarchy of America? It's been 20 years of presidents with the same 2 last names, and in all likelihood it's going to be presidents with the same 2 last names for 28 years. Senators galore who are in the same seat their parents were, etc. Al Gore Jr. following in the footsteps of his father, the Kennedys. Even less money there.

The "healthcare crisis" in America is largely manufactured in my opinion. Of the vast sea of uninsured in America most of them want it that way, how many are young single people who'd rather deal with the lack of insurance vs. extra income? You go see a doctor once a year on the outside for a physical for a relatively small fee or pay more overall to be insured to get a physical once a year. It will make a boat load of cash to help middle America think they're getting screwed. It's like people complaining about the price of a gallon of gas in the line for Starbucks Coffee.

If I didn't like the healthcare system around here (and I do), I'd start with me, and say "Look at this great case. Now, why doesn't everyone get that sort of care?" and then start exploring the reasons why everyone doesn't, and if that's something that's fixable or not - the conclusion that some people can afford better healthcare than others is a position that I don't hold as evil, though I do think it is saddening.

I'll go on record as being another liberal who dislikes many of Michael Moore's tactics. I haven't seen Sicko yet either, but for all that I like to sell myself as a bleeding heart liberal I don't actually support universal health care, at least the way it's sold. I do think that our health care system is horribly mismanaged in a lot of ways, and when I was taking econ classes in my spare time I spent a lot of time thinking about health care policy and a way to make it better. I wish I had a brilliant idea of how to fix the brokenness, but I don't, and I've never really seen a plan by a politician (of either party) that I can totally get behind.

I think you’re evaluating MM against the wrong criteria:
“a deeply dishonest propagandist” = Filmmaker
“His goal is to make his films emotionally moving regardless of how much distortion, deceit, and outright lying is necessary.” = Filmmaker

MM’s films are marketed as documentaries. They aren’t. But hell, most of the stuff that comes out of Hollywood is marketed as entertainment, and it isn’t either. Mis-labeling product in order to sell it to the widest possible audience is what the film industry does. Films calling themselves ‘comedies’ are patently not funny; the fact something called a ‘documentary’ actually isn’t is par for the course.

(Actually, MM’s films may be documentaries, if only of how he constructs his psychotic world-view. They document how he tells a story.)

Let me put it another way: You enjoyed Ratatouille; I’m sure you’re aware that the filmmaker’s “goal was to make his film[s] emotionally moving regardless of how much distortion, deceit, and outright lying is necessary.” You want propaganda? The central message of that move - “Anyone can be a great artist/A great artist can come from anywhere” – is pure propaganda. There is no other way to honestly assess that sentiment. In the context of a Hollywood film, shameless emotional manipulation and blatant propagandizing are entirely acceptable. I think it is fair to say that’s what we pay for.

Reality is not constructed of stories, but human beings like to organize things that way. MM tells really outrageous stories in an effort to make his point. He is totally over the top. In this sense he is in the same vein as any social satirist since the Greeks invented sarcasm. Do I believe that suggesting that English aristocrats should eat children as a way to alleviate poverty is honest criticism that will directly make the world a better place? No. Do I believe it leads to a poor understanding of the actual problem and thus makes reform more likely to be misguided? No. It’s outrageous, over the top. And it effectively shines a spotlight on the issue of poverty even if absolutely nothing in Swift’s ‘proposal’ contributes directly to a solution. The point isn’t to solve, the point is to force a dialog (and hopefully a solution).

MM seems to believe that being (non-violently) provoking is an effective way to get attention for a serious social cause. That is a position with a respectable pedigree.

Are Moore’s films as honest as Swifts’ suggestion that babies should be eaten? Yeah. I mean, you’d have to have been living under a rock not to know MM makes slanted movies. He’s completely upfront that he’s telling his stories his way. I promise, if Hollywood thought it would make more money if they called SiCKO a ‘comedy’ instead of a ‘documentary’, they’d do it in a minute. It’s not his fault that’s the way the film industry works. Hate the game on that one.

With that premise, the only way you can say MM is dishonest is if you believe (in the case of SiCKO) that healthcare is just fine the way it is and/or doesn’t need a spotlight shown on it. And it seems the preponderance of evidence is in his court there.

We agree that it's nice that what something claims to be matches what it is. We also agree that Sicko isn't a documentary; that is, what it claims to be isn't what it is.

So. How do you evaluate it what Sicko is? Just as Swift's Modest Proposal is neither modest nor a serious proposal, I'm suggesting that this is a case where it's best to set aside what it claims to be when making an evaluation. The extreme dissonance between the ‘claim’ and the ‘is’ in this case seems to me to be a clue that what’s going on here is satire, and I think MM is well aware of it. (Pets or Meat anyone?)

But people who purport to be reporting on the truth, like Moore, are held to a different standard.

Point taken. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement: I, like you, believe that MM is not telling the truth. He lies. He always lies. He lies so consistently and outrageously that I think evaluating him against the standard of truth is a mistake. Given the entertaining, over-the-top, showy (theatrical!) way he lies, to my eye the most appropriate way to evaluate his performance is as social satire.

I mean seriously; they guy lies like Jon Lovitz's Tommy Flanagan (Morgan Fairchild! Yeah, that's the ticket). When the lies fool no one (and occasionally get a laugh) I think something else is going on besides lying.

Michael Moore’s letter to CNN prompted me to do the same:

Dear CNN:

Dr Guptas’ report of Sicko was useless and I listened with an open mind. He said nothing useful except that Michael Moore rounded up a number to 7,000. Way to go doctor! You found a mistake! I am offended that he suggested Michael Moore was unfairly leading the American public to believe things that are untrue and feeding us falsehoods. I am not a person naive and stupid enough to believe whatever is fed to me. I research as much as possible.

Michael Moore represents so many Americans and he can speak for me anytime. A doctor (who practices in America) to argue government run health care? How stupid do you think Americans are? Highly overpaid doctors should not represent most of America, as you are far from the majority. I am 40, a divorced mother of one, and I have no health care. However, I don’t want it. I will choose, instead, to wait for free government health care and hope that it will soon be the standard here in America.

We Americans have paid for far too many fat salaries, coverage we cannot use, and overpriced prescriptions which all contribute to the wealthy getting wealthier, while the working class American must lose a loved one so that insurance execs can purchase another yacht, get another costly divorce, or reserve the hottest new sports car to feed their shallow souls.

I will be starting a letter-writing campaign to request that CNN offer the truth about our health care system in this country. Please include the government officials who enjoy the perks thrown to them by those all-too-important lobbys in Washington.

Why DON’T you try to pick Moore’s movie apart, piece by bloody piece? Don’t skim over it briefly with no information like your doctor did. Really try to prove him wrong! Why won’t you? And for heaven’s sake, get a conscience and apologize to a man who, like Al Gore, is just trying to raise awareness for a very important issue.

Why can’t we ever seem to expose the fat, greedy, wealthy people scooping up all the pennies in this country? Does money really matter that much to that many selfish people that you’d rather all Americans remain clueless and quiet? Don’t complicate things, simplify. What is the worst that could happen? You’d lose an advertiser or two? Maybe you’d even get a call from Bush! Don’t worry, he’s the dumbest American of all and I am quite sure HE is willing to accept any hot air you blow in his direction.

Sharon Jenson

Now, here are some facts I was able to dig up:

Fortune 500s Most Profitable Companies of 2007 include drug companies, insurance companies, and oil companies.

Drug companies block generic forms of their pricey meds, costing the sick tem times more than they should have to pay to be well.

In Brazil, they offer generic drugs to HIV/AIDS patiens; costing $300/year per patient. In America we spend $10 to $12,000 per patient per year.

Bush appointed a former CEO of a drug company, Ely Lily, as head of our Global AIDS Initiative.

And, Adolf Hitler once said, “How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think”.

Thankfully, in the last month the stocks of the health care companies are going down, they are in reverse. Could it be “Sicko”?

And please, don’t anyone else comment back to me that Michael Moore is trying to push socialized medicine. His motives are completely of a good nature. He has good intentions; he tries to raise awareness. And don’t comment on the fact that this issue was already an issue & didn’t need pointing out — NOT TRUE! I for one have learned a lot and not just from the movie. I’ve done my own research & I suggest every American do the same!

Thank you for reading this.