foist?

What a steaming load. The article should've just gone on about how fat he is.

I saw the film today, it was great. Moore thrusts an overdue question into the national discourse and makes an engaging and entertaining film at the same time.

F@#$@ the LA Times propaganda. I wonder how many kickbacks they got for running that drivel.

Actually, I didn't the article was that bad, and Moore just seemed to let the criticism he is doing well slide off his back?

I was expecting a real diatribe?

Compared to the Pyschos that usually go after Michael, this was warm milk and cookies...

First let me say it is awesome that a commenter is calling themselves Darkhawk. What's next, Sleepwalker192?

Second, I read this over lunch and don't see the big deal. The article gave Moore all of the choice quotes and he explained himself adequately. I think the article actually goes a way towards dissarming Moore's critics of being able to use this exact charge.

This is a classic reactionary attack. When a left wing cause makes money, they cry and say, but you leftist aren't supposed to make money, you are being a hypocrite. Absolute argumentative nonsense. Success is success, whether you are left or right. If you got your success attacking the right for exploiting the weak, so what?

They are pulling the same stuff with Edwards. Elizabeth Edwards called out Coulter, and then sent an email requesting donations to fight the attacks by Coulter, this results in more money for the Edwards campaign. Then Chris Mathews cries to Edwards saying, you shouldn't profit by complaining about Ann Coulter, that is hypocritical to gain money from counterattacking Ann Coulter. It's simply nonsense. Edwards absolutely can benefit from attacking Coulter, Coulter makes a living off of attacking Edwards, there is zero hypocrisy there. A populist can be rich, a leftist can benefit from attacking a rightwinger.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/28/john-edwards-responds/

let's see....invest's his own money to expose something that's wrong with America,and they chastise him for turning a profit.How the money loving repugs can argue that he's just out to make money is ass backwards.The repugs worship money...whats wrong with this picture.

"Sicko" is a great revelation. I can understand why the media, representing big business, the health industry and the government want to discourage Americans from viewing it. We as a nation have been royally screwed since the Nixon years. We're the only country in the western hemisphere without universal healthcare. See the movie and see the light. Bring kleenex.

Laszlo Panaflex @ 12:

Al Gore's electric bill!

Bill Clinton's BlowJob!

First of all "Joe" -stop yelling.
Secondly,no I think "Rush" is the infallible one isn't he?

Wow, Mike must be pleased. He really trod on some fat-cat toes with this one, didn't he.

More power to him.

If we could harvest all the hot air from Bill Clintons blow job we could seriously put a dent in the energy crisis....wheres Monica when we really need her

Michael Moore's controversial film SiCKO opens nationwide this weekend. Hailed by critics and widely praised across much of the political spectrum, Moore's look at the failing American health care system is already generating the predictable smear campaign from the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical lobby and their allies on the right.

But before the inevitable discussions about the accuracy of the film's portrayal of the U.S. health care system and the plight of insured middle class American come to dominate the airwaves, you can make up your own mind. Perrspectives has reached into its archives and combed through other recent research to produce a quick look at the U.S. health care morass by the numbers. The summary below includes comparisons of the American health care system relative to other countries and between the states, data on the uninsured, rising health care costs, the woes of Medicare and Medicaid and more.

For all the details, see:
"SiCKO Required Reading: U.S. Health Care by the Numbers."

joe!

Spell! (Five points each if you can guess which two of your 15 words were mangled. Hint: The fun of the all-capped HOLY almost made up for the misspelling of one.)

Okay! Then if all else fails, try clicking the spell check button!

Now, when you're done (deadline: a week from Saturday), go figure out something to... uh, how do you say... say!

Great!

I think this goes to show that making profit, whether through moviemaking or providing healthcare and health insurance, is not a bad thing.

Profit is an incentive to give BETTER products and services, because one has to WORK for ones meal. Having a garunteed customer base through the form of an enforced tax (think medicare) will remove that motive to do a good job, since you dont have to worry about making the sale or persuading the customer to do business with you; they have no choice but to buy your product. Thats what a tax is.

Here is my email to John Horn:

Mr. Horn,

I just read your article today on Michael Moore "Michael Moore's finances in robust health". You attack Mr. Moore for making money? Do you work for free? I doubt it. At least Mr. Moore is getting the word out on how broken the health care system is in our country. What are you doing about it?

Is this what passes for journalism these days? If it is, then journalism is as broken as health care.

lol -- like these right-wingers do all their work for free!!mmhmm! right!!

joe! @ 10:

How dare His HOLYness be critisized!! Michael Moore is our guide to the infallible truth?!

why is that a question?

Brad @ 29:

Here is my email to John Horn:

Mr. Horn,

I just read your article today on Michael Moore "Michael Moore's finances in robust health". You attack Mr. Moore for making money? Do you work for free? I doubt it. At least Mr. Moore is getting the word out on how broken the health care system is in our country. What are you doing about it?

Is this what passes for journalism these days? If it is, then journalism is as broken as health care.

Very well said. Short and pointed.

I agree with Kusinich and Gravel who both say that it's time to end the for-profit system of health care in America. If Moore can bring the problem more into the public forum all the better. The level of attack that he will receive is nothing, in my view, but the guilt pangs of a system of greed and incompetence.

Here is the problem with Michael Moore making money off the film. First of all, he makes the money honestly by investing other profits of his own to fund the film. Not like the corporations in the health care industry that use investor money to make their product, advertise it with misleading ads to sell it. He also does not make money dishonestly by sending our nation to war so the military industrial complex, oil companies, Haliburton and private armies like Blackwater can overbill or fix prices for their services. So, I guess Moore just isn't making money in the traditional way.

As far as fact checking goes, CNN online has the story up "Sicko by the numbers - and they are mostly correct"

Who would have thought you could tell the truth, be entertaining, and make a profit!

Damn that Michael Moore!

The way I see it is, there are 300 million Americans, and half voted for Bush, so that's makes 150 million assholes, or too many to e-mail about every stupid thing they say, and that 150 million says WAY more than their fair share!!! All I can do is ignore them. Paying attention fuels them further. I haven't watched an O'Reilly clip or Coulter clip for ages. Not 'sending them my energy'. (It's yoga stuff; about energy.)

I did send an e-mail to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with many others, and now Pace is gone. That's good stuff to do (good energy expenditure.)

But that's the capitalist ideal: Doing good while making a profit.
Aren't these corporate shills ragging on their own professed ideals?

Really, this is just the same old BS. John Edwards is rich, so he can't possibly care about the poor - so vote for someone who openly despises the poor! Michael Moore can't possibly really care about health care - so listen to the folks who will happily screw you over! It's funny how conservatives and scolds are never for the free market when it strikes out at them.

Typical bottom feeding for idiots. Because, like, those other First World industrialized countries with national health care are all communist, right? You just try to start a business in London and they'll ship you to a reeducation camp in Scotland herding sheep at night and reciting Karl Marx during the day, right? Right?

Trawling for fools. The internet is great. I'm glad other people are following the MSM for me these days so I don't have to.

So I guess the onion is getting in on the act...

http://www.theonion.com/content/infograph/sicko_opens_this_weekend

Sigh.

Dear Mr. Horn:

Regarding your piece on Michael Moore and his documentary, “Sicko:”

Let me see if I accurately understand your position.

1) Someone with a working class background spends years working on films he believes in, making an increasing amount of money as he gets better at it (or more skillfully chooses his topics or increasingly hits on themes that resonate with a portion of the population) or whatever.
2) As he gets better or chooses topics more astutely or whatever, he makes increasingly greater amounts of money as more people want to view his opinion. Word of mouth, good advertising, shameless self-promotion, because it’s something people care about, whatever you like.
3) Finally he makes a film, “Sicko,” that really resonates with the public because it’s about something that affects all of us and that effort makes him or will make him simply gobs of money.
4) Boy, what a dork and a hypocrite this clown is for enjoying the fruits of his labors, having a few perks, making the best deal he can for the work that he does. Like Tom Horn would rather fly coach with a couple of overweight slugs squeezing him in from both sides than first class.

HUH?

Please, please tell me that what you wrote is actually a tongue –in-cheek bit of farce and that you are a whole lot smarter than this meaningless compilation of words, facts and figures makes you look.

First of all, Mr. Horn, isn’t this the American Dream? Isn’t this what we all are supposed to strive for in some form or another, to the best of our abilities? Don’t you negotiate contracts to your best possible advantage, even though some might question the social value of your work, as you question Moore’s rewards? Do I detect a wee problem with certain aspects of your self-esteem? Some serious issues with someone who can generate more money than you can, maybe? Or is it just that Mr. Moore has the guts to tackle the more substantial and challenging issues while you flail along with the likes of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton and whatever vapid actor or Hollywood clown-of-the-week does who or what or how? So Moore is making money. Lots of it. Let’s see: value of Mr. Horn’s contributions to society versus Mr. Moore’s contributions to society…….  Doesn’t stack up so well, does it? Whether one agrees with Moore or not.

C’mon, Mr. Horn. This is a subject that affects every one of us. Trust me, I’m a surgeon and I see it firsthand every day of my life. How about a few words about the message? Or at least not trivializing the message with “Michael Moore is going to make sooo much money.” Like a nursery school drop-out couldn’t have figured out before he/she even read your piece. Opps wait, you don’t seem to have seen the movie before you wrote your piece.

Oh, I know you’re an entertainment writer and God knows Paris or Lindsey or Justin are faaaaar more entertaining and riveting and important to you, but for once take a shot for the people who matter. Take your shot at Moore if that is what satisfies the little Tom Horn way down deep inside, but would it have killed you to maybe mention that whatever your stance on the issue, this is a film worth seeing if only because it provokes a debate we badly need to have. An adult debate, using real adult language and real adult logic and real adult solutions.

You have a public voice, albeit one of questionable enduring value. Use it for something useful once in a while. Who gives a rat’s posterior what who makes? Maybe you make more than I do. I know Mr. Moore sure does. So what?

Charles Paxson, MD

In the world of Republicans and their Corporate Media shills, anybody who becomes successful by actually producing something that people want to buy instead of ripping other people off is a sucker and a hypocrite. Just because Progressives like Micheal Moore and some Hollywood actors feel some obligation to pay back to the society that made them rich and help those less fortunate than themselves, corporatist fanatics and greedheads feel the need to smear them.

Isn't it just the free market determining that Micheal Moore's opinions are worth more than this pathetic corporate tool Horn's are? Why do right wingers suddenly have such a problem with the free market when it comes to Micheal Moore? Why is it that the public is not willing to shell out 8 bucks to go see right wing films? It must mean that there's no market for corporatist propaganda. The only reason Rush and Fox News survive is because corporate interests are willing to subsidize them with big advertising dollars. Could you imagine Fox News surviving for a day if they had to raise money through viewer donations like FSTV or Democracy Now?

The funny thing about Moore is that even after finding all evidence to the contrary, he still somehow thinks the democrats are going to save us. Deep down he must know that's not even part of their game plan.

How's that swamp draining operation coming along?

Criticizing Michael Moore over Sicko is like the dorks who debate global warming. We need a cleaner planet whether WE are causing global warming or not. Health care needs fixing in America and Insurance companies are a HUGE part of the problem (and so are law suits and greedy doctors [not all doctors are greedy but some sure are]). Who gives a rip how much Michael Moore makes off the movie? Notice it is the capitalist pig right that points this out. The arguments from the right so often seem to stray from the point or, of course, represent what's BAD for America. I'm so sick of idiots.

So this guy is criticizing Moore for potentially turning a profit by making this movie, yet just by writing his bit of tripe HE'S turning a profit (paycheck) for simply bitching about someone trying to change the world for the better.

Yes, it's disgraceful alright. Typical...

[Deleted. Rude and fact-free rant]

[Please don't let the facts get in the way of your meaningless tirade-Sitemonitor]

Skimmed through the article. I'm with the folks who don't think it can be described as a hit job. But that bit questioning his sincerity about not wanting the "first-class" treatment was snide. And the article did remind me how annoying reich-wingers can be about liberals and genuine lefties making money. I recall there's a recent book about "liberal hypocrites" that, among other things, criticizes Noam Chomsky for having money - as if you can only be a lefty if you live near the poverty line. On second thought, maybe that reich-winger bullshit is more than annoying ...

Moore might make $10 million in profit? That'll cover an office visit to the doc and a filled cavity at the dentist. Plus change for the meter.

daveinboca @ 65:

Yes, it's disgraceful alright. Typical moonbat nutroot hypocrisy. Why doesn't the bloated behemoth go to Cuba and live there---oops, got too much money tied up in the US stock market! You creepy leftardos just don't get it---go to Canada and wait six months for an MRI after your doc thinks you have a brain tumor. You deserve public health care.

It is really sad that you spout off ideological bullshit without getting the facts Dave. I’m an American, but lived in Canada for a while and their healthcare system is far superior to what we have here.

I hate to tell you, but Canada doesn’t have public healthcare… it has socialized health insurance. The Doctors work for themselves and they have their own physician review boards that determine what rates are fair for specific treatments. The docs are their own cost control… not the government.

But I like to deal in facts and if you want the truth you can start with the studies and articles I’ve cited below. The first study is a direct comparison and shows that Canadians have greater access to healthcare and live two to three years longer on average than Americans.

Excerpts:

“Despite spending far less per capita for health care, Canadians are healthier and have better measures of access to health care than Americans.”

“Compared with Canadians, US residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines.”

SNIP!

“Our findings that US residents have slightly higher rates of unmet healthcare needs confirms previous findings. As in previous studies, we found that barriers to care differed in the 2 countries: In the United States cost was the principle barrier, whereas in Canada waiting times were an issue. Canada’s waiting times have received substantial press attention in the United States. None the less we found that long waiting times led to unmet health need for only a small percentage (3.5%) of Canadians.”

http://www.pnhp.org/canadastudy/CanadaUSStudy.pdf

Rationing in the US is based on ability to pay, even if you did get your MRI faster than in the US, and that has yet to be proven, you still may find that even with your health insurance… you might not be able to afford to pay for your treatment.

“Won’t this result in rationing like in Canada?”

The U.S. Supreme Court recently established that rationing is fundamental to the way managed care conducts business. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care you get it, if you can’t, you don’t. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. That’s rationing. No other industrialized nation rations health care to the degree that the U.S. does.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_faq.php#canada_ration

Dave…

Say your wife develops breast cancer and her doctor wants her to have Avastatin the new cancer drug. You’ll find most insurance companies don’t cover it because it costs $100,000 a year and a course of treatment is usually two years in length.

“The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 46 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment though a single nonprofit payer would save more than $350 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans.”

http://www.pnhp.org/

Health care costs in the US are projected to double in the next ten years, but even at their present rate... 440,000 American families were driven into bankruptcy and 75% of them had health insurance Dave!

Half of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Three-fourths of those bankrupted had health insurance at the time they got sick or injured.

http://www.pnhp.org/PDF_files/MedicalBankruptcy.pdf

I didn't really see this article as an attack.

Michael Moore makes money. Oooh. Is that supposed to make him look bad? Hell, I think it makes him look great. He is successful, and he provides a product that proves to be exceptionally popular in the capitalist marketplace, making him wealthy. He comes from nowhere, grabbing the world by the tail, making lemonade out of lemons. Isn't that the god dammm American success story they love to fellate on the Right?

I'm sure his haters could use it as ammunition, or at least attempt to, but that argument reeks of desperation. What would be their alternative? Moore should make no money because he criticizes people? Or he should make no money because he's too far on the left and should just DISDAIN all money and live on commune? Or somehow he's some kind of class traitor, and people who end up with large amounts of money should just shut their mouths and support the status quo? Is that supposed to be their way of life? Or maybe they just hate Moore because he's a self-made man and didn't inherit fortune like people named Bush did?

Well, screw that. He'll make another load of money on this movie and I hope he gives the maximum amount allowable to Dennis Kucinich. Or to the Democratic Party. I know I'm going to see the movie this weekend, so he gets his full cut of my $9, and I get to see an entertaining and thoughtful movie in return.

I, also, don't see too much to object to with this article. What's strange is that the cited article was written by Jonh Horn and published at 1:23 PDT, June 30, and another, MUCH more kind article about the film was written about the movie, by the same author for the same newspaper, precisely three minutes earlier. Most peculiar. Perhaps he wrote two versions, one of which was published in the paper, but both of which made it into the online version? Both versions;
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-moore21may21,1,2729792.s...
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-moore29jun29,1,61...

[...] else but get people to realize it doesn’t have to be this way, it has done its job. Update: See Crooks & Liars about a hit piece on Sicko in the Los Angeles [...]

Such a tiresome rediculous attempt at an "argument" that someone is going to make money from their "work".
For those of you name calling Moore I doubt any have had experience with much of anything in healthcare. Once you have been ill, or once you work in healthcare and are around it don't be so lame with the name calling. Step back and listen.

Michael Moore is so on target.

Why don't you critics stuff it and actually SEE the movie 'Sicko"? Your negative comments are mindless.

Paranoia, paranoia. The article itself was no attack piece and rather mild. It discussed the lucrative deals that Moore has made. So what? It didn't challenge any of Moore's lies for instance. Not that they could in just one column.

The only attack I see in this piece is where the author says, "Moore himself stands to make a mint on the film, etc." in the first couple of graphs, but it seems to make up for that by giving Michael's side.

Plus, the attack on Moore for making money is an easy one to parse and dismiss, without having to go on about how the author and others make money for what they do, too. Basically, Moore's argument is that health care be treated as a right--like law enforcement and fire fighting--not a privilege. That's not a diss on capitalism, per se, just the way the US handles it WRT health care.

Who would argue that the entertainment/film industry should be socialized? Perhaps there's a good argument there, too, but it's hardly the same as health care, which really shouldn't be thought of as a luxury. If anything, news delivery--that of "balanced" news--should be one of the next segments to be socialized here, because information dissemination is the (theoretical) foundation for democracy. So, this (and other such) "journalist(s)" has (have) it bass-ackwards. He is (they are) the one(s) who should be working in a socialized system--not Mike--and the journalist(s) could still make plenty of money in just such a system.

So I suppose then by that same logic Hiller and the publishers of the LA Times are also suspect since they also make money for what they do...

I agree with those who say this isn't a hit piece. It's not. Michael Moore answers any potential criticisms very effectively. Any filmmaker making 50% of the gross is a big story, especially in the film biz town of Los Angeles. But the main reason Moore has such a sweet deal with The Weinstein Co. is that, despite his amazing success, his movies are still small in comparison to most Spielberg and Tom Cruise movies. Also, I remember plenty of articles about the monstrous amount of money Mel Gibson was making on The Passion of the Christ. Let's make Michael Moore richer! Everybody get out and see the movie in the first two weeks. The big box office number will put the fear of God into the opposition!!!

I saw the film earlier today and I thought it was great. The only problem is that it's causing a fire hazard in the theater, as all the ushers and workers were crowding the exit aisles to watch the movie -- so it's tough to get through them if there's a fire (and to get to the ladies' room). Otherwise, it was really an informative, sad/uplifting, refreshing movie-going experience. I am a registered independent and I don't care what any critic writes about it if they don't like it. Too many people have suffered for too long in this country due to health insurance problems. People should not be forced into bankruptcy, and should not lose their homes, over rising health care costs. Let's hope that changes with the next election...

How many times have you seen a theatre show a movie for free?
Ok, me too.