I'm moving to France after watching this.

But, seriously, I think I liked this more than Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, even though I generally had more interest in the other subject matters. It did focus a little too much on comparisons to other countries (France, Cuba, England, Canada, etc.), but overall, it worked well. The trip to Guantanamo Bay is simply excellent ("We're just asking for the same level of treatment that al-Qaeda"). And the film definitely made me think more about health care problems in America, something I really, really didn't care much about.

B+

Moore is a man who will fulfill perfection the moment he lets go of his weak link, namely naive populism.

All the sections that deals with the failings of the USA medical system are pin perfect, he mixes emotion and fact in an expert manner and he raises rage when its needed. However his problem is selection when it comes to him comparing.

Yes the USA system is shite but making out the French and British systems are golden and flawless is a terrible mistake. This is Moore's problem, he's so obsessed with pushing his opinion he is fully willing to ignore facts when they bother him so he can stab the central crux home.

The US medical system his serious issues but it needs somebody other then an IRA apologist to point them out. This is the tragedy of this good but flawed film.

B

I loved the first 90 minutes. The real-life stories were moving or horrifying, or both. And I thought Michael Moore's trips to England and France were very persuasive and well-documented.

Then came the last 30 minutes. The trip to Cuba (beyond the hilarious scene on the boat outside the Guantanamo Bay detention camp) rang artificial, especially the corny, forced visit to the Cuban fire station.

Worse still was the director's masturbatory self-congratulation as explains, in detail, what a swell fella he is for supporting the ill wife of an anti-Michael Moore site owner. The sentiment's beautiful; him saluting himself for it was phony and grotesque.

All in all, though, I loved it and wish it success. Hopefully it creates a refreshed dialogue about health care both in America and around the globe.

B+

I don't think he was pretending in anyway that they are golden or flawless. He is dealing with certain US bogeymen, the right and insurance industry use to frighten us to continue the current broken system.

"Delays and waiting times are much worse in other countries"- Numerous surveys have shown the US lags behind other countries in wait times.

"The quality in Canada (fill in the blank) is horrible ask a Canadian"-They may criticize certain aspects, but they wouldn't trade it for the American system. Everyone I know that has dealt with healthcare in Europe or Canada likes their systems better than here. Live spans are longer in most other comparable countries than the US too.

"There will be no freedom for the consumer"-There is no freedom now for many people. Too many are denied coverage outright, and others stay with jobs that want to leave for the the health benefits. The current system is a drag on our economy and our "freedom".

"There will be no doctors, because they won't be able to earn a decent living working for the government"-It may not be as lucrative as the current sytem for some doctors, but they will also be able to be doctors more of the time and not have to worry about billing and payment issues, that currently cut into their time.

He was using stark contrast to make his point. He doesn't have to acknowledge they are not without flaws or problems to imply they are "flawless". Not really sure how you come to that conclusion from the presentation in the film.

gs-I don't get the "masturbatory self-congratulation". I think he using humor to make a point in helping out someone who's major purpose is to cause Moore grief. He was also showing that we can help out others that are less fortunate, which was a theme of the movie. I went to the site before the movie to get Jim K's interpretation of the events. Jim K seems to be grateful for the help, but a bit upset how it has been portrayed in the media. What I found absurd on Jim K's behalf is that he is defending the status quo that put him in this position. US healthcare put him in the situation of being a begger, worrying about finding donations or a benefactor to help him out of a tough financial squeeze.

I didn't see how Moore was wrong in any aspect by comparing the other countries systems. I was amazed when I went to Scotland the first time and saw the "decrepit and beauracratic nightmare" that is NHS. The hospital and clinics were sanitary and the staff helpful and friendly. The service seemed to be of high standards. I was expecting a gulag and received an eye-opening. I worked for Kaiser Permante at the time and I was more impressed with their healthcare than my own company. My wife's grandmother gets much better treatment from NHS, than my grandmother receives from Medicare. I discarded any fears I harbored of universal healthcare from those experiences.

Also, the part about the St. Joseph's of KC patient being denied for a bone marrow transplant is actually very typical. I know Kaiser denied that treatment along with some breast treatments options as "unproven experimental". There was certainly enough evidence in clinical studies to be show these treatments as viable when I worked for them in 2000, the doctor I worked for admitted it was to save money. These specific "denied" treatments have failure rates, but so do chemotherapy and other "approved" treatments. It was just another way to save money and make a buck.

The biggest quibble I had with the movie was not explaining in detail how the US system came to be the way it is today. During WW II there was a price freeze on wages in the US, so the economy could better handle being on a wartime footing. There was an intense labor shortage. So, if you were getting paid $10 a day in one industry, another firm couldn't offer $12 a day for the same work, or offer you a raise for doing the same work to keep you. So, many companies to get around this arrangement and getter more workers, started offering better benefits. Health insurance was not offered by many companies when the war started, but many started offering it, in lieu of raises. After the war, Truman tried to get Universal healthcare passed, but it stalled in Congress. Most other industrialized countries switched to universal coverage at this time (1946-1950). We bet on the wrong horse, and we have never been able to write off the loss.

This really is Moore's best and most powerful film. It moved me in more ways than BFC or F 9/11. Taken together the three films are the best trilogy of the new milenium, showing how fear creates inequity in America which "taxes" the citizens. This invisible "tax" lowers our quality of life in ways that other films and media never mention. For this Moore gets vilified, because he is not of "pure motive".


A

Really enjoyed this....in the way that one can enjoy such a film. Certainly better than F 9/11, but not quite as effective as Bowling For Columbine. Even my conservative friend came out of this with some changed feelings.

B+/A-

I thought it was incredibly moving and pesuasive, and furthermore the strongest film Michael Moore has ever made. If it's not the best movie of the year - and one would not be looked down upon for saying so - it is the most important.

I can personally testify to the faults in the British Isles Health system because thats where I live (Ireland to be exact which shares a pretty similar system to the UK), and the IRA comment is completely valid because I've read his international prints of his books giving these people a pass and since I've personally dealt with those organizations I'm entitled to be a tad peeved.

Don't get me wrong I really wanted to love this film and the US centered sections were brilliant but if you honestly think Moore didn't cherry pick when it came to foreign examples your kidding yourself.

Your post is unfairly long to quote btw so I just edited a section out for size

I actually had a great discussion about universal health care with a British based relative who was a former councilor for the Labour party a few months back. I didn't agree but he drove his points home very well. His belief in banning private health care was to radical for me thou.

I guess I just wish these issues where brought up by a man who wasn't so easy to shot holes in. It gives the opposing side to easy a task.

I don't mind the editing. I do it myself on occasion. These post get too long with all the quote inside quotes.

If Benn is an IRA sympathizer, it doesn't negate his view on this subject or his eloquent statements in the film. It is irrelavent. It is like when I was asked to give my recommendation on my boss taking over our division. He cheats on his wife and I think his morals outside of his work life are questionable. However, his business dealings are professional and honorable from all I have observed. There is no overlap. You are trying force something that has no relation to the healthcare discussion. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it has no relation to the comparison of US/UK healthcare.

Moore is showing that other forms of healthcare outside this country work, not that they are perfect. I am sure every system has its own problems, but it doesn't change the fact that in this country we pay more as a nation, to have less people covered, exposed to financial ruin, suffer waiting times no better if not worse than comparable nations, for worse results. In America we have been told since the 50s that the UK and other countries have terrible systems and we have the best in the world. 40 years of propaganda have been shoved down my throat.

Perhaps Scotland has better NHS services than the UK in general, but from my experiences it is comparable or superior to the service I have seen in the states. I have been in waiting rooms all night. I have been hit with $2000 bills for minor stiches. We have all the problems and then some that the UK/Canada has but we also have to pay more and deal with the uncertainity. I cut my wrist out of college when I had limited insurance coverage. Instead of seeing the doctor right away I had to wait 24 hrs to see an "approved" provider, because I was out of town. It was too late for stiches, I had to clean and treat it on my own. I now have a huge scar that I wouldn't have had if my coverage was better. That is a minor issue, many people don't see the doctor because of having no insurance, and they die or live in misery. I don't see how showing the faults of the UK system would change the point that the US system is unfair and unjust compared to other industrial nations.

little over half way through the film. give my thoughts when i'm finished with it.

Just finished the film and its easily Moore's most mature and complete film. F9/11 was a disaster but this is far superior in everyway. I do disagree with some things he said and feel that he held the canadian and french system up way to high but it did show the weaknesses of the american system and what needs to be addressed.

B+

Really sobering and really infuriating. I was pissed when I left the theater today.

Moore's most cleanly constructed movie, but the least entertaining. That is not a complaint; this is not an entertaining subject. I'm glad he kept the hijinks to a minimum.

Never gave my thoughts. But yeah, loved it. Moore is a genius at taking these broad, abstract topics and shooting them out into the mainstream. My qualms with it have already been mentioned -- the depiction of the French and Canadian systems seem to be the most editorialized.

Nonetheless, though, engrossing and undeniably hard-hitting. One of the best of the summer.

A-

C+

The film tends to repeat itself way too much and repeat the same argument again, and again. Cuba nearly destroyed the whole film for me.

He should of gone deeper into the lobbyists a bit more.

That basically sums up how I felt as well.

Michael Moore has a point. But the way he tries to make it is way too flawed. To name a few of his mistakes: He uses the WHO ranking to show how bad the US system is. Unfortunately for him you can see on the list that Cuba has a ranking close to the US, yet when he arrives there with the 9/11 resuce workers, it's a perfect system?
Plus: He does too much manipulating. When a mother tells of her child that died due to the Health Care System, there's an empty swing in the background. Talk about wooden execution. Then he always puts his reaction shots into the movie that clearly haven't been recorded in the moment he edited it in (flashes of William Hurt in Broadcast News). His questioning is highly questionable (pardon the pun), because he plays dumb to get the reactions he wants.
It's obvious that the Health Care Systems in Europe are better, but he portrays them as perfect. Ask some brits who wait 12 months for a routine op about it and they'll tell a different story. Why the hell does he do it, he only submits himself to fire from his critics.
Even the 12K donation to his biggest critic is dumb, because he earlier shows how the pharmaceuticals buy their votes. Isn't that in the same vicinity?
Overall I had the impression that this isn't a documentary about the US health care system, but a documentary about how dumb americans are. Even the simplest things are explained in a dumbed down fashion, Moore plays the dumb american with his questioning and the point of his movie is why don't americans question anything.
As said, his topic and criticism is dead on and he has a really good point, but he has reached the point where his usual filmmaking styles hurt his issues more than they help. B-

Hit the nail on the head Levy. These issues deserve a better film maker.

I don't know if it's Moore's best - Columbine is a lot of fun, considering its subject matter. - but it's probably his most mature. He manages to keep his opinion out of it, for the most part, and just present the facts, and does so in relatively entertaining fashion. I don't think I've ever gone from laughing out loud to nearly crying as quickly as I did during this film. That, more than anything, is a testament to his filmmaking prowess. As for the issue itself, I have my doubts about some of Moore's points (I'm sure that a group of Americans had no trouble at all getting medical treatment in CUBA) and the editing is as tricky as always, but at least there were no out-and-out attacks. Lots of subtle ones, though.

This should easily be the most important movie of the year. Everyone should see it. It's a completely eye-opening look into the healthcare system. Some moments seem a bit unreal, especially the visit to Cuba in the end, but overall it brings up some very important questions and everyone should be made aware of the going-ons in the medical insurance industry. It's shocking and infuriating. It's enough to make almost anyone want to move to one of the places mentioned in it. It also made me care a lot more about the issue of healthcare.

Moore is a flawed filmmaker and this one isn't perfect, but it brings things to your attention and makes you more likely to want to look more into it afterwards. I do think that the subject deserves a better, less manipulative filmmaker, but despite its flaws this is still great and important.

Nobody should miss this one. I hope it wins Best Documentary at the Academy Awards.

Grade: 8/10 (A-)

Moore's best film yet. Way less biased and angry than F911, funnier than any of his other films, and surprisingly entertaining for a documentary about health care. A great documentary.

A-

Thank god I'm not American. Moore's best.

4/5

I'll take the trade - Moore may not be the best or most straight-forward documentarian, but the exposure his name brings to the film and subject makes up for it. Like him or not, Moore's the best way to get this message out to popular culture.

For idiots maybe.

Well... yeah.