digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Fox News praises Michael Moore, gives 'Sicko' rave review

foxnews.com — "Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Aidenag, on 10/11/2007, -4/+206Hell has frozen over, First Murdoch announces that he believes in global warming, and that foxnews will start reflecting that in its programming. And now this..

    • kinerry, on 10/11/2007, -33/+8Funny, this was going to be my exact comment
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -7/+82Geez, you mean we can no longer rely on our preconceptions about the world, and have to use our brains to make it through the day?

      Heaven forbid.
    • shiftt, on 10/11/2007, -10/+35Global warming is going to be an immensely profitable industry. I'm surprised it took him this long.
      As for the rave review? I have no idea. Either someone is getting fired tomorrow morning, or hell really did freeze over..
    • lnappropriate, on 10/11/2007, -1/+33First SC2, now this???
    • scuvball, on 10/11/2007, -32/+20Can we still dislike Michael Moore? Please tell me we can!
    • NoStoppingUs, on 10/11/2007, -56/+10you people need to decide. either fox news is the anti christ, or its the gospel.

      ohhh the hypocrisy.
    • torched, on 10/11/2007, -17/+15Well the reason he isn't getting blasted this time by fox is because instead of speaking out against 911 he is now speaking up for the forgotten victims of 911, the rescue workers. Slamming this movie would probably go against the rest of what fox news preaches daily.
    • idugcoal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+100itsatrap!
    • Drewboy64, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1at thefamousone

      Now now, don't jinks it!
    • Stiverton, on 10/11/2007, -15/+8I wouldn't be surprised if Fox was making steps to reconcile it's bad reputation.
    • otep, on 10/11/2007, -10/+16It's some sort of weird ploy that I just can't figure out ...........touche' Faux News ... touche'.

    • psg188, on 10/11/2007, -26/+16@ Global Warming

      I don't think anyone doubts it exists the fact is some people seem to think its mans fault, when in fact water vapor has more to do with trapping heat then "greenhouse gases".

      Not to mention the earths climate goes through shifts and we are coming out of a mini-ice age, also the fact that the entire solar system is heating at the same rate as the earth.
    • UberNick, on 10/11/2007, -7/+20@torched
      "Slamming this movie would probably go against the rest of what fox news preaches daily."

      Since when has Fox ever been concerned with logical consistency?
    • tmlee, on 10/11/2007, -15/+10This isn't all that surprising for those who regularly watch and read FOX news. Sure, it has many "journalists" with conservative biases, but it has others who represent more liberal views to attempt a balance to a neutral standpoint. People who make these comments don't watch FOX news and are surprised only because of the hype and rumors of "the extremely biased and conservative FOX news."
    • jobenly, on 10/11/2007, -2/+26And on the other side of the debate, some Canadians are mad that Moore shot the Canadian healthcare industry with a rose-coloured camera lens: http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/215801
    • KMye, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Fox News isn't trying to reconcile its reputation; it still gets far better ratings than any other cable news network. Murdoch is a power broker, and he's making the necessary adjustments, in response to the changing mood of the country, to retain his influence. He's been getting chummy with Hillary lately, too.
    • fiftyeggs, on 10/11/2007, -7/+34Look like Fox is getting ready for the Democratic Rule of the Government.

      money, money, money.
    • Aggaman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Perhaps Murdoch has come to realize the truth. The free market has its role to play in certain areas of the economy, and not in others, where it wreaks havoc and produces inefficienct outcomes. The corollary is that state intervention does the same in different areas of the economy. Having a partisan love of one or the other, or believing that technology and time won't change their roles simply flies in the face of the facts. The market needs state regulation and in some cases intervention to produce efficient outcomes. Conversely, sometimes what is done by the state needs market intervention. Real political debate should be about dealing with each issue on its own, but then this would require intelligence from both politicians and the media. Horror of horrors that this should come to pass. If Murdoch really wanted to do the world a service, he would have all his media outlets take this view. Once upon a time, some media outlets did. It was called "responsibility to tell the truth". Would that this be the case again.

      For example, it is lamentable that businesses are basically forced into providing health insurance for their workers. It's not their job to be an insurance provider in most cases, and it is not something that they are really any good at. Why on earth should a small business owner be worrying about his employee's healthcare plan? It's simply better to let the state pay for those through taxes and let the employer and employees focus on adding value to the economy by doing what they are there for.
    • etx313, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3@flashman

      And if you were using your brain you would know heaven is a lie.
    • LBTS, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10@Flashman, "Geez, you mean we can no longer rely on our preconceptions about the world, and have to use our brains to make it through the day?

      Heaven forbid."

      No, flashman, it doen't mean that at all. What it does mean is that Fox may be changing its preconceptions about the world, and that Fox has finally decided to use its brains to make it through the day.

      Or more likely Fox is just calming down their usually blatant right wing rhetoric so that despite having foreign ownership (Murdoch), Fox will be able to win governmental approval to buy up even more of U.S. mainstream media. Recently Murdoch has been after The Wall Street Journal; a purchase that would face significant government regulatory hurdles.

      But I digress, let's get back to your question that implied that Digg readers weren't currently using their brains to make it through the day. It's a rather illogical question.

      With Digg being a social news site, on its face its audience is vastly more well informed and open minded than the general public at large, and obviously this involves an active brain.

      Heaven had nothing to do with it. We were special right from the start.
    • atb12688, on 10/11/2007, -12/+8Murdoch has been a democrat for years. He was a huge Clinton supporter. I'm surprised you are surprised that he is liberal... And hell has frozen over because this is the second "credible" Foxnews story in RSS in the minds of diggers. Maybe diggers have finally realized that even Fox has people of differing views?
    • KMye, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@aggaman - You're absolutely right about intervention having different effects in different markets. There are also different intervention/regulation approaches for each industry. I'd argue that outside a very few industries, and excepting safety/health regulations, the only major interventions that are generally helpful are anittrust/pro-competition regulations. I'd argue that rather than creating a giant new bureaucracy for a two-tier health system, a mandatory insurance requirement (with subsidization for the lowest income bracket) like CH's coupled with intelligent medical tort reform and sweeping reform of the insurance industry to increase competition, also necessarily combined with a requirement for the currently illegal immigrants here to obtain insurance as part of their path to citizenship, would in the end be much more efficient than national health care. But, the insurance industry owns the republicans and the bar association owns the democrats, and it's a lot easier to sell the general public on "The government's gonna run it and it will be free" than a multifaceted approach, so...
    • KMye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3@Ibtz - Excellent observation on the WSJ acquisition; I hadn't thought of that but I'm sure it plays a part.

      You're also right that digg is special, and is collectively very well informed, but if you think the community here is more open-minded than the general populace, I think you might still be in your digg honeymoon period. :P
    • Zippo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4My head a s'plode.
    • Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3@lbts "What it does mean is that Fox may be changing its preconceptions about the world, and that Fox has finally decided to use its brains to make it through the day."

      What I meant is that Diggers may need to start changing their preconceptions about Fox.
    • indorock, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7It's elementary, really. Rupert M only have one thing on his mind: maximizing profit. He's not Red, he's not Blue, he's GREEN. And he wil go anywhere and do anything to stay as green as possible (by Green i of course mean money, not environment)

      For example, he was in talks with Chinese government to do business there. Now if he really held the true morals and values of a Neocon, he would rather die than do business with commies.

      He probably smells a win for the Dems in 2008, and wants to be on the winning (i.e., profitable) side. So he just might retool Fox News to be more liberal/libertairan. If this happens, then (thanks GOD) they will start getting rid of the majority of their hosts, like O'Reilly, Hannity, and the rest of the idiots.
      Imagine that..
    • toxicredm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1@Stiverton (#6787713)

      Bad reputation of what, being closer to the political middle than any other news network?
    • thwackitechnica, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hell hasn't frozen over quite yet; it's actually a clever ploy, because they know no self-respecting liberal can watch a film they promote.
    • audiowizard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ah sweeet, I can't wait to see it!
    • littlebylittle, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"new maturity?"

      I think they're trying to set the stage to stay in business.
  • butterpat, on 10/11/2007, -5/+105My goodness!! I've restarted my computer, checked for weird viruses, rubbed my eyes and still the article is there, and indeed, it is on Fox News.



    • zweben, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21I think someone snuck in to Fox headquarters and flipped their calendars to April 1st.
    • Razster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Well damn, I was about to do the same thing - but since you've already done that I guess something must be true? Or else I have the worst virus on my PC known to man that damn change what I digg.
    • spoiled1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5This just in, White House has announced that President Bush will go to front lines in Iraq to fight the bad guys, in another news Dick Cheney resigned from his post saying "I take the responsibility for the blunders in Iraq, and as a goodwill gesture donate all my assetts for all the fallen victims of this war."
  • canewediggit, on 10/11/2007, -4/+102dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!!!!!!!
  • iomegaboy, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11There's a difference between intentional, inflammatory "documentaries" and those attempting to convey the truth and reality of a situation.
    • kindrobot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yeah, I have always preferred unintentional ones myself.
  • mykos, on 10/11/2007, -40/+12They air American Dad and Family Guy; I don't know why their praise of a left-wing director should draw such amazement.

    The reason the extreme left wing started jumping on Fox had a lot to do with the fact that they were the first (only?) network to actually allow the right and left wings to coexist on a large scale, not just presenting a single side like all the others have for years. There are a couple of networks that have caught on to the idea, but none with the success that Fox has enjoyed.
    • KnightMareInc, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23clearly foxnews != fox network.Didnt the simpsons do an episode about that tonight?
    • Jimmerz, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17Give us a break. That's so far beyond the pale it isn't even funny. You are claiming Fox is the first or only network to be 'fair and balanced'? If anything fair and balanced is what the news used to be before corporate shills turned it into a for profit endeavor. Before rubes like you bought into treating the news like a sporting event. Before people started treating opinion as fact, and losing the ability to discern between the two.
    • masgrada, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Well, at least they still have this guy tricked. Lot less like him out there now a days.
    • chillin411, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8If a news network has to go out of their way to point out that they're "fair and balanced", there's a reason - and it's usually not a good one.
    • annonimality, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Fox News actually threatened to sue The Simpsons, another Fox Network show: http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271%7C84353%7C1%7C,00.html

      Here's a great quote from Matthew Groening: "We called their bluff because we didn't think [News Corp. CEO] Rupert Murdoch would pay for Fox to sue itself"
    • bubbadigg, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Yeah, but have you noticed that the liberal size seem like a bunch of idiots compared to the conservative side.... Oh nevermind, all liberals seem like a bunch of idiots... so I guess Fox is just fairly representing the liberal viewpoint.

      :-)
  • syxle, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Something fishy is going on here...
    • broodlinger, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2>Something fishy is going on here...

      Moore's story of the Columbine massacre did not include reports of helpers ferrying weapons to the school.

      His story of 9/11 did not include a lot of what you read about that incident on the web these days.

      And how did he go to Cuba, unmolested? I guess Michael Moore is "special" somehow.
  • emt41, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Holy *****
  • slave25637, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1WHA????
  • growlzor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+55Are we in some alternate universe? I hope chicks start digging tech support guys here!
    • titlesaysitall, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3No last I checked people were getting a clue and developing informed opinions. Alternative universe? No that won't be until 20.., crap, said too much.
    • wobitnobby, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12I married a programmer, is that close enough to IT? And the sex is magnificent!
  • TiMMY8765, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8TIME PARADOX OH SHI-
  • kLoWn420, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1This is *****. It's a minor scam. Good job, guys.
  • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -5/+44Fox News has always been liberally biased. I got into an argument with the garbage-man on my block, George Bush, about it.

    I saw an interview with Governor Coleman of California on the subject - very enlightening.

    Anyhow, I'm off to watch Dr. Paris Hilton get her Nobel prize. Later all.
  • NecroSexy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Disingenuous.
  • Yonson, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2In other news, there have been sightings in Chicago of pigs flying.
  • D3koy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Time for a quick head-snap followed by a spit-take then a long high pitched WHAAAA?

    Maybe even slap my hands to my cheeks, who knows....(like in Home Alone)
  • kestrel127, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Just more proof that Fox News is among the extreme right wing republican party.. wait what?
  • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2Michael Moore is the greatest thing to happen to George Bush and hte Republicanb PArty. Singlehandedly handed Bush the 2004 election.
    • Plinkotic, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2You're a ***** moron. Everything you post is insipid and trollish. Please kiss the business end of a Shotgun along with the other 27%.

      :D
    • laserdog, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3"Michael Moore ... singlehandedly handed Bush the 2004 election."

      2004, no. 2000 on the other hand...

      Michael Moore was doing rallies for Ralph Nader in 2000 (While backing Oprah and then Wesley Clark in 2004). And while I'm not going to invoke the minuscule FL vote margin here, I will address one statement repeated by both men during these rallies.

      That being, that "Al Gore" and "George Bush" were two sides of the same coin. That a vote for either resulted in the same thing, due to them both being beholden to corporations.

      I attended such a rally, and this idea resonated with me. But, in hindsight, this seems as huge a misstatement as "Iraq has WMDs"... While both were pretending to be moderates, it's clear that one of them was doing a whole lot more acting.

      So while I don't blame the few loyal Green Party ppl in FL for sticking to their guns. I do blame Nader and Moore for the propagation of the meme that our futures were identical regardless of whether we elected Bush or Gore, which undoubtedly kept more than enough idealistic democrats at home that day.
  • fiver22, on 10/11/2007, -6/+8Ugh..so Neo-Cons see the writing on the wall and they employ their favourite speaking-mouth to show that they are still viable..?..?..?
    Seriously, this is Fox News: two years ago they would fallen upon this doc. like they fell upon F911 -but now the US is turning against them so they let a Fox News story run that is mildly supportive of he film's message. Gimme a *****' break.
    These are the death throws of a corrupt gov't and ideology.
    • atb12688, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Why do you say that America is turning against Fox News? I see digg turned against Fox News a long time ago but thank god America and digg are very different...
      • oneiroi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thank god America and Fox News are backpedaling from the ridiculous conservative ideologies that clouded their heads after 9-11.

        Where have you been for the past year?
  • triscuitbiscuit, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15There is one point I have to raise in concern to Moore's views- Canada.
    After studying Canadian politics, the main consensus that I saw concerning Canada's healthcare system (and nonetheless a first world country) is that it is a complete and utter mess. Canadians are being forced to come to America to have operations that we take for granted. One of the roots of this is outdated equipment. The governmental healthcare system simply does not allow Canadian practitioners to have the most up to date equipment. In this day and age that is really uncalled for. The second and most important root is that it takes so long for Canadians to receive care. Have a suspicious looking lump on your body? Well it will take 6 months or maybe even a year to take a look at that. When cancer is metasticizing that is a long long time for a patient to have to wait.
    While there may be first-world countries that have government sponsored healthcare that allows everyone to receive it, it is far from the best system out there. If a social healthcare system was to be implemented there would need to be many many many improvements. Canada has tons of problems with its system and we are 9 times its size.
    • gonzoblair, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Yup, here's another Canadian echoing that sentiment:


      "But he may feel like applying a couple (bandages) to himself after the mauling he received yesterday from several Canadian journalists – present company included – following the film's first viewing at the Cannes Film Festival."

      "We Canucks were taking issue with the large liberties Sicko takes with the facts, with its lavish praise for Canada's government-funded medicare system compared with America's for-profit alternative.

      While justifiably demonstrating the evils of an American system where dollars are the major determinant of the quality of medicare care a person receives, and where restoring a severed finger could cost an American $60,000 compared to nothing at all for a Canadian, Sicko makes it seem as if Canada's socialized medicine is flawless and that Canadians are satisfied with the status quo."

      "Sicko, to be released in North America on June 29, is by turns enlightening and manipulative, humorous and maudlin. It makes many valid and urgent points about the crisis of U.S. health care, but they are blunted by Moore's habit of playing fast and loose with the facts. Whether it's a case of the end justifying the means will ultimately be for individual viewers to decide."
      http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/215801
    • Jimmerz, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6Alright. I'll play along. Canada does not get the ultimate everything in terms of care. But everyone gets SOME care before a condition reaches the state that a trip to the emergency room is necessary. I would wager you save a lot of money via preventive care, should people take advantage of your system.

      Not saying your system is a shambles, or ours is. Wait. Yes. Ours is, unless you are rich.

      There must be a middle-ground here that would work for the greater good. Something that allows for basic care before it becomes an expensive crisis. And yet something that allows for a reasonable level of sophistication, a healthy environment for R&D. You frozen Northerners may not have it, but we are even further away from that balance.
    • bobbarkerbilly, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5I'll still take having Canadian health care over the US health care, considering some coverage is better than no coverage.
    • ArtificialAnus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@triscuitbiscuit
      >main consensus that I saw concerning Canada's healthcare system ... is
      >that it is a complete and utter mess

      In truth, it is a bit under-funded right now due to cost-cutting by previous governments (and hell - probably the current one - I've not been paying attention) and is severely in need of a money injection. Still cheaper per capita than the american system , though.

      "Canadians pay $2,163 per capita versus $4,887 U.S. in 2001 [...] According to Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle, Canadians do better by every health care measure."
      Source:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Funding_of_universal_health_care_systems

      >While there may be first-world countries that have government sponsored healthcare
      > that allows everyone to receive it

      There are in fact quite a few. Canada is just one of many. For example, Australia has a very good public-health system in my opinion (and my experience with it).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care#Countries_with_universal_health_care

      And by the way, mexico is attempting to implement universal health care. Just thought I'd put that out there.

      AA
    • wing05, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4"After studying Canadian politics, the main consensus that I saw concerning Canada's healthcare system (and nonetheless a first world country) is that it is a complete and utter mess."

      Lemme guess, you read a pamphlet published by the (conservative biased, pro big business) Fraser Institute?

      Geez Louise, I feel like the guy who's pesky neighbour is leaning over the fence to remind me that I've got weeds growing in my garden or that there's a brown spot in my lawn while his yard is more like a swamp.

      "Canadians are being forced to come to America to have operations that we take for granted. One of the roots of this is outdated equipment. The governmental healthcare system simply does not allow Canadian practitioners to have the most up to date equipment. In this day and age that is really uncalled for."

      Outdated equipment... Bureaucracy and politics more often than not to blame here. That's what happens when you've got folks with a job gauranteed for life (unions and governments) running things.

      But let's see... what kind of operations can we take for granted...

      -Apendectomy - I know 2 people within the last 5 years who either went to their doctor or showed up at emerg and had the process done within a 3-5 days.
      -Bypass surgery - My FiL showed up at his doctor's mentioning that he had numbness on one side of his body a week prior. The doctor sent him for a stress test within a week. They hospitalized him immediately after the test and he got a quad bypass within days..... he was anesthetized and got bumped once in favour of a transplant patient.
      -Sprains and broken bones - My wife in '06 had a bad sprain. Went to emerg and was there for 8 hours before getting x-rayed and splinted up. Another guy in the waiting room who was lifting and had something fall on his hand causing the skin to break and bone to be exposed was there for 14 hours.

      OTOH, an actor friend of mine whom I worked with at the CN Tower during my school years went on to move down to Chicago where he held stage fighting workshops. One aspiring actor tripped and thought she bruised her foot. Waited days for the swelling to go down which never did. My buddy was insistent on taking her to the hospital and she was afraid to because of what her insurance company would do to her.

      "The second and most important root is that it takes so long for Canadians to receive care. Have a suspicious looking lump on your body? Well it will take 6 months or maybe even a year to take a look at that. When cancer is metasticizing that is a long long time for a patient to have to wait."

      Much like urban legends, that statement is general and not referenced.

      6 months to a year to have a suspicious lump looked at as a general rule of thumb for timelines? I'd suspect a small percentage especially in certain parts of the country. But certainly not everywhere. And attention does get paid to it when attention is called to it. Again, what is your source?

      Putting things off and denying, sure perhaps it could be six months before a person goes to see their doctor, if at all.... But that isn't the system keeping people down.

      "While there may be first-world countries that have government sponsored healthcare that allows everyone to receive it, it is far from the best system out there. If a social healthcare system was to be implemented there would need to be many many many improvements. Canada has tons of problems with its system and we are 9 times its size."

      I keep reading about how 30% of US-ians don't have health insurance and go without. I'd suspect that most of those wait time stats don't seem to account for a coroner's report that people who have no health insurance die could be considered to have a wait time of infinity.

      Yes, our system isn't perfect. But people aren't dieing because they couldn't afford a tetanus shot or are too afraid of their insurance company dropping them for too many visits to a health care provider.

      I'll take our system where everyone does get treated over a system where a moderate majority of the population gets treatment and where all are likely afraid that a bean counter could cut the money flow off at any time.




    • g30ff, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4As a Canadian, I think I can fairly say that two of our favourite national passtimes are (1) patting ourselves on the back for our public health care system and (2) pissing and moaning about how our public health care system could be better (after hockey--go sens--and beer drinking--had a few, pardon my spelling). I haven't dug you down or anything, but I think you're being led astray by our tendency to complain about how things could be better. If it came down to a referendum between keeping our system, warts and all, and adopting an American style health care system, I seriously doubt that support for the latter option would get out of the single digits. Support for a public system even cuts across party lines here--most of the conservatives I know favour increased public spending on health care. And let me tell you it is a rare issue that unites Canadians as much as this one does. There are some legitimate problems, but I suspect that they have a lot to do with the peculiarities of the way responsibility for health care is shared between the provinces and the federal government (each pointing fingers at the other when it comes time to get things done) and rather less to do with the issues that opponents of public health care like to cite (e.g. 'private sector efficiency', etc.). Our complaints arise out of the discrepancy between what we do see and what we would like to see in our system, not generally from comparing it to the US system. Moore might see our system through rose tinted lenses (frankly, I think it's kinda nice) and run afoul of a couple journalists and whiners for it, but I think that his analysis is appropriate for the kind of issue that he is trying to address, and those of us who criticize him for it are missing the bloody point. Canada's health care system is nowhere near as bad as you've made out and there are lots of other models for public health care. If the US ever decides to go that route, and since I wish you nothing but the best I hope you do, you'll learn from our mistakes and come up with a uniquely American solution that avoids most of them (and in the process make completely novel mistakes of your own, but hey, that's life). Years later I can guarantee you that you'll still have complaints, but one thing I'm pretty sure of is that for all those complaints there will be very few among you who would want to trade in what you have for the old way of doing things.
    • canadianbaking, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3According to the World Health Organization, Canada's health care system ranks 30th in the world, while the USA's ranks 37th. As a Canadian, I'd advise you to emulate France's health care model rather than ours (a point Mr. Moore makes in his film).

      GO SENS!
  • pagancollective, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The movie also discusses how the health care in Guantanamo Bay is better than what the 9/11 victims received. That might be the reason why Fox News isn't blasting this.

    After reading some of the prisoners' memoirs I can't see how, but I'm still interested in seeing the movie.
  • jcm267, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Just because some guy named Roger Friedman who reviews movies for Fox gave it a positive review doesn't mean that Fox is pro Michael Moore. Fox is, after all, pro-America and anti-communist.
  • tendonut, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0"and had it shipped it to France immediately" haha, crazy typos...
  • greeseless, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I’ll throw this out. Fox is doing the lefty walk so those who don’t want to see them buy Dow Jones can’t say the WSJ will become a tool of the right.
  • FriedTurkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5In reality, the corporations wouldn't mind health care being a top issue. They can repeat what they did with pharmaceuticals bill. The Republicans did help some seniors with lower cost drugs but it really was designed as huge payouts to pharmaceutical companies. The health care industry is probably eying the same kind of legislation.
    • danarama, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1really how would the drug companies gain from 'the war on terror'?
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Well, the drug companies could work with the US Government to invade more countries and force them to adopt US-style medicine systems and drug prices.

      3. profit.
    • TheSak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Some Congressman could claim a bioterrorism threat and write a bill to spend a billion dollars on a drug that is manufactured by a company he owns.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Yeah, like how the US government had to buy a lot of Cipro right before the patent expired in 2003.
  • taxali, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Unlike many of his previous films ("Roger and Me," "Bowling for Columbine," "Fahrenheit 9-11"), "Sicko" works because in this one there are no confrontations.

    Translation: Moore sucks. All his works prior to this one have sucked. This one is watchable only because he's not in it most of the time.
  • danarama, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1micheal moores films are smart and relevant whatever your bottom line opinion of him is.... but most of all they are profitable. fox changing their attitude is just a way of moving in on his terratory in an unexpected way and at the same time to swing popular opinion back in their court. nothing wrong with appeasing a popular enemy to gain votes ... they are what they are.
  • kindrobot, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1They'll believe anything over there at fox. What's next, will they start saying they believe in the Heliocentric Theory??
  • AmusedToDeath, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Fox News is in the business of getting the most eyeballs to watch the commercials played between its broadcasts. Period.

    The same is true of all television programming, news or otherwise, with the possible exception of PBS. They skew their broadcasts to what they think will garner them the most viewers. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative. It's not about ideology for these guys. They don't care about truth. Its about money. Let me say that again. IT'S ABOUT MONEY.

    After 9/11, the American Zeitgeist shifted towards the right. Fox News picked up on that and wisely catered to it. Now that the War is going badly, and the administration seems to be going down in flames, public opinion is moving in the other direction. Guess what - Fox News will move with it.

    Television - including television news - is a whore. The sooner you learn that, the smarter you'll be.
    • TheSak, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Don't forget that they must also serve the political interests of their advertisers, as all privately-owned media must do.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
    • hotsake, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't even own a TV, which some people find incredulous. I get all the news and entertainment I could desire from my series of tubes.
  • defektiv, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3someone at faux is getting fired over this. there has got to be ulterior motive.. i kept looking for signs of satyr on the site. or does this mean they and the administration have started to sleep on different beds? o_O

    and to the above.. learn, np.. accept, no way.
    • laserblazer, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Signs of satyr? That would be hoof-prints and ravaged damsels.

      Satire. The word you wanted was satire.
  • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4this is a great trend for people who haven't caught on that fox news is *****, but to me it looks like fox is trying to make itself look less stupid and insane than they've been the whole time i've known about them.
  • thrallie, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6Sorry, Moore is full of *****. You cant trust government to take care of your body. Public healthcare, next step government feeding us. Private companies have an incentive to give you good care: money. Government has none, and money is better than none.
    • Rodman930, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4They also have a good incentive to not give you any care: Lack of money.
    • danarama, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3somewhere along the line someone is making a distinktion between big corporations and government...basic error
    • azzageddi, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6For the past 12 years, I've been living in a country that has national health care, and buddy, it's great. Not perfect, mind you, but among the reasons that Japan has the highest longevity in the world, cheap and easy access to health care is probably at the top. (Good eating habits and plenty of walking and biking are way up there too.)

      Back home in America, my mom is suffering all sorts of health problems as she ages, and since her retirement package went poof, she's in big trouble. She's in a crappy HMO that costs as much as I pay for national health insurance here, yet her visits to the doctor, her meds, and her surgery all cost WAY more than in Japan.

      One of the main reasons I hesitate to move my wife and kids back to America is the lack of good national health care. Man, it is just STUPID that we still don't have it. As a nation, we Americans should be ashamed. National health care is never perfect, but it's far, far better than the insane system we have now, that only benefits insurance companies, pharmacies, and overpaid doctors. And why we don't have it yet? Ignorance-based scare tactics likes yours, thrallie. That and the buckets of money paid to our representatives to spout the same BS you are writing.
  • DarkReign16, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3First Rosie defends Ron Paul, then Falwell dies, and now this! Maybe miracles DO happen! On second thought, no, miracles do not happen, but this is kick ass. And to top it all off, those "In soviet russia..." guys are pretty much screwed.
  • mutatron, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6"But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity."

    Moore used to do that, back when he had a tv show. I remember one segment he did about the maquiladoras workers on the Mexican side of the border with El Paso (I think). He just let the corporate reps do the talking, and they dug their own grave. He rode around with this spokeswoman in Lincoln Contintental (pre-SUV days), they were driving past the squalor where the maquiladorenos lived, and the lady was explaining how it wasn't bad to pay them a 50 cents an hour, because... "Just look, they really don't need that much money like we do. They don't have any mortages, no car payments, no electricity bills, no sanitation bills. Fifty cents an hour for them is plenty!"
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4The first season of TV Nation was excellent. It kind of tailed off after that.
    • azzageddi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2For years, I've been saying Moore needs to go back to his TV Nation days--that's when he was getting it right. Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 911 were both too sensationalistic, too much of Moore-as-Hero-of-the-Little-Guy--too much of him in front of the camera instead of behind it. Same for most segments of the The Awful Truth, although some of them were great. He's a damn good documentarian when he dials it back a bit and resists the urge to play the liberal Limbaugh.
    • HappyScrappy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I agree. Early TV Nation was sort of like the Daily Show.

      They used humor to expose wrongs. There was more investigation and less grandstanding and making confrontations.

      Basically, he went from raising awareness to trying to push issues.

      He did switch back some later, but I still dunno if he'd make the level of what he did by trying to get auto execs to service a car or dealing with the cigarette CEOs.
  • robshoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Good god... really?
  • rwinograd, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Unfortunately Michael Moore is a psycho.
  • joemono, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4(insert party-stopping record scratch sound effect here)
  • esoterroriffik, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If I remember right I think Michael Moore's TV Nation was on the Fox Network back in the early-mid 90s. Of course this is long before the FOX News Channels Days- when FOX was actually liberally showed shows like Simpsons, Married With Children, Arsenio Hall, Martin, In Living Color, and who can forget the critically acclaimed Chevy Chase Show.
    • azzageddi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Um, Fox still shows The Simpsons. And plenty of other shows that could be labeled liberal--at least, I'm pretty sure the religious right considers the Paris Hilton crap to be "liberal" (the rest of us just call it "stupid"). True, they also show 24, which is about as right-wing as you can get--and yet, I still love it. Anyway, Fox saves its ideological propogandizing for its News arm--the entertainment shows are "anything that sells."

      I still hate them for canceling Firefly, though.
  • kineticarl, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1So it's a nonpartisan film about how the American healthercare system sucks. Looks like it's done well. Why should Fox News care if it's made by Michael Moore or not if he happened to do a good job? Why are so many diggers so shocked? I don't understand the controversy.
  • RedShirtNumber2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I think what is going on with FOX news is that they are setting the stage for the Republican Party to be able to abandon a lot of their talking points over the last 12 years. The Republicans have been hanging on to rhetoric from the 80's and 90's about the culture war, small government, etc... The world has changed. A lot more people are worried about issues like Healthcare and global warming than they were 12 years ago. Issues that the government will likely have to address. Candidates who address those issues, or at least pay lip service to them, are winning elections and doing better in the polls. The Republican leaders know they have to start addressing these issues but they can't just drop 12 years of talking points and opposition to addressing these isssues with out losing even more credibiltiy than they already have. So I think the right wing media, starting with Fox, and proably even the talk radio people, will start to talk about these issues and be less dismissive about them because they know they matter to today's voters. This will give the Republicans an opportunity to adopt new talking points and adjust their agenda to what the voters want.
  • Vaynard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Wow, these are words I had sworn I would never say, but... I think I want to see that Michael Moore movie. Roger and Me was actually kind of entertaining (not sure how much of it to question though), but Bowling for Columbine was a horrible excuse for a documentary that used splicing and lies to paint an inaccurate and misleading picture. Never did want to see Fahrenheit 911. But this sounds like it could redeem him a little. I suppose we'll see.

    Health care is an issue in the US, and we need some sort of a fix for it. I am somewhat interested to hear if he has any ideas or if it is all just complaints.
  • atb12688, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2And when I said that it was great that digg and America aren't the same thing, I was not implying that I like Fox News. I was implying that diggers have turned against Fox News, not America and that its great that digg and America are not the same thing. The two ideas are separate...
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Global Warming = Global Tax
    • UpBeforeSunrise, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0SERIOUSLY? you guys dont get it?
  • smek2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I am feeling a disturbance in the space-time continuum. Fox News praises Michael Moore???
  • ajgv, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3hmmm... maybe something to do with the fact that the average fox news viewer is, what was it, like 75 or something?
  • mannyv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well actually, most business owners in the US would agree that the healthcare system is screwed up; they're the ones footing the bill, for the most part.

    What's lacking is a consensus about what to do about it and more importantly, how to finance it. Massachussets is trying an interesting experiment in health insurance, as is another state (forgot which one).

    The real issue for conservatives is how do you provide universal health care without the government being stuck with the bill? The government has shown that it can't effectively keep track of its money (see Iraq's reconstruction and the various medicare/medicaid fraud stores), so how is it going to effectively manage a healthcare system?

    The answer, of course, is that it can't effectively manage a healthcare system. The VA system is pretty pathetic, and it's actually motivated to do a good job. A nationally administered program will be the epitome of incompetence.

    But without that, then what do you have? Well, what the US has today.
    • mingdamerciless, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1And Massachusetts is already having problems with "unanticipated" costs. Whenever the government operates a program, it always costs more and gives substandard service and usually involves rationing. When will people ever learn? As Milton Friedman asked, where would you rather eat, at a restaurant or a school cafeteria?
  • codmate, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5We don't know how lucky we are to have the NHS over here in Britain.

    Free national heathcare for all is the hallmark of a progressive and civilised society though, so I wouldn't expect Americans to understand...
    • oblongmouth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Its a pity the NHS is in dire straits though :(
  • oblongmouth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Digg for Aidenag (submitter) for linking to the printer friendly version, missing out on all the crappy adverts and suchlike.
  • sneakywombat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+41. medical treatment cannot be refused, even without insurance. see EMTALA (http://www.emtala.com/faq.htm)
    2. private systems work better that nationalized systems. I wish I had the time to look this one up, but from personal experience, I can say this is true.
    3. there is no free lunch - you pay for healthcare one way or the other - taxes or in a monthly statement.

    I have spent hundreds of hours in emergency departments across the United States, Canada and the UK. Wait times for patients with say, broken arms are 3 to 4 times longer than in the US. Elective surgery is practically non-existent - the waiting list is often well over a year, sometimes much longer. Digg me down if you like, but please only do so if you have personally witnessed these systems.

    I'd love "free" healthcare just as much as the next guy, but the "price" for it is too great in the end. Let's leave the overcrowded emergency departments, understaffed hospitals (also a struggle in the US, but not nearly as bad as it is in nationalized systems) and long wait lines to the rest of the world. I for one am willing to "pay" for my insurance.

    Nothing in life is free
    • hotspot102, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0sneaky wombat, is very much correct. However dont you think a two tiered system would be the most appropriate, so that the people of the united states can have the benefits of both systems. Just as America became a mixed economy, with the introduction of Roosevelt's new deal. Reap the benefits without its ills.

      This is the current direction we are heading in Canada, as policy makers are trying to make the system more efficient, meaning still offering the same great care just in shorter amount of time. They figure by introducing private (pay for care) clinics those who are more fortunate and would like there care faster, can pay for it, therefor eliminating another patient from the public system, virtually 'killing two birds with one stone' for lack of a better analogy.

    • Yazilliclick, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I've experienced the canadian system since I'm canadian. Several times in fact. This ***** about huge wait times is ridiculous. If you have serious problems that need attention the system tends to be VERY good at getting you the help you need it when you need it. I've gone in several times needing stiches for cuts which were either done practically immediatly or were at least immediatly bandaged up properly and examined while I waited. I've also had minor surgery twice with no horrendous wait times or anything like that, and it was minor.

      This misinformation about these huge wait times comes from people with non-lifethreatening issues, elective surgeries or other non-critical treatment. Why is this? Because the system places more emphasis on caring for the patient and thus people with more critical problems get treated first. Heck my mother is a nurse in the emergency room so I have a pretty darn good idea how it works. Perhaps you don't see this so much in the states where more emphasis is placed on the profit.

      If you amercans would like to continue to reject other systems because their not the american way and ignore the fact that so many other countries have better ranking health care than yourselves, live longer, live healthier etc... than fine by me. I don't live there and never will. But at least please stop regurjitating the BS your corrupt system feeds you to the rest of us.
  • dumuzi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1it's a trick, get an axe!
  • xxiao, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3maybe foxnews is dumping Bush so that they still can have some influence for post-2008 era?
    • antoniojvr, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Or maybe you are just a paranoid idiot.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.