Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Entertainment Your Rights Online

Michael Moore's New Film Leaked To BitTorrent 1088

Posted by kdawson
from the blame-canada dept.
Jared writes "Michael Moore was afraid the Feds might sieze his new documentary Sicko, a scathing indictment of the US health-care system, because part of it was filmed in Cuba despite the US embargo. So he stashed a copy of the film in Canada just to be safe. He might as well not have bothered — the film has shown up on BitTorrent and P2P networks everywhere. So it's safe now."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michael Moore's New Film Leaked To BitTorrent

Comments Filter:
  • Uh Oh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shirai (42309) on Monday June 18, 2007 @02:42AM (#19547495) Homepage
    Whether you like him or not, believe what he says or not, you have to agree that Michael Moore is influential.

    If you are for P2P, I'm not sure if this is the guy you would want on the other side of the debate.
    • Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Scoria (264473) <slashmail@@@initialized...org> on Monday June 18, 2007 @02:45AM (#19547515) Homepage
      Moore isn't on the other side of the P2P debate. He has stated several times that he would rather someone pirate his work than not see it at all. The studios, on the other hand, might be totally different animals!
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417)
        He needn't be against P2P. His studio will do that dirty work for him.

        That's the same as with oh-so-many "artists" who rant away how they would rather see their songs pirated than not heard. It does not matter jack whether they say they would, as long as their studios keep hunting down copiers, they can say whatever they like, it does not matter. They can easily say what they want, they have no say in the question whether copying is persecuted or not.
    • Re:Uh Oh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stox (131684) on Monday June 18, 2007 @02:48AM (#19547531) Homepage
      He achieves the top objectives of a film maker, to get the audience to think about the topic and discuss it. Whether it is right or wrong is optional.
      • If cuba is so bad, and Fidel is so evil and they want him dead (isnt that against the law somewhere?)

        Why is Bush so chummy with a bad ass MOFO ex KGB guy like Putin that wants the old soviet russia back.

        If Putin is so pro west (ie sanity vs insanity) then he would have made the KGB not so evil.

        He is nothing more than a global school bully with nukes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by tinkertim (918832) *

      Whether you like him or not, believe what he says or not, you have to agree that Michael Moore > is influential.

      If you are for P2P, I'm not sure if this is the guy you would want on the other side of the
      debate.

      I can be certain that he needs his films to make enough money to fund making more films. I'm sure he also wants to eat, I'm sure enough pepople will purchase this movie as a symbolic gesture that he doesn't get too upset.

      If he got upset prior to actually knowing if this really hurt his wallet, well

    • MM is a troll (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Moraelin (679338) on Monday June 18, 2007 @05:43AM (#19548391) Journal
      Look, I'm actually more to the left than he is, as usually is the case in Europe. What by US standards counts as "conservative" and "liberal", in most of continental Europe would pass for "ultra-conservative" and "conservative". Yeah, we're a bunch of commie mutant traitors like that ;)

      I even agree with some of his points. Well, dunno about this particular movie, but I ended up buying a couple of his books because the back cover said they were "hilarious." (Ooer. Americans must be quite a cheerful and fun loving folk, if even that kind of bitter whine counts as "hilarious".)

      That said, his endless "auugh, the government is out to get me" is starting to look stupid already, for a start. Look, if the government wanted to silence him, he'd be silent already. If America was the kind of fascist oligarchy that he always describes, he probably wouldn't even be alive at this point, or at least someone would have framed him for something already and sent him to a maximum security jail.

      This is just yet another such publicity stunt, for conspiracy theorists. How about waiting until the government actually does something about it, before "leaking" the movie? Or if he wants to distribute it via P2P, fine, that's a mighty fine way to distribute your works, really. But it's just a choice of distribution, not some great act of resistance against fascism.

      Hyperbole (like metaphors, similes, and everything else) is like a condiment in food. If half your dish is salt or pepper, you probably overdid it. Same here. Not only it makes his bitter whine sound even more bitter, it doesn't even serve his purposes that well, since you never know what's a genuine assessment and what's another of his over-the-top hyperboles. It's like the boy who cried wolf: by the time you've described something as a totalitarian plot for the 1000'th time, noone (sane) takes it seriously any more.

      Such ego-stroking stunts are just that kind of bad hyperbole. Yes, probably some people above would dislike his point, but some might even agree with him. Either way, he's _not_ going to end up with the Gestapo on his doorstep and with the SS burning his movies and book, either.

      More importantly, there are always two sides to each issues. There's rarely a free meal: to get X you give up some Y, or viceversa. And neither extreme is an utopia, so you have to figure out your own least crappy compromise among all possible crappy compromises. Which is why there's a political debate and more than one party and platform. One thinks that it's totally worth giving up X to get more Y, one thinks the opposite, one thinks the balance is good enough as it is, one wants to give up both X and Y to gain Z, and yet another one runs around with pencils up its nose and thinks it's an airplane.

      The reason why the government does X instead of Y, may not always be the best, may not always even be honest, but aren't always "let's oppress someone for the fun of it either" either. Whether it's about health care or letting the Bin Laden family fly away after 9/11, there are real issues ranging from costs to international relations to ideology behind those choices. And by ideology I mean "what we think is best for the economy", not just "let's be neo-conservative because the conspiracy told us to". Those ideas might well be wrong (everyone can't be right at the same time, or you wouldn't need more than one party), but painting one side with the broad brush of "auugh, they're all bought by their industrialist friends and trying to silence me" is just an ad-hominem.

      Stances basically saying "my version is by definition perfect, and everyone else is a fascist peddling crooked crap solutions" aren't really doing anyone any good.

      Or at least I hope it's hyperbole, because otherwise he'd have to be paranoid schizophrenic to actually believe all that. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. It's probably hyperbole.
      • by xappax (876447) on Monday June 18, 2007 @11:18AM (#19551107)
        Hyperbole (like metaphors, similes, and everything else) is like a condiment in food. If half your dish is salt or pepper, you probably overdid it.

        If America was the kind of fascist oligarchy that he always describes

        I don't think Moore ever called America a "facist oligarchy" - that must be your exaggerated representation of his perspective. A little hyperbolic, don't you think?

        by the time you've described something as a totalitarian plot for the 1000'th time

        1000 times? Really? Did you count them? Surely that's a bit of an exaggeration.

        he's _not_ going to end up with the Gestapo on his doorstep and with the SS burning his movies and book, either.

        Again, I can't recall Moore expressing any concern about the Gestapo or the SS doing these things. Perhaps you just brought up Nazis and book-burning as a sort of over-the-top caricature of the concerns Moore does express?

        Stances basically saying "my version is by definition perfect, and everyone else is a fascist peddling crooked crap solutions" aren't really doing anyone any good.

        I was worried that your interpretation of Moore's message is a bit extreme, and possibly borders on what's called "putting words in his mouth" (after all, he never said that, and you'd have to stretch quite a bit to interpret anything he has said into such a statement)...

        But seeing how strongly you oppose hyperbole and exaggeration, I can see you'd never resort to such tactics.
  • by dn15 (735502) on Monday June 18, 2007 @02:43AM (#19547499)
    To paraphrase a certain someone.... "Real men don't stash copies of their possibly illegal movies in other countries. They leak them to BitTorrent and let the world mirror them." -Michael Moore
  • Those evil cubans! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Goalie_Ca (584234) on Monday June 18, 2007 @02:45AM (#19547513)
    Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the bans on cuba. There are much nastier places that people are allowed to deal with. I always get a kick living in vancouver because anywhere there might be american tourists, there is usually a big sign saying "cuban cigars".
    • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Monday June 18, 2007 @03:09AM (#19547635) Homepage Journal
      Can someone explain to me the reasoning behind the bans on cuba.

      No, noone can. There is no reasoning behind the bans on Cuba. It's purely emotional.
      • by value_added (719364) on Monday June 18, 2007 @04:33AM (#19548071)
        No, noone can. There is no reasoning behind the bans on Cuba.

        I'll take a shot. Voters in Florida.

        It's purely emotional.

        Might depend on whether you're the one voting, or the one up for re-election.

        Personally, I think Cubans (the ones in Florida) should just "get over it". Easy to say not having ever been in their shoes, but then, again, they were never in Castro's shoes (boots) either.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bladesjester (774793)
      The bans came about because of Cuba's dealings with the Soviet Union.

      It was sort of an extension of the Monroe Doctrine, trying to prevent a European power from establishing control in the region. In this case, they especially didn't want a *communist* power to establish itself.

      To that end, they built Cuba into a boogey man of a magnitude that, even after the threat was gone, the public would have reacted badly to resuming trade relations. Now it's just kind of a political convention in the United States
    • by Tatarize (682683) on Monday June 18, 2007 @03:42AM (#19547829) Homepage
      You see, the Cubans stole our casinos and overthrew our puppet government. Then they didn't let us take them back over. Fricking commies!
    • by daBass (56811) on Monday June 18, 2007 @04:57AM (#19548201)
      Florida is a "swing state" with many cuban voters. They left cuba for a reason and that reason is that they hate Castro. So much so that they would rather see the family and friends they left behind live in poverty than give any legitimacy to Cuba by trading with them. So any party that would get rid of the idiotic embargo (China is a preferred trade partner for crying out loud!) loses the Cuban vote in Florida and thus lose any election.

      THAT is why the embargo is still in place.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18, 2007 @02:48AM (#19547527)
    Remember that the most important thing about Michael Moore isn't that he's fighting to change the health care system, it isn't that he's tried to open America's eyes about the severe gun violence problem, it isn't that he's tried to do his bit to stop George W Bush's war in Iraq, it isn't that he's tried to get capitalism to actually fulfill the promises of helping all citizens and not just the richest, it isn't any of those things. None of those things are important.

    The most important thing is that he's fat and his voice is a little whiny. If you can't see that and channel your rage accordingly, I feel sorry for you dirty hippies.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Doctor_Jest (688315) *
      He cherry-picks information, manipulates and molds the facts to point rather unceremoniously to a conclusion he wants you to come to (rather than showing the facts and letting the public decide)... Not unlike other documentary filmmakers, but still....

      He is not the voice of reason... he is the voice of another opinion. Nothing wrong with that, but his tactics are not to provide information, insight, or raw un-spun feeds of a particular problem, but to provide you with his opinion on the matter. If you ag
      • Re:Remember, guys (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SendBot (29932) on Monday June 18, 2007 @04:38AM (#19548109) Homepage Journal
        he's dangerously skirting the outer edges of propaganda

        I don't really know what other people, or teh internets, have to say specifically about this, but I am under the impression that this is a propaganda piece. That's part of what I'm interested in seeing. I do boring research on this crap all the time, but I want someone to produce something like this I can watch and go 'OOOooo, that's interesting!" while comfortably not forming a whole belief system around it.

        What's the worst that could happen, people try to academically challenge his info? The US healthcare system sucks, and someone needs to shake up a lively discussion of how it can be fixed. I have a lot of ideas, and I'd be curious to see if any of them are suggested in the film.
      • Re:Remember, guys (Score:5, Insightful)

        by misanthrope101 (253915) on Monday June 18, 2007 @05:23AM (#19548297)
        I've only watched the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie, so I'm not a Moore expert. But he didn't just give me "his opinion." He didn't just stand there and say "I'm a liberal who hates Bush. I'm smart, so believe me." He gave evidence, linked to sources in the mainstream media, government reports, interviews, and other verifiable sources. He pointed out stuff that looked fishy as hell, that anyone using just their common sense, rather than their political loyalties, would want to think about a bit. Everyone who wants to discredit him says "he's biased!" as if there is any sentient mammal who isn't biased. Pointing out something that is true of all humans doesn't refute any argument.

        If Bush's businesses were funded by the Saudis, that may matter. If prominent Saudis (related to Bin Laden, no less) were flown out of the country without being interviewed by the FBI when the rest of the non-military planes were grounded, that may matter. If the Saudi ambassador is so close to the Bushes that he has a pet name and is considered a close personal friend, that may matter. If Cheney still owns stock in Haliburton and stands to make money off of it when he steps out of office, that may matter.

        I've seen concerted efforts to discredit Moore, and they always hinge on a different interpretation of the facts, not catching him in an outright falsehood. The facts he puts on the table need to be on the table, and Fox sure as hell isn't going to put them there. If his facts are correct and the facts indicate that something was awry, then we needed to look at that. We chose not to. We allowed cries of "he's biased!" to trump the question of "are his facts correct and what conclusion do they lead to?" Even if smoking guns can't be found, there were a lot of things brought to light by his movie that looked fishy as hell.

        If you want to see bias, look at an Ann Coulter book. At least Moore's references check out.

  • by Attaturk (695988) on Monday June 18, 2007 @02:49AM (#19547547) Homepage
    Whatever you make of MM, the point he makes in this movie is both a profound and necessary wake-up call. It's the kind of movie you don't even need to have an open mind to appreciate. If you're still dubious about state-funded healthcare then this should open your mind for you.
  • by siddesu (698447) on Monday June 18, 2007 @02:57AM (#19547583)
    here are two takes on it, one interesting, and the other bordering on the ridiculous. first, apparently michael moore himself approves of people sharing. he was quoted to have said that:

    "I make these books and movies and TV shows because I want things to change, so the more people that get to see them the better, so I'm happy when that happens. I think information and art, ideas should be shared."

    So far so good, hats off to the guy for the message.

    Now, onto part two. The funny thing is that there are some people in the so-called "blogosphere" (who seem to disagree with Moore), who have posted the movie for download, pasted a ton of ads on their website, and then gone to write something like so:

    "Now I fully expect [...] Moore's people asking me to take this down. Which I will, because unlike Moore and most liberals I actually do respect things like copyright laws and property rights. "

    Ain't that sweet, and ain't people on the internet nice -- you rip someone off while saying you "respect" copyright, you're making money off ads on it, and you have the audacity to say the movie is all bulshit. Cheers for the copyright 'lovers' on teh internet, really.
  • by clang_jangle (975789) on Monday June 18, 2007 @03:02AM (#19547599) Journal
    ...and Michael Moore is one of the few people with enough influence who has the sense to keep harping on it. I just saw Sicko (via bittorrent) and it was very good.

    Of course as a nation we really are insane; most people still don't see the problem with putting the richest corporations in charge of absolutely everything and calling it "freedom".
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 18, 2007 @03:30AM (#19547757)
      Insanity has nothing to do with it.

      We are stuck with a significant portion of the population, Red states, that when given this choice:

      1) Bring universal health care up to the levels other developed countries in the world enjoy

      2) Leave the US health care system in the mess it currently is and not have to admit the free market is a failure in the area of health care

      Will eagerly go for option 2)

      If someone's grandmother needs to die in order to avoid admitting something so fundamental to right wing dogma in the US is broken, so be it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by heretic108 (454817)
      I concur with that. I saw it last night. SiCKO is a powerful documentary, in a style much matured from his earlier works.
      If it isn't nominated for an Oscar, I'd be surprised - even given his rant^H^H^H^Hacceptance speech for his Bowling For Columbine oscar.

      What's especially powerful is how the film touches on the psychological effects of health insecurity - a much more docile and unprovokable population, easier to keep in their place.

      It was especially sickening to see how the health insurance companies rega
  • by r00t (33219) on Monday June 18, 2007 @03:11AM (#19547649) Journal
    Where care is mandated or the patient can't shop for a good price, government funding might make sense. You're not in a position to discuss alternatives if you have a cracked skull and bleeding brain. Other than that though...


    Our problems do not come from a "failure" to socialize medicine. When I was up in Canada, the news was that brain scanners were mostly going to places with powerful politicians. Quebec got an unfair share. Money was disappearing for political reasons. Over in the UK, people are being sent to France for surgery because they'd die on the waiting lists if they didn't go. Here in the USA we install brain scanners (lots of them too) where there will be patients and we don't die on waiting lists for anything other than an organ transplant -- and that only because we made it illegal to pay the dead person's estate.

    Our real problems are:

    • We invent new technology, expect to use it, and expect that costs won't rise. Huh? We're expecting to get more for less. That only works for computer hardware. (in a socialist medicine system, quotas and delaying tactics are used to fight this problem)
    • The attitude is "I'll pay anything to save my dying children!". We then act all offended that the hospital bill heads toward infinity. Since death is common (100% of your children will die!) you can expect to pay until you can pay no more or until we run out of technology to sell you. (as above, socialist systems deny you this choice)
    • Simple economics is causing all service industries to be relatively more expensive. The factory worker is now more productive because he has huge machines. The high-tech worker is absurdly productive because he only produces digital data which is trivial to replicate. The hospital worker, like the college professor, is not getting such huge productivity increases. Widgets and software can be sold cheaply while still paying the workers well, but hospital services can not be made cheap while paying the workers well. Because everything is relative, hospital costs skyrocket.
    • Over in India, patients have a very limited ability to sue for malpractice and pain and suffering and... Medicine is cheap there. Over here, some doctors must pay millions of dollars per year for malpractice insurance. That means you pay. You also pay for unnessesary tests and other procedures caused by a cover-your-ass mentality that has taken hold. This is particulary true of caesarean births, which are dangerous and were once rare. Before a jury, it looks good to have done more intervention.
    • Our health insurance is too good at insulating us from the costs of various procedures. We don't shop around for a good deal. We then pay high rates because the money ultimately comes from us. When I lacked insurance, I was very careful to demand prices over the phone from multiple providers. Now I just have my $20 co-pay, so why should I care? The price is the same for me no matter where I go. I pick the fancy place on an expensive downtown lot!

    Some of these problems are not really solvable. Economics is what it is, people like new technology, and nobody wants to see their little children die. The lawyers have some mighty lobbiests, but a change would at least be theoretically possible. The same goes for the co-pay insurance system, which could be replaced by a sliding scale or percentage system. (example insurance fix: the patient's payment must increase by at least 10 cents for every dollar of the treatment cost up to "$200 for $2000", then by 1 cent per dollar thereafter)

  • by patio11 (857072) on Monday June 18, 2007 @03:31AM (#19547769)
    Or when sounded as A, as in neighbor or weigh.

    Sorry, ex-English teacher, had to say something. (Sidenote: always nice to see an old spelling mistake in a new word. I see far too much of "concieve" and "beleive" and not nearly enough "siezing". Of course, that is because I don't typically teach children older than middle school, and they don't have much call to say "seizure" unless it is in the context "Spelling nearly gives me a seizure".)
  • WikiMoore (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dachannien (617929) on Monday June 18, 2007 @03:49AM (#19547867)
    Michael Moore movies are like Wikipedia articles with one editor. Tons of links to questionable articles from all over the Internet, filled with POV content and unverifiable original research, and generally achieving no community consensus on anything. But be sure to cite it early and often in every term paper you write on the subject!

    That said, I haven't seen Sicko, but I do agree with Moore that health insurance is essentially legalized gambling. It's also essentially a redistribution of wealth from the healthy to the unhealthy, with lots of middle men taking their cut along the way. The big question, though, is how do you fix it without making the average quality of health care worse?

  • by sycomonkey (666153) on Monday June 18, 2007 @03:51AM (#19547877) Homepage
    Moore has made a name for himself by making documentaries holding a far leftist slant wherein he rants about the evils of conservative politics, but if you ask virtually any conservative if the current health-care system is working, they will undoubtedly say no. If they don't, their either completely out of touch, or lying. Now, if this is a documentary showcasing the benefits of a government run, full coverage tax-paid health-care system, then that would fit his style and I wouldn't have even bothered commenting, since I don't actually like him or his movies. But if all this is doing is dramatizing how bad it is currently, well, that boat already sailed and he's wasting his time and money. I don't like him, but I believe he and other political filmmakers are doing an important thing, generally, bringing political discourse to the mass market. But just making a doom and gloom movie about how bad the current health care system is, is not going to tell anyone anything they don't already know, is not going to get people to care about issues they don't normally (because everyone cares about their own health already), and is generally no better than making fiction. Which is fine, but since the movie is probably not very entertaining, pretty much demotes him from "mostly useless" to "completely useless".
  • by AlphaWolf_HK (692722) on Monday June 18, 2007 @03:58AM (#19547901)
    IMO these statements about there not being government funded health care in the US are all bullcrap.

    Why do I say that? Well, personal experience. My income is about $12,000 a year, and about two months ago I had an operation to diagnose a kidney disease. That is, this was not life threatening, but for diagnostic purposes. I didn't have to wait two years either, rather I only waited about a month and a half.

    What did I pay for it? Nothing. No co-pay, no co-insurance, no cost for anethesia, no deductable. Nothing. Nada. Even my prescription drugs are free, everything from simple pain killers to the latest and greatest name brands. Who paid for it all? The state of Arizona. One acronym: AHCCCS [google.com]. Similar programs exist in all 50 states.

    If this isn't providing health care to those who can't afford it, then I don't know what is. It has all of the benefits of private health care, in fact it works into the private health care system, so you get all of the same doctors and everything you would get in most private health care plans. The particular plan I am on is called Health Choice AZ, and there are many such plans to choose from, including a few PPO plans. I am not making any of this up, google it and you shall see. The information is sitting right at your fingertips.

    Why do people like Michael Moore completely omit this fact when they bash America's health care system? They act as though poor people get nothing here - its just not true. If our health care system was like Canada's, hell I could be on dialysis right about now with how long it would have taken for me to get a proper diagnosis. I don't know about anybody else, but I wouldn't trade our current health care system for anything else.
    • by Scudsucker (17617) on Monday June 18, 2007 @06:27AM (#19548615) Homepage Journal
      One of the main points of the movie isn't people without insurance - it's people with insurance who think they are covered but find out they are screwed when they hit their benefit caps when hit with a serious illness/accident. Start paying attention to the numbers of charity events in your area ment to help people pay medical bills. Start paying attention to policies that pay for organ transplants but not the $3,000 a month people have to spend on the anti-rejection drugs.

      The state of the American health care system is atrocious, and anyone who defends it is either ignorant, a crazy Libertarian, or a tool for the insurance industry.
    • by zx75 (304335) on Monday June 18, 2007 @09:51AM (#19550073) Homepage
      A lot of the problem isn't with the poor. It is in the gap between poor enough to be granted state-funded medi-care, and rich enough to afford health-care on your own. They are the working poor.

      The people who get lost are those working low-wage jobs and are just making ends meet. The state doesn't recognize them as being poor enough to need assistance, and to these people it is more important to put food on the table than purchase independent health-insurance. If they get sick, often what little health-insurance they may have through work will not cover their needs. This leaves them with enormous medical bills, and no way to pay them.

      Actually I think the poor are well looked after in the states, if you are unable to work or qualify for state-assistance you can be better off than people who work two jobs and make just enough money to scrape by. It's the people in the middle that fall between the cracks. I only have heard anecdotal evidence that that gap is getting larger... but I don't have any real evidence at hand to justify that statement so it could be false.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Monday June 18, 2007 @04:50AM (#19548175)
    Moore is about publicity. I don't say his documentaries are wrong, faked or anything, just that he knows how to push buttons and he knows the art of leading a story by omission. He's not lying to you. He just leaves a few key informations out to give you his side of the view.

    Pretty much what everyone else does that tries to sell an opinion rather than giving you unbiased information.

    He's also a master of publicity. He didn't cart those people who fell through the US social network to Canada or Mexico, no, it had to be Cuba. Why Cuba? It makes little sense in a medical way, but it does make a lot of sense when you think about it from the point of publicity and when you try to create a lot of discussion.

    And a more interesting question, would they have gotten the same treatment if they were Cuban or was it a publicity stunt for Cuba as well? That's a question that isn't answered.

    Now, I think Moore's films are important as counter-spin to the spin of our corporations and government, but you have to realize that this is what is is: spin. It's not "the awful truth".
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Monday June 18, 2007 @05:16AM (#19548279)
    It isn't a case of either fully private or fully social health systems. Both have their problems. Fully private misses the poorest who can't afford it, fully social always has limited funding and waiting lists.

    The third way is "Compulsory health insurance". You don't need to run a huge health service, or even manage a state health insurance system. It seems to work in several European countries, (Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany) the poorest benefit from the lower premiums which are brought about by the universal coverage. It doesn't prevent the state from providing a healthcare system, neither does it require it to do so.

     
  • by trawg (308495) on Monday June 18, 2007 @05:41AM (#19548375) Homepage
    "Leaked to BitTorrent" just gives the anti-piracy jerks more ammunition to use against BitTorrent. At the very least, change it to "Leaked via P2P" or even better, just "Leaked".

    Everyone knows what you mean. I actually use BitTorrent exclusively for legitimate downloads (yes, I realise that sounds unlikely, but it's true) and I would be very disappointed if use of it was criminalised because of clueless lawmakers who are deriding their information from subjects like this.
  • by i4u (234028) on Monday June 18, 2007 @06:32AM (#19548635) Homepage
    SiCKO got also uploaded in full on Youtube. http://www.i4u.com/article9613.html [i4u.com]
  • Bias vs. Lies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trianglman (1024223) on Monday June 18, 2007 @08:02AM (#19549129) Journal

    I'm tired of all of this crap about Moore's documentaries being nothing but lies. His documentaries are heavily biased against the Bush administration and the direction of the country, but, for the most part, his facts are pretty accurate. This new documentary was created to point out how bad the national health care situation is currently. His using Cuba to demonstrate national health care shows his bias, but it doesn't make his point less accurate or factual. Health care in this country is screwed up. When needing medical care could mean years, or even decades of extreme debt, even when you have "insurance" (if it can be called that with the crap these companies pull), we have an issue.

    I'm tired of the ad hominem attacks here. If you disagree with the man, fine. If you don't want to watch the movie, fine. But if you want to disagree with him as vocally as many do here, counter his facts, stop the BS and petty name calling.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...