Sicko (Special Edition) | 
| Director: Michael Moore
Actor: Michael Moore
Studio: Weinstein Company
Category: DVD
List Price: $14.95
Buy Used: $5.96
You Save: $8.99 (60%)
New (46) Used (26) Collectible (1) from $5.96
Avg. Customer Rating:  273 reviews
Sales Rank: 315
Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Widescreen, Ntsc
Languages: English (Original Language), French (Original Language), Russian (Original Language), Spanish (Original Language)
Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 123
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 7.5 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: 80750
UPC: 796019807500
EAN: 0796019807500
ASIN: B000UNYJXQ
Theatrical Release Date: June 22, 2007
Release Date: November 6, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: PLAYS GREAT. U.S. DVD RELEASE. IMMEDIATE, FIRST CLASS SHIPPING
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Following on the heels of his Palm d'Or winning Fahrenheit 9/11 and his Oscar winning film Bowling for Columbine acclaimed filmmaker Michael Moore's new documentary sets out to investigate the American healthcare system. Sticking to his tried-and-true one-man approach Moore sheds light on the complicated medical affairs of individuals and local communities. System Requirements:Run Time: 123 minutesFormat: DVD MOVIE Genre: DOCUMENTARIES/POLITICS Rating: PG-13 UPC: 796019807500 Manufacturer No: 80750
Amazon.com
SiCKO is more like a controlled howl of protest than a documentary. Toning down the rhetoric of past efforts--no CEOs, congressmen, or celebrities were accosted in the making of this film--Michael Moore's latest provocation is just as heartfelt, if not more heartbreaking. As he clarifies from the outset, his subject isn't the 45 million Americans without insurance, but those whose coverage has failed to meet their needs. He starts by speaking with patients who've been denied life-saving procedures, like chemotherapy, for the most spurious of reasons. Then he travels to Canada, England, and France to see if socialized medicine is as inefficient as U.S. politicians like to claim--especially those who receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. Moore finds quality care available to all, regardless as to income. He concludes with a stunt that made headlines when he assembles a group of 9/11 rescue workers suffering from a variety of afflictions. When Moore is informed that detainees at Guantanamo Bay--technically American soil--qualify for universal coverage, he and his companions travel to Cuba to get in on that action. It's a typically grandstanding move on Moore's part. And it proves remarkably effective when these altruistic individuals, who've either been denied treatment or forced to pay outrageous costs for their medication, experience a dramatically different system. Nine years in the making, SiCKO makes a persuasive case that it's time for America to catch up with the rest of the world. --Kathleen C. Fennessy
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 268 more reviews...
 Why do negative reviewers rate Moore and not his films? June 28, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I enjoy reading the negative reviews for Moore films. They will attack Moore himself and his politics and then wave the magic anti-liberal wand like it automatically absolves them from making any further logical argument. Is it because they don't have rational argument for the actual content of the film and the questions being asked in it?
One of the oft-heard arguments is the grandstanding that Moore does in his films. Is taking a bunch of sick people to Cuba a showboat tactic? Yes it is, but this is also a film and supposed to be entertaining. If Moore stuck to the staid, classroom-lecture style of documentary making that conservatives seem to love, these films would not get publicity, people would not see them, people would not discuss them, and questions (ah yes, the questions), questions that desperately need to be pondered and answered, would not be pondered and answered.
For me personally, I have seen both sides of the healthcare systems presented in the movie. I have paid premiums and been treated in both the US and Canada. The waiting room scenario from Ontario isn't as rosy as presented in the film, I did have to wait several hours, but I was checked up on constantly until the equipment to do proper tests were available. However, I did not have to fill in a single payment form and no money was required, no bill arrived later. My premiums then were 90 dollars a month.
In the US, letters were required, permission was required, a co-payment was required, a waiting time of several weeks occurred because of the permission required. Because of the concern for my symptoms, I ended up going back to Canada and getting the tests done by walking into the doctor of my choosing within the week. No permission, no money. I had paid 450 dollars in premiums for my US HMO fees and ended up feeling concerned enough by the bureaucracy and red tape that I looked elsewhere for attention before something serious happened.
Why I present this information is to say that Moore's film is not hyperbole, it is not made up, it is really happening. People with healthcare are getting screwed by a system of greed (not surprising to see the Nixon government getting the ball rolling...what do you expect from a criminal?). The mentality of a nation that continues to rail against having to pay a little extra to help out those that need it really makes me question whether people understand what being a citizen is. Are they citizens of their country or citizens of themselves? Until people realize that socialized medicine is not communism but rather helping someone in need, this country will continue with a grotesque, morally bankrupt, selfish style of 'healthcare' that cares little for the individual, and, perversely, entirely about the investor's bottom line.
Moore's film (and films in general) are important and relevant as they are mirrors held up for your consideration. What you come away with after watching them may affect you, but more importantly, your response to others regarding the film will speak volumes about your humanity.
I give the film 4 stars because there was little argument on the FOR side for HMOs. I am not behind their concept, but I would have appreciated hearing from some of their apologists and what their rationale is. I'm sure there are decent, cogent arguments that could be applied to create a better health care system all around.
 Propoganda Not Documentary June 25, 2008
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
Michael Moore is a popular, if polarizing, figure with the ability to draw millions in America into a conversation with the potential to impact our lives. Health Care is a serious issue and requires serious discussion and debate if we are to fix it.
I would find it hard to believe that any who watched this film would not feel for the individuals in the film. The problem is that Mr. Moore only interviewed individuals. And only individuals that represented the viewpoint he was attempting to assert; American Health Care Bad and Socialized Health Care Good.
Had Mr. Moore taken the opportunity to provide a balanced view of the different health care systems, to compare and contrast them equally, he would have gone further in proving his point. In showing only the bad side of American Health Care and only the good side of Socialized Health Care (in England, Canada, France and Cuba) he raises obvious questions about both health care systems and about his objectivity.
If Mr. Moore truly cares about the issue, his time and effort would have been better served making an actual documentary; documenting the positive and negative aspects of various health care systems. Mr. Moore's film comes up short of a documentary, falling into the category of propaganda; asserting only those facts and accounts that support his view, and allowing no dissent or discussion.
 Just try not to get in sick in America ... June 23, 2008
7 out of 8 found this review helpful
You would have to be a pretty hard heart-hearted person and stubborn to boot, if you couldn't watch Michael Moore's documentary `Sicko' and not be a concerned, troubled or a little worried.
It's interesting to say the least, that of the few documentaries that Moore has done, this one has taken the least amount of flack, but also getting the smallest amount of press. I guess the message is in the movie, and you should come away with it if any of your humanity is still intact when it's all said and done. I'm sure the health-care industry can't wait for this film to just `go away' and drift quietly into the background and dusty used DVD bins.
What can be said though of all the folks being dumped in downtown Los Angeles? Some might say: "Well, Moore didn't show that it probably happens in other countries and it's not the hospitals problem to house them."
Living in Los Angeles, I can tell you, that the `patient-dumping' issue has been widely reported over the media for the last few years and has been looked at as incredibly embarrassing and absolutely the wrong solution for indigent patients. So if other Americans know that it's wrong, then it doesn't really matter who else is doing it as it should be obvious that `patient-dumping' probably happens in a lot of places, not just the United States. But maybe it doesn't? Maybe as well as a better health-care alternative, they also take care of their homeless as well? I can safely say that Social Workers `do' take care of the indigent patients before they leave the hospital and make sure they're not going to "heal up" on the streets with freshly bandaged wounds.
But as a Veteran, I guess the worst part was the fact that 9-11 Rescue Workers have been so sorely neglected and allowed to fall through the cracks as Moore clearly evinced, and which was something that was without protestation. Doesn't that bother every other person who watched this film? I'm absolutely sure that it did. The fact that they went and received more exhaustive and complete care from a country that is 1) off-limits 2) lower on the list of `countries with the best health-care' than the US and 3) a country with very little to no resources, is a condemning statement on a completely intolerable situation.
But, we will tolerate won't we? No one will rise up and protest and say that it's wrong, will they? Everybody's too busy with their low-riders, vacationing on a yacht, getting to work for their midnight shift, too wrapped up in their own lives to worry about `all these other people' who need health-care and a better system of long-term care.
I read a few of the negative reviews on this film as well, out of curiosity, just to see what people were saying. The bulk of these people could seemingly benefit from some remedial education as they obviously have problems articulating complete sentences, shaping basic grammar and punctuation and a lack of an ability to crystallize their own ideas. It's a shame that we live in a country where people who aren't even mediocre at best, can seemingly try to shout down, detract, spew garbage and complete bombast while not even having a grasp of the concepts that they're trying to flag-wave about, let alone tear down.
Maybe some intelligence first, might be sound idea, before trying to blast others with a wet rag.
Socialist Bovine Scatalogical Matter June 16, 2008
26 out of 32 found this review helpful
Sicko DVD
Sicko is Michael Moore's rant against the health care system in the United States, yeah, like he's qualified to say anthing. Does he even have a high school diploma? Or a GED?
Soime interesting facts, not opinions:
The USA invented over half of the pharmaceuticals in use by the World today.
Cuba does have Universal Health Care, universally bad, look at the flies in the pitiful bathrooms that Moore does not show you.
England has universal health care, and a three day waiting period to get a tattoo. Why? Because getting a tattoo removed is a health care procedure.
There is an often quoted figure of 47 million American don't have health insurance. You know why? A number of them are eligible for Title XIX ( Medicaid) but have not applied, yet. Another group are illegal aliens from Central America. They didn't say citizens of the United States, they said "Americans", which illegal aliens from Central and South America are, technically.
Remember "It depends on the what the meaning of "is" is?
Not recommended for thinking adults and for those who don't want Michael Moore to make more millions.
Gunner June 2008
Impressive June 16, 2008
1 out of 3 found this review helpful
You can say whatever you like about Michael Moore but he manages to "hit the nail on the head" with this one. Our medical system is an absolute disgrace.
The film does an excellent job of focusing on what the problem(s) are but is a little weak on proposing solutions. With that said I think every single one of our elected representatives and government officials should be required to watch this film, the problem is real and has to be addressed urgently. Michael Moore has done a great service by focusing the debate, it's an important first step.
|
|
|
