Slashdot Mirror


Michael Moore's New Film Leaked To BitTorrent

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."

10 of 1,088 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Uh Oh... by Scoria · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!

    --
    Do you like German cars?
  2. Re:About that Cuban healthcare... by cgenman · · Score: 4, Informative

    How about this one? Universal coverage for 1/2 of what we're paying.

  3. Canada not so nice by r00t · · Score: 4, Informative

    Need a fancy medical scan? (MRI, PET, etc.)

    Depending on the political power your region of the country holds, you may be out of luck. It's not the market (number of sick people) which determines where these devices are installed. It's pure politics, and the resulting distribution is not even remotely fair.

    That's not really an improvement.

  4. Re:About that Cuban healthcare... by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually if you watched the movie, no wait if you even watched the promo's you would know he didn't go to Cuba to show how great Castro medical centers were. He went there as he heard that suspected terrorists got free and better health care then most Americans and tried to get to Gitmo to get health care.

    I also find it funny that a lot of posts on /. pointing out anything positive on the movie get down rated, while those calling Moore fat seem to be get positive ratings.

    Sure make fun of the guy. It is easier to ignore the actual message that the US private Healthcare system is a total mess.

  5. I live in the US, and I have 100% free health care by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 5, Informative

    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. 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.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
  6. Re:Distorting the truth? by loganrapp · · Score: 5, Informative
    No, we're heard that crap since "Roger and Me." You only paid attention since his last outing.


    http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html - here you go. Educate yourself on the man.

    Note: These are the same people who wrote this - no fans of the current president.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newsweek/

    Michael Isikoff, co-writer of the MSNBC piece, also wrote this.

    There're your specifics, sir. The man is not a true documentarian, and makes the whole practice look worse than Geraldo Rivera journalism.

  7. Re:yet another... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 4, Informative

    Except Al Franken actually tried to change things. Instead of ranting like an idiot, he sat around for 3 hours and talked to experts, pundits, wonks and Norm Ornstein. It's one thing to say your opposition is wrong, it's another to spend a few hours and go indepth and discuss actually *why* they're wrong using things like truth(which has a liberal bias, wierdly enough).

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
  8. watch the movie before you run your mouth off by Scudsucker · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:yet another... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Okay, I'm going to take your post, and do to it what Michael Moore does with the video he shoots:

    Please post an actual lie that Michael Moore had in his movies. The arguments in Fahrenheit 9/11 were presented in terms of evidence--government documents, congressional transcripts/testimony, interviews, books, etc. You can interpret the facts differently if you wish, but that doesn't mean he's lying.

    I've read a bit of the "Michael Moore is a liar" threads here and elsewhere, but their content is , from what I've seen, limited to re-interpreting the facts a different way, just leaving out the facts that led to his conclusion, all the while pretending that he's just spouting foundationless opinion, a la Rush Limbaugh .

    ZOMG, you just said Michael Moore is pretending that he's Rush Limbaugh!!!!

    Now if you said that was a lie, and that you said no such thing, and I retorted saying those were your words, who would be right? I dare say you would be. It is a lie, and not a "bending" of truth.

    Here is an example: In the movie "Bowling for Columbine", Michael Moore wanted to paint the NRA as a nasty gun club that lacked compassion for the Columbine shooting. Here is how he did it. First he spliced in some video of children crying outside columbine, then cut to Charlton Heston saying "from my cold, dead, hands", then cut to a billboard about an NRA meeting in Denver while Michael Moore tells us that after Columbine Charlton Heston decided to have a pro-gun rally in Denver, then cut to a video of Heston's speech (except utilizing the above demonstrated edit job to alter the message).

    The problem with this is that Heston's "cold, dead, hands" speech wasn't even from his Denver speech. And after the Columbine shooting, the NRA didn't suddenly decide to hold a gun-rally. Their National Convention has been planned to be there for years. And it wasn't even a pro-gun rally, as all the exhibits and committee meetings were canceled in respect of the recent tragedy. The only thing not canceled was the members meeting, which could not be canceled due to state laws governing non-profits.

    When you imply something untrue by using careful editing and splicing, you are lying. I'm sorry that we live in a world where lying is so casually dismissed (thanks to our current and last president), and that lying about somebody we don't like is okay. But the fact remains that Moore is a liar and his "documentaries" aren't worth the film they're printed on.

  10. Re:Distorting the truth? by 0123456789 · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's not like the film specifically mentioned the background check, and then showed footage of Moore filling in the form in the film. Oh, wait, it did.


    2 minutes, 23 seconds in, the bank manager says "We have to do a background check". If you watched less than 2 and a half minutes of the film, why should I listen to your opinion about it?