"Sicko"

[CentreHice]

Has anyone seen this Michael Moore film? I saw it just the other day.

No matter what your politics, I think it's worth a rental. Just how powerful are the pharmaceutical lobbyists and medical insurance companies? The list of reasons for denying coverage (strictly because of mandated profit margins) is staggering.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Memorable clips (among many):

1. A man who used to work for one of the medical insurance companies in the "Denying Coverage Department", said something along the lines of:

"You don't fall into a crack. My job was to create a crack and sweep you into it."

He's very glad he doesn't work for them any longer.

2. People who can't pay their bills being dropped off in their hospital gowns in front of shelters. No money....nothing. Just dropped off like stray animals.

3. One doctor, testifying before a panel, said she denied a patient treatment because it would have cost the insurance company $500,000. That patient died.

4. The treatment/abandonment of 9-11 first responders (after they were touted as "heroes" by all the photo-op leaders) is mind-boggling.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Moore travels to Canada, England, and France....and is blown away by the systems in place.

[Skilly]

I saw Moore's first two drivel pieces "Bowling for Columbine" and "Farenheit 9-11" and vowed never to watch another one of his pieces because I found them to be self serving and riddled with errors (especially 9-11).

Then I saw a documentary about Moore and his tatics by two of his biggest fans and they showed that he uses made up facts and figures and says he visits places when he doesn't ... and when they stormed him like he does others he wouldnt give an interview.... pot calling kettle black.

But that all being said, without a doubt Canada has the best health care system in the world, the US gov't would never pay for such a basic right - wait a minute it is not even a right down there - but in Canada the right to health care is in our Constitution. I can not imagine living in the US and getting sick. How in God's name do they afford it .... even with insurance, lets say it covers 80% - a $100,000 dollar hospital bill means you'd have to pay $20,000.

I don't understand their health care system (or lack thereof) or the way they elect their presidental nominees. (Sure you know how they did in other states before you go in to vote in some some states ... somehow that just doesn't seem fair ... do it all on one day!!)

[habmeister]

love michael moore and his crusade to open the eyes of middle america, unfortunately most of them believe that its just propaganda and are unpatriotic if they watch any of his films. he single handedly rejuvenated the documentary film, and i thank him for that.

sicko is his best work, and yes it is a sick system, but the US putting profit ahead of people should never suprise you, that goes back to slavery, it will never change.

the most "sick" documentary i've ever seen is waco: rules of engagement imdb.com/title/tt0120472/ it will make you ill, trust me, also a little known doc that came out last year and i saw at the film fest is: taxi to the darkside imdb.com/title/tt0854678/ . if the USA were afraid of terrorists post 9/11, they ain't seen nothing yet.

[cigarviper]

The method of business for private health insurance providers is not restricted to the U.S. In Canada they follow the same principles and tactics. I know, I've experienced it all too well. They use every possible loophole to avoid payout of benefits. I had a friend that died while fighting for his right to benefits, due to "their doctor", who never met this man, decided he wasn't sick enough to be off work. His heart exploded in his chest while asleep. He was 42. His widow received full payment before the funeral bill was due.

A family friend lost her husband in an auto accident where he was hit from behind on his motorbike at a stoplight by a woman with mental problems who decided she didn't feel like taking her meds that week. His widow's lawyer had to fight for five years to get what was rightfully hers. The bulk of their tactic for stalling was claiming she and her husband didn't really love each other. Yeah, she had to prove they were in love and not in a "living arrangement". Meanwhile she was on disability and had to sell everything to keep afloat. Finally agreed to pay the benefit due a moment before the judge was about to deliver his verdict.

I've had personal experiences myself with the insurance companies' dance of denial. It should be illegal and they should be held accountable. They prey on people when they are most vulnerable and mostly in the weakest moments of their lives for the sake of the bottom line. It's really is SiCKENING.

Meanwhile insurance companies are boasting record profits year after year...

..but don't get me started.

[MC Habber]

centrehice said:

Moore travels to Canada, England, and France....and is blown away by the systems in place.

Cuba too.

Moore is good at what he does, but what he does is not making true documentaries. I'd like him much better - and he'd do more for his cause too - if he would stick to the facts. You don't need to lie or exaggerate to show how bad the US health care system is, or how much better it could be.

[cigarviper]

habmeister said:

the most "sick" documentary i've ever seen is waco: rules of engagement imdb.com/title/tt0120472/ it will make you ill, trust me, also a little known doc that came out last year and i saw at the film fest is: taxi to the darkside imdb.com/title/tt0854678/ . if the USA were afraid of terrorists post 9/11, they ain't seen nothing yet.

Thanks H&C. I'll track down those flicks. Was it you that posted an online doc about religion being based on astrological influences? I watched it, came back to comment but the post was deleted. I didn't take note who posted it.

[cigarviper]

machabby said:

centrehice said:

Moore travels to Canada, England, and France....and is blown away by the systems in place.

Cuba too.

And the government wouldn't allow him to reveal in the movie how they got into Cuba for fear others would follow in their footsteps. Trading with the enemy. Funny thing is, they have very little in the way of medical supplies but develop some of the most talented medical doctors in the world. Ironically, many of them drive taxis and work in the resorts and hotels because they make much more in tips from tourists than governement doctor's wages allocated to them.

[Skilly]

cigarviper said:

The method of business for private health insurance providers is not restricted to the U.S. In Canada they follow the same principles and tactics. I know, I've experienced it all too well. They use every possible loophole to avoid payout of benefits. I had a friend that died while fighting for his right to benefits, due to "their doctor", who never met this man, decided he wasn't sick enough to be off work. His heart exploded in his chest while asleep. He was 42. His widow received full payment before the funeral bill was due.

A family friend lost her husband in an auto accident where he was hit from behind on his motorbike at a stoplight by a woman with mental problems who decided she didn't feel like taking her meds that week. His widow's lawyer had to fight for five years to get what was rightfully hers. The bulk of their tactic for stalling was claiming she and her husband didn't really love each other. Yeah, she had to prove they were in love and not in a "living arrangement". Meanwhile she was on disability and had to sell everything to keep afloat. Finally agreed to pay the benefit due a moment before the judge was about to deliver his verdict.

I've had personal experiences myself with the insurance companies' dance of denial. It should be illegal and they should be held accountable. They prey on people when they are most vulnerable and mostly in the weakest moments of their lives for the sake of the bottom line. It's really is SiCKENING.

Meanwhile insurance companies are boasting record profits year after year...

..but don't get me started.

But these examples are not helath insurance claims.... in which insirance companies have not recourse but to pay. Unless the procedure is not covered.

This is disability insurance, death insurance, and auto liability insurance ... and yes the insirance companies will make you fight right to the end for your benefit. B***ards!!

I had a friend whose father had severe arthritis. He could barely move his fingers. They would not give him disability and he had to fight it tooth and nail and finally got it. Then he heard about a procedure that may be of benefit to him, and the company denied him coverage. He went ahead with the procedure and it helped him immensely ... then he set his sights on fighting the insirance company because they said the procedure would not work and was frivolous.... think he won that too eventually.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

Haven't seen "Sicko" yet. Will soon I suppose.

Moore did a good job in "Bowling for Columbine." Getting K-Mart to remove all of their ammunition was totally unexpected but quite the coup. However, he when he started sensationalizing his film he lost me.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" was good up until he started mixing comedy with his facts. I remember saying, "... either make a comedy or a documentary, but not both in one film ..." I found he spoon fed his audience with the conclusions he thought were right. And some of those conclusions were out in left field.

However, what really turned me away was when he submitted his documentary for the Best Film Oscar. From what I understand, he wanted to air his documentary on the eve of the presidential election, but it would have disqualified his nomination for Best Documentary. Even given this, the film had no business being nominated for Best Picture. It was far too convenient for Moore to do this and I thought the gesture was even a tad pompous.

But, if you guys think "Sicko" is a good flick I'll give it a go.

Cheers.

[CentreHice]

Every filmmaker has their own style. Moore uses his form of "comedy" (usually in the form of vintage flim/TV clips) for a little relief, which I find he doesn't need.

But the message in each of his films is clear. Profit/Greed over human rights and values. If TV/Film had been around since the beginning of time, he'd have made docs about the Roman emperors, popes, etc.

In "Sicko", the man who runs the biggest "I Hate Michael Moore" site on the web, has to take down his site because his wife needs medical attention that he can't afford. Very pertinent to the message in the film.

Moore sends him a $12,000 cheque (anonymously). The man thanks his "guardian angel" as the site goes right back up. I believe the only reason Moore decided to put it in the film, is because the guy went back to slamming him. The irony of it is too thick. Now that his benefactor is known, I wonder if the site is still up.

[franko]

I wish I could believe you about Moore's largese, CV, but I'm more likely to believe that Moore put the incident in his film because it made him look good. It was no longer anonymous, wa it? And Moor had to know that the guy would start up his site again if he could.

I'm no fan of Moore's. He goes over the top and doesn't make documentaries but docu-dramas, stretching or ignoring facts as they fit what he is trying to say.

No different than anyone else . . . but lose the holier-than-thou attitude and become more believable, Mike.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

franko said:

I wish I could believe you about Moore's largese, CV, but I'm more likely to believe that Moore put the incident in his film because it made him look good. It was no longer anonymous, wa it? And Moor had to know that the guy would start up his site again if he could.

A gesture coming from a man who honestly believed one of his documentaries qualified for a Best Film Oscar.

I'm no fan of Moore's. He goes over the top and doesn't make documentaries but docu-dramas, stretching or ignoring facts as they fit what he is trying to say.

No different than anyone else . . . but lose the holier-than-thou attitude and become more believable, Mike.

In some places he doesn't do all that bad a job. In other places he becomes a crusader and this is where he loses me.

Cheers.

[Deleted]

Unlike his other two recent films, I found that Moore took more of a backseat in Sicko. He didn't make any judgments (or very few), and just let other people talk. I can't tell if he is stretching the truth, because I don't know that much about the U.S. health system, but considering that it is the same privatization that Stephen Harper wanted to do with our health care system scares the living crap out of me.

What the film did, though, is make me want to live in France. Unlimited sick days, 3 weeks paid vacation a year...it would make use of all the French courses I've been taking all these years.

[CentreHice]

franko said:

I wish I could believe you about Moore's largese, CV, but I'm more likely to believe that Moore put the incident in his film because it made him look good. It was no longer anonymous, wa it? And Moor had to know that the guy would start up his site again if he could.

I'm no fan of Moore's. He goes over the top and doesn't make documentaries but docu-dramas, stretching or ignoring facts as they fit what he is trying to say.

No different than anyone else . . . but lose the holier-than-thou attitude and become more believable, Mike.

Yeah, Moore can be quite sanctimonious....and it irks me as well. As MCH said, he doesn't need to go there.

If Moore's films do anything, though, they open the eyes of the brainwashed, if only slightly. He shows us the corporate picture of Dorian Gray. Not that there's anything wrong with making money (capitalism)....but at the expense of human rights and dignity?

Doesn't work with me.

His naysayers cloak themselves with the Flag, Bald Eagle, and God Bless America. Pretty thin veneer that most people don't want to break.

[franko]

mattdhf said:

I can't tell if he is stretching the truth, because I don't know that much about the U.S. health system, but considering that it is the same privatization that Stephen Harper wanted to do with our health care system scares the living crap out of me.

Actually (and I'm no Harper apologist) it isn't the same heath care. Harper/conservativism want a public/private health care system . . . which the Quebec Supreme Court has ruled is valid, and which we have anyway. If you have money, you can jump the queue. If you are a politician, you can jump the queue (as Jack Layton did!). Heck, if you are an NHL hockey player you can jump the queue and get medical aid (after all, a hockey player is more important than a 60 year old farmer, isn't he?).

I have no problem with health care being delivered by a for-profit organization -- and paid for by our government health coverage -- if they can do it as well and as more efficiently. And they can. And in fact, I use it. This week I have to go for some blood work. I'm not going to a hospital but to a private clinic that does it all day long. In . . . out . . . quickly. What's wrong with that? And no queue-jumping, either . . . I'm in line with everybody else.

What the film did, though, is make me want to live in France. Unlimited sick days, 3 weeks paid vacation a year...it would make use of all the French courses I've been taking all these years.

Isn't it 6-8 weeks vacation and a 32-hour work week? Retirement at 55 or something like that too if memory serves.

Complaints, though: the government wants to cut that back so they don't have to pay as much out [corporations/capitalists in agreement]; peons [the rest of us] want to keep it the same, without higher taxes to cover the cost.

So what else is new?

[franko]

centrehice said:

Not that there's anything wrong with making money (capitalism)....but at the expense of human rights and dignity?

In full agreement.

[habmeister]

cigarviper said:

habmeister said:

the most "sick" documentary i've ever seen is waco: rules of engagement imdb.com/title/tt0120472/ it will make you ill, trust me, also a little known doc that came out last year and i saw at the film fest is: taxi to the darkside imdb.com/title/tt0854678/ . if the USA were afraid of terrorists post 9/11, they ain't seen nothing yet.

Thanks H&C. I'll track down those flicks. Was it you that posted an online doc about religion being based on astrological influences? I watched it, came back to comment but the post was deleted. I didn't take note who posted it.

yeah that was me www.zeitgeistmovie.com it was very interesting to say the least, but i have no idea how much is fact, and i didn't want to get/start religion debates. taxi to the darkside isn't out on dvd yet, and i won't be suprised if somehow they will decide that it isn't worthy of release (the usa is torturing innocent iraq and afghani citizens and not releasing them when found to be innocent). the fact that there are such few votes on imdb shows how few have watched it despite that it would be a top 10 all-time documentary. it was definetly the most mind blowing.

but like some rather than focusing on the facts of these docs, they'll find a few untruths and just talk about that instead.

other great docs are:

the corporation imdb.com/title/tt0379225/ vancouver made!
paradise lost: the child murders at robin hood hills imdb.com/title/tt0117293/ innocent teens in middle america sentenced to life in prison and the death penalty with zero physical evidence. there is a sequel and 3rd is coming out, these kids now in their 30's have been imprisoned more than 15 years, because they liked metallica. ok it isn't that easy, but it isn't that far off from the truth either.

i was so pissed off i donated $20 to their legal fund through their website wm3.org/splash.php

btw they just did dna testing and found no dna from any of the three convicted teens, this from three dead bodies, pretty amazing job these three teens did to kill three kids and leave no evidence whatsoever.

the guy now on death row, damien echols was even on larry king live on dec 17/2007
youtube.com/watch?v=sYT9QgWVpsc

[Cranky]

franko said:

I wish I could believe you about Moore's largese, CV, but I'm more likely to believe that Moore put the incident in his film because it made him look good. It was no longer anonymous, wa it? And Moor had to know that the guy would start up his site again if he could.

I'm no fan of Moore's. He goes over the top and doesn't make documentaries but docu-dramas, stretching or ignoring facts as they fit what he is trying to say.

No different than anyone else . . . but lose the holier-than-thou attitude and become more believable, Mike.

I have no problems with a documentary about very sensitive or controversial subjects.....but I do have a problem when that presenter becomes a self absorbed, pompous, bushwhacking clown.

[IamCanadiens]

habmeister said:

[other great docs are:

Manufacturing consent is my all time fav

[Skilly]

iamcanadiens said:

habmeister said:

[other great docs are:

Manufacturing consent is my all time fav

Mine is "Manufacturing Dissent".

[Skilly]

Cinema verities
Canadian doc-makers take on Michael Moore

By Katrina Onstad
April 20, 2007

In 2003, when filmmaker Michael Moore accepted his best documentary Oscar for Bowling for Columbine with the now infamous anti-Bush jab, “We live in fictitious times,” he wasn’t being self-referential. But the phrase sours into irony and hangs over Manufacturing Dissent, a skeptical examination of Moore’s more dubious filmmaking tactics that’s one of the most controversial offerings at this year’s Hot Docs film festival in Toronto.

The night of the Bowling for Columbine Oscar speech, married documentary filmmakers Debbie Melnyk and Rick Caine were watching the Moore-incited huzzahs and hurrahs from their house on a quiet, hilly street in east Toronto. Firmly on the left side of the political divide, the pair were unadulterated fans of Moore’s Angry Joe persona and films like Roger & Me, his 1989 anti-corporate-greed screed, and Bowling for Columbine, his 2002 dissection of gun violence in the United States. Moore had made the documentary form palatable to the masses, and they were grateful.

“Look, we’re old-school lefties. I play basketball on a team with Linda McQuaig and we don’t keep score. We jokingly call it the Communist Basketball league,” says Caine, with Melnyk sitting next to him in the sunny living room of their house.

But a film that started out as a tribute to a peer hero took some strange turns, and soon Melnyk found herself chasing Moore the way Moore chased GM CEO Roger Smith in Roger & Me. She discovered a complicated, evasive man, described by one old friend as “a megalomaniac with a touch of paranoia” — and that’s from someone who likes him.

When Melnyk finally, and nervously, corners Moore, he defuses questions about whether or not his private foundation owned stock in Haliburton (it did) with a condescending bear hug, almost as if to shut her up. On another occasion, Melnyk and Caine are ousted from one of Moore’s public appearances by Moore’s sister, who knocks their camera to the ground in a fury. The pair discovers that while Moore demands accountability of his political nemeses, he makes himself inaccessible to the media and usually walks away from anyone who doesn’t flatter his worldview. The film includes a fascinating 1995 interview conducted by then CBC arts journalist David Gilmour, who dared to confront Moore on the poor quality of his one non-doc, Canadian Bacon. An agitated Moore comes across as surprisingly thin-skinned.

And yet, these glimpses into the filmmaker’s psychology aren’t the substance of the film.

“We decided not to follow the personal, biographical dimension too much,” says Caine. “We wanted to examine his filmmaking and his techniques, and take the high road. We never intended to do an attack film.”

“The original version is three hours and 45 minutes and even more balanced,” says Melnyk. “I’d be down in our basement with our editor going: ‘You just put in something bad, now put in something good!’”

The result is a film too complex to be slotted into the sub-genre of anti-Moore films like conservative talk-show host Larry Elder’s Michael & Me, often shown at right-wing film festivals. Moore’s generosity comes across — he gives one employee free plane tickets to Vancouver for an important personal event — and his dedication to his causes is undeniably sincere.


But Manufacturing Dissent — a riff on the title of Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s seminal book about media manipulation, Manufacturing Consent — also implies that Moore flagrantly violates documentary ethics. Moore apparently has a propensity for unacknowledged stunt journalism, taking people out of context, major chronological leaps and lying. In Roger & Me, a film about the destruction of Moore’s hometown of Flint, Mich., in the wake of GM’s profits-first pullout, Moore’s quest for GM honcho Roger Smith is fruitless; the joke, and tragedy, is that Moore never meets his Godot. But in Manufacturing Dissent, a former friend and union activist named Jim Musselman confirms that Moore met with Smith twice, once landing a 20-minute interview. Moore essentially asked him to bury the footage.

In the film, Melnyk calls Smith himself, who picks up the phone and politely debunks another famous scene from Roger & Me: a shareholder meeting that shows Moore, face to face with Smith in public at last, having his microphone cut off before he can get a question out. According to Musselman, the entire moment was a fiction staged for the camera. Smith agrees, telling Melnyk he doesn’t remember Moore being at the meeting, but he does remember Ralph Nader and Jim Musselman, who both confronted GM over their labour practices. Finally, Smith says that he would never cut someone off at a public shareholder’s meeting: “It’s not my style,” he explains.

When Moore has been called on to answer for these kinds of transgressions (something that happens rarely; the film subtly shames the press for giving Moore a free ride), he employs the kind of media-savvy techniques that he crucifies President Bush for in Fahrenheit 9/11, either flat-out denying the allegations, or refusing to engage in a dialogue about his methods at all. Moore did exactly this when he claimed in a recent interview that he was unaware of Manufacturing Dissent.

The question, in the age of James Frey and “truthiness” (Stephen Colbert’s term for truth that just feels true, regardless of the facts), is why Moore doesn’t cop to a theatrical streak — the guy was a drama geek in high school — and acknowledge that what he does isn’t quite documentary, but it’s still important.

“One of his old friends told us that Michael has a pathological need to be right, and I believe that informs everything,” says Caine. “All he has to do is say: ‘I made a mistake [faking these events],’ but he never accepts responsibility for anything.”

Adds Melnyk: “When Michael started, Jon Stewart, truthiness and all of that wasn’t around. It was Michael who elevated documentary to an entertaining form. That sly way of looking at things, the tongue in cheek, comes from him. It’s sort of like society has caught up with him. The difference is that Jon Stewart lets you in on the joke, and Michael never would.”

Deception is also at the heart of Melnyk and Caine’s two other films. The 1998 documentary Junket Whore exposed the corruption of celebrity journalism, and then they went after another moral question mark: Conrad Black. Last fall, American prosecutors in the Black case (the fallen media baron is on trial in the U.S. for defrauding his company, Hollinger International) asked the filmmakers for footage taken surreptitiously at a shareholders meeting during the making of their film Citizen Black. They handed the film over under advisement of a lawyer who told them they would have to do so anyway due to a reciprocal treaty with the U.S. “The whole meeting was available in transcript from Bloomberg anyway,” says Caine, sounding a little miserable about what could be interpreted as a pair of whistleblowers violating their own journalistic ethics. “I do now regard that as bad advice.”

“Conrad was an evasive subject, too, and really difficult. After him, we wanted to do something easy, about someone we liked,” laughs Melnyk. “We seriously considered abandoning [the Moore film] once we started getting into it. It was just such an exhausting, depleting project. But we really felt like what Moore is doing is dangerous to our profession.”

They aren’t alone. In Manufacturing Dissent, documentary veterans Errol Morris (The Fog of War) and Albert Maysles (Gimme Shelter) weigh in with their hesitations about Moore. Maysles, a pioneer of the cinema verite style of observational filmmaking, is particularly appalled by Moore’s methods.

“Maysles basically thinks Moore is tarnishing the name of the documentary,” says Caine. “He’s gone so far as to say the documentary community needs to speak up because if you’re a fruit vendor, and you put your apples with the worms up front, people are going to stop buying after a while.”

But people do buy Moore’s apples, wormy or not, and his fans are devoted — so much so that Caine and Melnyk have received a handful of death threats via e-mail from people accusing them of helping the right in America, and harming the left.

“I think people get invested because we want to believe him,” says Melnyk. “If he’s telling a story you want to hear, you don’t want to question it.”

But for these two filmmakers, skepticism has its limits. “If one more person contacts us about taking down An Inconvenient Truth, we’re running,” laughs Caine.

[Doc Holliday]

I'm with Skilly and HA. Problem is, the mass does not want to see a serious reporter present a serious subject in an objective manner, they want to be entertained, Hollywood style, with drama, catastrophe and conspiracies. These sensationalist documentaries essentially use desinformation to fight desinformation. In the end you're not more educated than you were but you saw a good show.

[habmeister]

skilly said:

iamcanadiens said:

Manufacturing consent is my all time fav

Mine is "Manufacturing Dissent".

you need to check out better docs, that rates a 5.9/10 on imdb.

[habmeister]

iamcanadiens said:

habmeister said:

[other great docs are:

Manufacturing consent is my all time fav

i think i have seen that, chomsky has done so many, i'll check it out again, he's always very interesting and well informed/educated on any subject that he talks about.

[cigarviper]

skilly said:

cigarviper said:

The method of business for private health insurance providers is not restricted to the U.S. In Canada they follow the same principles and tactics. I know, I've experienced it all too well. They use every possible loophole to avoid payout of benefits. I had a friend that died while fighting for his right to benefits, due to "their doctor", who never met this man, decided he wasn't sick enough to be off work. His heart exploded in his chest while asleep. He was 42. His widow received full payment before the funeral bill was due.

A family friend lost her husband in an auto accident where he was hit from behind on his motorbike at a stoplight by a woman with mental problems who decided she didn't feel like taking her meds that week. His widow's lawyer had to fight for five years to get what was rightfully hers. The bulk of their tactic for stalling was claiming she and her husband didn't really love each other. Yeah, she had to prove they were in love and not in a "living arrangement". Meanwhile she was on disability and had to sell everything to keep afloat. Finally agreed to pay the benefit due a moment before the judge was about to deliver his verdict.

I've had personal experiences myself with the insurance companies' dance of denial. It should be illegal and they should be held accountable. They prey on people when they are most vulnerable and mostly in the weakest moments of their lives for the sake of the bottom line. It's really is SiCKENING.

Meanwhile insurance companies are boasting record profits year after year...

..but don't get me started.

But these examples are not helath insurance claims.... in which insirance companies have not recourse but to pay. Unless the procedure is not covered.

This is disability insurance, death insurance, and auto liability insurance ... and yes the insirance companies will make you fight right to the end for your benefit. B***ards!!

I had a friend whose father had severe arthritis. He could barely move his fingers. They would not give him disability and he had to fight it tooth and nail and finally got it. Then he heard about a procedure that may be of benefit to him, and the company denied him coverage. He went ahead with the procedure and it helped him immensely ... then he set his sights on fighting the insirance company because they said the procedure would not work and was frivolous.... think he won that too eventually.

No, to me it's all the same - "medical insurance". When your life is affected by health issues and these people are paid to help in times of need and they shirk their responsibilities, that's fraudulent and our government should be there to represent us and right it. Did you know that if your employer was negligent and it resulted in you're being permanently disabled you have no right to sue? WSIB is there to help you.

Anyway, docs are thought provoking and entertaining. I'd take a doc or movie based on real life and historical events before I'll watch any of the pure crap Hollywood has been putting out. Are there any artists left?