Moore's next: Sicko (2005)

[bankholdup]

I was reading up on Michael Moore, the most loved man in America, and found that his next film is Sicko (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/).


Plot Outline: This film will focus on the American healthcare system, and will look at it through an inspection of the system of mental health care.


Not a hell of alot to report, but I figured I'd get the thread open anyway, for those who were curious as to what Moore was planning next.

[quoth_the_raven]

That could be interesting...I wonder if he'll run a comparison to the foreign health systems...it seems to be a topic thats cropped up in his books before...

hmm...cool :)

[dellamorte dellamore]

Hey , he could be one of the subjects .

[Fisting Ackbar]

Originally posted by dellamorte dellamore
Hey , he could be one of the subjects .

I wonder if the ice cream truck from FAHRENHEIT 9/11 will make a special appearance in this.

[cstroman]

Here's a couple of lines from his movie:

Doctor: You are one unhealthy fat fuck.

MM: It's the governments fault.

[MadsenOMC]

What is it with these tired Moore fat jokes? Is that the best people can do, insult a man's appearance when it is so painfully obvious that he is overweight? It makes you sound like an angry child.

[The Heart Collector]

Oh boy, does it.

[cstroman]

Madsen your attack was uncalled for. If you don't like my opinion, that's your "opinion".

I for one think the exact same for "whiny bush-hating liberals."

And I think you have a right to complain the day bush haters shut up. Until then I don't think you have a right to complain.

Just my opinion.

[MadsenOMC]

Complain about what? People attacking Moore for being fat? I did not attack you. And I stand by what I said. It is painfully obvious that Moore is a big man. What does calling him names prove? What do fat jokes prove? It seems so silly and childish to call him fat.

[cstroman]

I did not attack you.

Actually calling me childish is an attack. There's no question about that. Do you see that or not is the question.

I did't think I would have to point it out to you.

[cstroman]

Oh and I stand by my statements, the day Bush haters shut up is the day they have a right to cry foul over their worshipped icons. Until then anyone not a member of this board is fair game. Members are not due to the site rules.

[MadsenOMC]

I did not attack you. I said that calling Moore names is childish. And isn't it? You know I love a good debate cstroman. And we have had good ones. As a "liberal Bush hater," I know that I am fair game. But make it about the issues. If I call Rummy or Dubya a name here and there, I make sure that there is substance to it. I'm not just going to say, "Bush has no brain." What is the point of saying, "Moore is a fat fuck."

[cstroman]

I did not attack you.

Really? How is:It makes you sound like an angry child. NOT an attack against me?

But make it about the issues.

It was until your post. Mine was about MM and his health, which has everyting to do with the topic of the post. Yours is an attack against me (which I guess you actually don't see).

If I call Rummy or Dubya a name here and there, I make sure that there is substance to it.

Actually that's false as you called Rumsfeld a "Fucking piece of shit", which is your opinion only.

I leave you to your name calling, but somehow you have a problem with my defamation of your icons.

I'm not just going to say, "Bush has no brain."
No you just said it about "Rummy"

What is the point of saying, "Moore is a fat fuck."

What's the point in saying "Rummy" is a "fucking piece of shit" other than to voice your opinion.

I've proved my case and will consider it closed.

Now back to the the thread.

[Kevin Smith fan]

Originally posted by MadsenOMC
I did not attack you. I said that calling Moore names is childish. And isn't it? You know I love a good debate cstroman. And we have had good ones. As a "liberal Bush hater," I know that I am fair game. But make it about the issues. If I call Rummy or Dubya a name here and there, I make sure that there is substance to it. I'm not just going to say, "Bush has no brain." What is the point of saying, "Moore is a fat fuck."

There is no point, this guy's just mad because someone in the movie industry finally has the balls to call this moron (George Bush) out and expose him. And the person to do that just happens to be fat. I don't hate George Bush because he has grey hair, I hate him becuase he's a "born again christian" who gives mentally handicapped people the electric chair and bankrupted the country over going to war with a country that did nothing to us.

[cstroman]

So because you hate him because he's a "born again Christian" what does that make YOU? What words "define" someone who hates a large group because they disagree with their views?

[cstroman]

Oh and you forgot the word "Murderers" behind "Mentally Handicapped" but then again, you like Michael Moore, so I guess the FULL truth isn't really an option.;)

[Kevin Smith fan]

I don't hate him because he's a christian, I just don't think that there are to many christians that think it's o.k. to kill retarded people.

[cstroman]

Please show me where Bush has killed an innocent certified "retarded person".

Please.

[Moviefan1234]

Originally posted by cstroman
Oh and you forgot the word "Murderers" behind "Mentally Handicapped" but then again, you like Michael Moore, so I guess the FULL truth isn't really and option.

If they aren't mentally sane, how on earth can they be held responsible? Come on, you can't be serious.

[MadsenOMC]

You proved nothing. You cannot declare that you proved your point and the case is closed. Little ego problem buddy? I never said Moore was my hero. He isn't. Far from it. Don't put words in my mouth thank you very much. I have a lot of problems with him as a matter of fact. Are you seriously trying to tell me that calling Michael Moore a fat fuck is a health issue? That you were making a comment about his health? That is hilarious, man.

[MadsenOMC]

Bush had plenty of mentally handicapped people executed while governor. Plenty.

[cstroman]

If they aren't mentally sane, how on earth can they be held responsible? Come on, you can't be serious.

Because "sanity" is subjective. You actually believe that everyone who claims "insanity" as their defense is innocent?

YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS? (your question, not mine)

You can take 100 psychologist and have them interview someone who claims to be insane and if you think you'll get a consensus on their findings, then who really is insane?

[MadsenOMC]

I agree cstroman. Not everyone who claims insanity actually is. But what about those who are? Or do you think it can't be determined without a doubt?

[Kevin Smith fan]

They are called mentally handicaped for a reason! This is rediculous, you're just saying it's o.k. to support Dubbya, admit it. If Bill Clinton or Al Gore would have passed a law saying that the execution of convicted mentally handicapped people was now leagal you'd be saying how much Bill and Al are @$$holes.

[cstroman]

Also if I use Crystal Meth and kill a bunch of people while on it, and testing while under it's influence PROVES I am INSANE, then am I innocent?

C'mon you can't be serious!? (again your words)

[Kevin Smith fan]

You can choose whether or not to do crystal meth, that's your decision. Being mentally retarded is not!

[cstroman]

Show me who was mentally handicapped MORESO than the average person (we all have chemical inbalances, varying degrees of environmental prejudices, etc that weigh heavily on our mental state.) that was killed.

Again, please show me where a person who was completely incapable of making a decision was put to death for murder by GWB.

[cstroman]

Being mentally retarded is not!
Choosing NOT to take your prescribed medication IS a choice, and if that leads to you being insane, and you kill someone, then YES you are responsible for those deaths and should be held accountable accordingly.

Again, show me where a clinically certified retarded person (clinically certified BEFORE committing the acts mind you as any quack can label anyone anything they want to in court)

[cstroman]

BTW, back to MOVIES, I would assume you have all seen "A Time To Kill" have you not?

Would you say he was "temporarily insane"? and does that excuse what he did?

[cstroman]

And again, BACK to the Michael Moore thread.

Being Overweight is Unhealthy, and has been proven as such.

Moore is FAT. I think he is a FUCKTARD.

I think someone who is unhealthy making a "informercial" about the health care system to be just a little bit ironic.

Hence he is an overweight fat fuck.

My opinion and I am entitled to it.

[Moviefan1234]

Don't twist my words around, cstroman. I'll admit there have been some undeniably evil people walk the face of the earth, but on the flip side of the coin there have also been people convicted of crimes where they are not mentally stable. I don't know much about the field, but from what I've read in magazine and newspapers is that people have been put to death for the wrong reasons. There are illnesses out there that impair ones mental health as well as their judgement to the point where they don't know right from wrong. They can't be held responsible for their actions.

[MadsenOMC]

You are an angry person cstroman.

[MadsenOMC]

Wednesday afternoon, Gov. George W. Bush was adamant: Texas doesn't execute mentally handicapped inmates.

A few hours later, Oliver Cruz - a 33-year-old man with an IQ of 63 - was led sobbing to a gurney in Ellis I, the Texas state prison that houses death row.

Texas does execute mentally handicapped inmates. Under Bush's watch, the state has done it before.

(source: Editorial, Daytona Beach News-Journal, Aug. 12)

Rick Halperin
AI-Texas

[Kevin Smith fan]

That's just it though, he's doing it on the healthcare system. SYSTEM. Meaning he's probobly going to talk about prescription medicines and illnesses. If he was doing an excercise movie about how America's youth is becomming too obese, than you may have a point.

[Mentiroso]

Well MM is just a pile of walking feces, we all know this. We just need to find out how much of his so called "documentery" is tue this go around. If he does a true documentery and actually speaks the truth, my opinion of him will change. But until that happens, he is just a lying dirtbag. No different than the politicians he is against.

And before someone decides to come along and say "Show me where he lied" go use google and research his info. I have done it in the past so I know for a fact he is nothing but a liar. Yes, he does mix in some truth, but that doesnt really make the lies any better.

[cstroman]

I'll admit there have been some undeniably evil people walk the face of the earth,

Evil is a Relgious word based on Religious Morals and Codes (which yes are the foundation for law in this country, but that is changing).

And I won't twist your words around if you don't do that to mine, but you already did. (do I need to point it out to you as well?)

there have also been people convicted of crimes where they are not mentally stable.

No one is mentally stable if you really get down to the facts because the "naming" of anyone as "mentally unstable" is highly subjective. A depressed person is not "Mentally stable" but if he goes postal and kills people, the fuck is responsible for it.

Again, I want you to point out to me where GWB KILLED Retarded people.

Back up your claims.

[MadsenOMC]

I just did cstroman. Read through the posts.

[cstroman]

You are an angry person cstroman.

So is every bush "hater". See the keyword is "hate".

But again, I won't label you an "angry person" since that is against the board rules.

[Kevin Smith fan]

I think MadsenOMC did that about 3 posts up.

[MadsenOMC]

I did. And I'm sure I can find plenty more examples. How about the time in the Talk magazine interview where he mocked the born again woman on death row for begging for her life? When he himself is born again?! Sorry if I offended you cstroman, but you do seem really angry today.

[cstroman]

Oliver Cruz
Oliver Cruz was convicted of raping and murdering a young woman, Kelly Donovan, in 1988. Despite uncontroverted evidence at trial of his mental retardation, troubled family and emotional history, a Texas jury sentenced sentenced him to death. Cruz was one of five children; his mother's common law marriage ended while he was a child because of his father's excessive alcohol and drug use. His mother had a history of mental illness, was repeatedly hospitalized for depression, and was diagnosed as having chronic schizophrenia. As a young man, Cruz had been committed to a psychiatric hospital.
School testing while Cruz was a child established his mental retardation. As an adult, his I.Q. was tested at 64. He was functionally illiterate, reading and writing below the third grade level. He dropped out of school after failing seventh grade three times. He supported himself with menial work and odd jobs because he could not understand how to fill out a job application. Cruz also suffered from severe dependency on drugs and alcohol; indeed, he was severely intoxicated at the time of his crime.

Like many people with mental retardation who commit crimes, Oliver Cruz did not act alone. An older man who was not mentally disabled, Jerry Kemplin, also participated. Kemplin, however, pleaded guilty and received a sixty-five year sentence in return for testifying against Cruz. When interrogated by the police, Cruz waived his Miranda rights and confessed. The trial court ruled the waiver was valid, even though Cruz had limited understanding of the legal concepts in the warning. At trial, the police investigator who obtained the waiver testified that Cruz " had difficulty reading aloud some of the words written on the Miranda warnings. [He] realized that [Cruz] had no understanding of some of the terms and had to explain them to him at length." The psychologist who tested Cruz testified that the concept of "waiving rights" was beyond Cruz's comprehension.

The prosecutor did not contest Cruz's mental retardation. Rather, the prosecutor argued at sentencing that his mental retardation was an aggravating factor that warranted the death penalty:
The Defense may tell you that, you know, he is not very smart. And they may try to show you that this should be some mitigation of punishment....But the main issue that you have to look at, does the fact that the defendant was intoxicated or the fact that he may not be very smart, does that make him any less dangerous? Does that make him any less of a threat to the rest of society...And I would submit to you that it doesn't make him any less dangerous. I would submit to you, it's the opposite. It makes him in fact, more dangerous. It's part of the outlook of Oliver Cruz that makes him what he is. And that's not going to change. And society cannot take the chance of having him on the streets again, or having him
out in prison where there's other people that associate with him, also, for their safety.

In post-conviction proceedings, Cruz's attorneys challenged the instructions given to the jury in his case,
arguing they did not permit the jury to give adequate consideration to the mitigating evidence of Cruz's
mental retardation. When the case reached the federal court of appeals, the court ruled that Cruz was not
entitled to special instructions on mitigation because during his trial he had not established a causal link
between his low intelligence and his crime. On August 9, 2000, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, rejecting Cruz's petition for a writ of certioriari and denying his application for a stay of execution. Oliver Cruz was executed that evening.

[MadsenOMC]

What does that prove? Sorry, but I'm against the death penalty anyway.

[cstroman]

welve years ago last Monday, in San Antonio, Texas, a 24-year-old Air Force technician named Kelly Donovan was taking a walk when two men abducted her. One of the men, Oliver Cruz, raped the young woman, then stabbed her to death. Both men were soon arrested. Cruz was sentenced to be executed by lethal injection; his accomplice, Jerry Kemplin, testified against him in exchange for a 65-year prison term. There was no doubt of Cruz's guilt, and neither he nor his lawyers disputed it. He confessed to the crime, saying of the victim: "She was just someone. I don't expect nobody to have pity on me." He also expressed remorse: "I made a mistake. I don't blame nobody. There's nothing I could say or do to bring the person back. There's nothing I could do or say to her family about how sorry I am."

Cruz was executed by lethal injection at 6 p.m. Wednesday. The U.S. Supreme Court had voted 6-3 to deny his application for a reprieve. The state Board of Pardons had refused, on an 18-0 vote, to recommend a stay. Only an intervention by Texas Governor George W. Bush could have prevented Wednesday's execution, and the governor did not act.

Why might he have? Why is this execution of any particular interest? Because Mr. Cruz was very dim-witted. A review of his school records (Cruz was 21 at the time of the murder) showed that he was classified "educable mentally retarded." He flunked the seventh grade three times and was barely literate. IQ tests he took while on death row yielded scores in the low sixties to high seventies. Many oppose the execution of such prisoners, arguing that this level of retardation amounts to a diminution of responsibility. In fact, the Texas State Senate, in its last session, passed a bill to prohibit the execution of anyone whose IQ is below 65. The bill did not get past the House, but will come up again next year. Twelve of the 38 death-penalty states actually have such laws on the books, with IQ 70 being the most popular threshold for defining "retarded."

It seems to me that these laws are misguided. Let us glance for a moment at the scientific aspect of the matter. To get anywhere at all, we need a working definition of "retardation." IQ 65? IQ 70? It is a curious thing that some of those most intent on establishing a strict IQ test for execution are the same people who, in other contexts, are keen to assure us that IQ tests do not measure anything meaningful. Down at this lower end of the bell curve these skeptics do, in fact, have a point. A psychometrist, even a hard-line IQ supporter, will tell you that the difference between a tested IQ of 65 and one of 70 is not reliable. In fact, a 1989 report surfaced a day or two before Mr. Cruz's execution showing his IQ as 83; and it is obvious — even, probably, to someone as slow on the uptake as Mr. Cruz — that if a death-row inmate is intent on prolonging his own life, he had better not do too well on any IQ tests the authorities administer to him.

In short, we are basing life-and-death decisions here on some very dicey numbers. Suppose we pass legislation setting the bar at IQ 70 (as many states in fact have). Suppose we now have a death-row inmate who tests at 71. Do we bring out the gurney? Give the guy another shot at the test? Or what?

Lurking behind all this is the dreaded human-biodiversity issue, which is getting harder and harder to avoid in public-policy discussion, for all that so many people still seem determined to avoid it. As was documented in The Bell Curve, American blacks test with a mean IQ some 15 points below American whites (who, in turn, test with a mean 6 points below American Asians). An IQ "bar" is therefore, ceteris paribus, going to let more black criminals off the hook than white ones (and more white ones than yellow ones). Since most people who end up on Death Row are below average in intelligence to begin with, this effect will be quite marked. We are dealing with a pool of people concentrated near the "bar," with disproportionately more blacks than whites falling below it. Is this, or is it not, "racial injustice"? You tell me.

Mental retardation should not be confused with insanity. It is a long-standing principle in Anglo-Saxon law — the "M'Naghten rule" — that a person lacking sufficient mental capacity to understand what he was doing, and that it was wrong, cannot be held criminally responsible. Nobody has claimed that Mr. Cruz did not understand what he was doing when he murdered Ms. Donovan. Can severe dim-wittedness absolve one of responsibility for an act? Or of enough responsibility to make the difference between life in jail and execution? However low Mr. Cruz's IQ scores, he made a living for several years as an odd-job man and carny barker. He functioned in the world. His own words — "I take full responsibility" — suggest an understanding of basic moral distinctions. Nor can Mr. Cruz's case be compared with that of Ricky Ray Rector, the Arkansas man whose execution in January 1992 was overseen by Governor Bill Clinton. Presidential candidate Clinton had taken a break from campaigning and returned to Arkansas just for that purpose. Rector was in much worse mental shape than Oliver Cruz, having blown away part of his brain in a suicide attempt at the time of his arrest. He was so far removed from things that he put aside the dessert of his last meal for later.

Plainly we need to take care when people with dull or damaged brains enter the criminal-justice system. Their words should be given less weight in trial proceedings, and physical evidence correspondingly more. Juries need to be instructed to take into account mental retardation when deciding verdicts and sentences, in those jurisdictions where it is a mitigating factor. (There was some dispute about whether this was properly done in Mr. Cruz's case.) Having taken all such precautions, though, I cannot see why a person who has functioned in the world — earned a living, learned to drive, rented a room — should be spared any penalty that the law considers proper.

There is, after all, Kelly Donovan to be thought of. She died, in agony and terror, without benefit of scientific or jurisprudential debate, or of a twelve-year pause while learned scholars deliberated on her destiny. "She was just someone..." and now she is no one, and nowhere, forgotten by all but the few who loved her. In our modern obsession with procedure and technique, we forget that the criminal-justice system is not merely a piece of cold machinery for processing malefactors. It is also the stage on which a public drama is played out: the drama of redress, of delegated communal retribution. Oliver Cruz took the life of Kelly Donovan, knowing what he was doing. He has paid with his own life. We do not exult or gloat, but we can, without guilt or shame, feel a grim satisfaction in wrong redressed, in justice accomplished.

[cstroman]

For the record as well. He tested in the 80's days before his execution.

And for the record, the guy confessed to KNOW what he was doing at the time he did it. He comprehended right from wrong.

He drank alcohol. That was his choice. If it impaired him, he is responsible for it.

This guy was executed for the same reasons anyone else was. Because he was guilty (self admitted).

Also, if you put a law banning certain "IQ's" from being executed, how can you know that it is accurate or not seeing as how I can fail an IQ test in seconds and then turn around and get a 139, etc.?

Also, there are many MANY immigrants to this country who would test very, very low based on their BACKGROUNDS and previous environment alone.

That is no excuse. If you choose to kill, you made the wrong choice and only YOU are responsible for it.

I liberal here once said "Personal Responsibility" and in this case I agree.

[cstroman]

As back up, anyone remember the Muslim father and mother who beat their 16 year old daughter to death because she was disobedient and got a job?

Their previous environment and religious upbringing said it was ok to do, I happen to think that regardless of their "mental state" they fucking murdered her.

[MadsenOMC]

I don't think the death penalty should be legal, period, in any case. We are the only first world country to use it. We are in some sorry company when it comes to country's with the death penalty.

[cstroman]

Back to Michael Moore........and "health care".

Canada has a STATE health care system and from what I hear, it sucks worse than ours but is better than a third world country system.

So do we governmentalize or do we keep it private?

[MadsenOMC]

I don't know enough about our health care system to know what is best. I know it has its problems, but I don't know the solutions.

[cstroman]

It basically boils down to Regulation vs. Hands Off and the varying degrees between.

[Goosey]

While I don't know alot about this issue, I think probably the best approach is a combination of Canada's and America's systems, as they both are quite flawed as it is (like what you mentioned, cstroman).

[cstroman]

I can definately see advantages and disadvantages to both. But I am more liberally minded on this issue. I don't think that gouging someone $50 a pill for medicine that can be mass produced is right because it "helps pay for research" because there is NO way you can guarantee that every cent goes to making better medicine, etc. when the big wigs of those companies are wasting money like it was water, etc.

I think the government should put SOME regulations in place (instead of just paying the outrageous prices on behalf of those who can't afford the medications. Not fair to the tax payer) and allow tax incentives to companies that really, truly spend large amounts in development, etc.

[Mentiroso]

But the majority of the major drug companies ( Merk, Pfizer, etc) do spend a huge chunk of money on research. But they have to pay these scientists large salaries and of course the CEOs and such make excellent money, but the amount the employees are paid is nothing compared to the amount spent for research. I do however wish they would get together to try and wipe out some of the worse epidemics like Diabetes, Cancer, Aids, CF, Alzheimers, and such. If they put there heads together and stopped wasting research money on pills to make my dick hard they could probably find a cure (or at least a better more helpful) drug to rid the earth of those problems.

[cstroman]

Actually most drugs are developed overseas (not in the US where the highest prices are found) so the amount spent on development is relatively small (although no had accounting can be required because it's world wide and it's private info) compared to the money earned by the higher echelons in a company.

I have only met ONE ex-executive from a drug company and let's just say after his short run with the company, he never had to work again and could have gone skiing on a mountain of the money he made. Executives cycle through those companies like amusement park rides. The get in line, take the ride and get off with grotesque amounts of money.

It made me sick. His job was what coroporate america AIMS for. Very low stress, Very high rewards (at the higher levels) and due to globalization the costs have actually gone down (Indian scientific jobs are very plentiful and very cheap respectively).

Do a search on any of the websites for their global operations, most have India or Asia as a huge inexpensive part of their business.

[Mentiroso]

There is a huge Merck plant right here in Albany, Ga. I have many friends who work there and we talk about this all the time. They spend more money on research than you are thinking. And yes, the higher ups make a fortune, but the amount they are paid is still nothing to the amount spent on the research. No matter if it is done here in Albany, Ga or in India.

[cstroman]

You may be right. I've never been to a plant and the guy I knew was an ex-executive (global operations).
There has got to be some way to offer superior health care and keep premiums/costs low.

[Christoph]

Some shmoes are going to be banned :(

[Mentiroso]

Originally posted by cstroman
You may be right. I've never been to a plant and the guy I knew was an ex-executive (global operations).
There has got to be some way to offer superior health care and keep premiums/costs low.


You would think so in this day and age but until they can get research costs down we are just screwed. Life should be like Star Trek. A quick scan and you are fixed no matter what it is.

[cstroman]

That would be nice.

Some shmoes are going to be banned

I don't think you've done anything "bannable", just keep it to the topic and you'll be fine.;)

[Criminal Rock]

Cstroman is not angry, he is trying to defend his beliefs from a dumbass that does not know when to shut up. Oh yeah there is a difference from being mentally insane and mentally retarded.

[MadsenOMC]

Are you calling someone on this board a dumbass? If so, it's been nice knowing you.

[Criminal Rock]

Ban me if one wants to, I will just laugh my ass off. Btw you don't seem to have a sense of humor, so lighten up a bit.

BTY. Are you really a dumbass? If your not you have nothing to worry about don’t you.

[MadsenOMC]

So were you calling me a dumbass? If so, I was just supposed to laugh it off?

[Criminal Rock]

woooooooaaaaahhhhh! dont get so angry!!!

[Criminal Rock]

(Sarcasm)

[ralph_wiggum]

I had a feeling that Moore whould do a health related doc next...not that he is the model of health....but hey, he doesn't need to be! HE is the one controling the camera.

[Winston Wolfe]

Since, once again, many of the same schmoes have decided to speak about politics, non-movie related topics in the UPCOMING MOVIE TALK...this thread is closed.

From here on out, if the same people continue to discuss politics [on end] in forums other than the POLITICS forum, they will be asked to leave our board.

This is a MOVIE BOARD. If you want to discuss other stuff...visit OTHER sites.