Unbiased and informative, although not much info on the health care crisis itself.

Good article about the buzz generated by the film on both sides, albeit little about the health-care crisis itself, and how we lag behind other industrialized nations on both that and other key issues.

Although the story ends rather abrubtly, it does cover pros & cons fairly well. Bottom line, health care in the US sucks, the health care industry wants to keep it that way, & Michael Moore has taken them on. Bravo!

Despite the topic and the temptations of partisanship, the author managed a straightforward news story about the release of a movie. (I would remind other NewsTrust reviewers that agreeing with the topic of a story is no the same as reviewing the journalistic quality of a story.) Kevin Sack provides a balanced account of the partisan maneuvering surrounding the release of Moore's latest movie.

Having lived under the National Health system in England and for a short period of time in Canada, I can assure Mr. Moore that the apple on the other side of the fence is always sweeter.

While the topic is both of interest and extremely important if we are to regain our stature as a nation, this story talks very little about the subject matter presented on the film and limits itself to the politics of support for or opposition to the film and to single-payer health care coverage. I don't think that this article says much of substance about the problems with our health care system and the reasons it should be changed that are the topic of the film. It might be interesting to read this review along with Jonathan Cohn's book, Sick.

The fact that some progressive DC elected officials are promoting Sicko and that conservative think tanks are trying to discredit it is belaboring the obvious. Pity the reporter didn't devote some space to describing the what is in the film. I saw Sicko at a sold out screening. I, and those others I spoke to, were both emotionally moved and moved to do something about the disaster of health care in the US.

It has a lot of information; but it falls short in backing up many of its premises. The one that comes to mind is whether people actually have to line up in Canada for health care as they do for a movie in this country. These accusations sound like sound bites; and sound bites usually lack substance. As far as the impact of Michael Moore's other movies: what is the basis for the writer's judgement that they lacked impact? Deciding to ban guns would have been an extreme reaction to "Bowling for Columbine". The impact of that movie was a more subtle shift in attitudes about guns in general; and that shift, whether it is a fact is not backed up by any polls (before and after).

As one critic has written, "Regardless of whether any particular claim in "Sicko" is true, no one doubts that lots of insured and uninsured Americans face health-care crises. So far, Moore is master of the obvious. We all hate insurance companies and red tape, and we all want to improve the system." Where do we go from here? To France, Britain and Canada, says Moore, who presents each of them as a health-care paradise. And yet, each of the three countries are moving away from the way in which Moore portrays them. This article quotes approvingly of Moore's ambition to use his movie to advance his agenda of destroying the nation's existing health care system, and presumably replace it with one similar to that in Cuba.