Reason put this one out on 6/22.
JMR

USA Today depends on revenue from advertisers. Advertisers that buy full-page ads for their latest impotence pills or anti-cholesterol drugs. If yours is down, they'll get it up. If it's up they'll get it down.

They also take advertising from hospitals and insurance companies. It is, therefore, with a great deal of cynicism that I view something that approaches a fair review of Michael Moore's latest. One would expect to see the same if Smith & Wesson and Winchester paid the same advertising money to USA Today that Glaxo-Smith-Kline and Kaiser Permanente pay when they reviewed "Bowling For Columbine".

They haven't woken up to the fact that Michael Moore is a craven bully with delusions of artistry. They just aren't willing to stab the Golden Goose in their ad revenue department.

First, kids downloading this movie are not going to shell out bucks to see it in the theater.  If anything, these kiddies are promoting his fraud free of charge.  Moore's just whining to get more media attention like he did with his propaganda about the US Government potentially taking his movie away.  Moore tried to bait the gov't and it didn't bite so he's on to the next attention seeking stunt.

Second, Herr Moore should really finish his studies with the Leni Riefenstahl School of Socialized Cinematography.  Not enough people are duped by his movies yet.

Third, Moore is a deceit-  a capitalistic agitprop. 

"free medical care for everyone."

There is no such thing as free. Somebody, somewhere, is going to be forced to pay for this idiocy.

Given who the Democrat Party considers to be the "rich," I am guessing that "somebody" is anyone who has a job.

Good thing Michael Moore doesn't have to rely on his vast knowledge of rudimentary economics for a living, as he would surely starve to death.

What confuses me is why anyone would want to go from bad to worse. I have a horror story about HMOs, but that story would be much worse with government. Here’s the story, and you tell me how you think government would solve the problem.

When my first son was being born, we were trying for a conventional birth. After twenty grueling hours, the doctors finally went to a C-section, and all was well. However, during the procedure, the doctors discovered why the birth was a problem: my wife’s pelvis was too small. Two years later, we were preparing for my second child. Since my wife’s pelvis obviously hadn’t gotten any bigger, the doctors planned for another C-section. However, the night before the procedure, the HMO denied coverage for the surgery. They wanted my wife to re-try a conventional birth. (Why? Surgical births have less chance for a problem, i.e., a lawsuit.) Infuriated, I had one of those HMO battles that everyone hates. Our doctor wisely ignored the advice and claimed that the baby was in distress. Thank God she did … because my son had the cord wrapped around his neck. Had we followed the HMO’s advice, my boy would have likely strangled. In the operating room during the birth, the anesthesiologist heard our story and rolled his eyes. He told me that HMOs do that a lot. HMOs depend on “gatekeepers,”’ usually former doctors who no longer practice medicine themselves. When the gatekeepers review the cases, they never look at the patient history. It’s just a statistical review of percentages, and has nothing to do with individuals. Most HMO doctors know who pays them, so they have a built-in incentive to recommend the cheapest approach.

Now, take that story and imagine how government would deal with it. I have no doubt what would happen. The government would still use a gatekeeper, like the insurance companies do now, but it’s only 50/50 that the gatekeeper would be a doctor. How would you like a lawyer (or worse, a career bureaucrat) as your medical gatekeeper? And here’s my biggest complaint: the doctor saved my boy’s life by ignoring the HMO. Do you think she would have ignored the government? That’s a different legal situation, isn’t it? My boy would be dead.

In my opinion, health insurance in this country is bad. Going to a government system, however, would be a catastrophe. As they used to say, it would go from SNAFU to FUBAR.  

Again, no one mentions the discrepancy in the difference in how countries measure life expectancy.  The item states:  "Moore says that for all its health care spending, the USA's life expectancy rates are lower than the other four countries. The World Health Organization says U.S. males at birth are expected to live to 75, compared with 77 in Britain and France and 78 in Canada. Females have a life expectancy of 80 here, 81 in Britain, 83 in Canada and 84 in France. Cuba is virtually tied with the USA. "

Michael Moore fails to say that the US measures life expectancy from birth and most countries measure it from birth only if the baby is full term.  Preemies are not counted if they die.  Dead preemies are counted as miscarriages or still-born.  The numbers are skewed at least in that one way that I know of.  There could be other metrics that are different but no one ever mentions the metrics, do they?  Just one problem among many in the movie.  A common point of misinformation touted by those wanting socialized medicine.