I think you’re right, but I can think of a couple of reasons to release Sicko to an international audience. The first is that there are Americans living abroad. The film might interest them. If he had moved to Beijing a year ago, Lee might fall into this category.

I guess the other reason would be that the U.S. is still top dog, so people in other countries might be interested in what is happening here. Of course, if they get their information from Michael Moore, they’re going to have some pretty warped perceptions about our country.

Undoubtedly, Moore’s primary motivation is the all-mighty dollar.
I don’t think anyone aside from rabid Moore-ons
would ever argue that point.

Aside from that, I’d say… if this were a film
made with any sincerity of conviction (and that’s
a huge if, of course.) the purpose may have been to elicit international pressure on the U.S. to change it’s domestic health care policies.
To that degree, I think we’re already seeing some
result. Whether it’s ignorant little twits from
Germany posting tired rhetoric on here, or notable
names in foreign politics bemoaning our lack of
“equitable” health care, there has already been some
noise being made from abroad about our system.
And let’s be honest, here. It’s no coincidence that it started shortly after the release of
Moore’s latest bowl of steaming tripe.

Of course, I don’t believe for a second that Moore is sincere in his convictions. (or in anything else, for that matter.) So none of this really applies, anyway.

No. It’s just the cash and fame, baby. Nothing more noble or complicated about it.

Is Moore’s primary objective to make MOORE money or to denigrate the U.S.? Or is he killing two birds with one stone?

Or is he just a socially aware individual who wants to be the ethical conscience for America and provide us with a moral compass to navigate our way past the evil of the greedy capitalists who control us?

Or does he just want to piss Lee off?

Take your pick.  Personally, I think it’s the latter.

Artmonkey,

I don’t want to derail the thread, but what do they mean by ‘“equitable”’? I’ve noticed they put humane and equitable together in the same sentences a lot.

It seems like a word with no firm definition, so if your a rabid social planner / socialist it is your key to having open ended government involvement (since equitable is never reached, you have to have your finger in the whatever forever). Your thoughts? Can you think of how they might put it (vs. how we might put it)? Any idea of the history of using the term in such a way?

I think he’s trying to appeal to the anti-U.S. out there who will eat up anything that shows our country in a negative light. (I’m looking at YOU France!).
And of course it will add to the the anti-U.S. propaganda the Taliban uses.  I mean, if Bin Ladin loved “Fahrenheit 9/11” I’m sure he’ll love “Sicko” as well!

And of course the money.  Moore loves his dirty, filthy, blood-soaked money made through the hard work and sacrifices of others.

what do they mean by ‘“equitable”’? I’ve noticed they put humane and equitable together in the same sentences a lot.

sl0re, a good question. I think you have to understand the typical leftist mindset, first.
(please not that I was using their language, not mine.)
Though the word literally means “fair to all”, most
on the left would define that differently than you or I. Rather than doing something that all parties agree is fair to them, as applied individually, (that is, not regarding what has been done for others in relation) the leftist mindset tends to define equitability as, what is done as an entire action for all, and considered “fair” as it applies to their minority sense of justice on an overall social scale.

For example, let’s say we have a group consisting of 10 people;
5 people who are below the poverty level,
4 middle class
and
1 is wealthy

We are asked to give out 10 hugs, equitably.

You or I may choose to give each *person* one hug apiece.
Leftist thinking, however, would more likley demand that to be equitable, it must be divided as such;
5 poor people get 1.25 hugs apiece.
(nevermind the illoglic of that division. Liberals
have never been good at math, anyway.)
4 middle class get 1 group hug.
1 rich guy is forced to give 2 more of his own
hugs, apiece, to the 5 poor people, and then
gets a punch in the face.

I hope this clears things up.

It helped some. I forgot equitable didn’t mean equitable.. Rather, special rights for their aggrieved client groups. More doublespeak.