Sicko

While (a few of) my initial reactions to the film were profound disappointment with our healthcare system and a combination of disgust and indignation (e.g. the absurdly inhumane situation of the guy with the price on the fingers), I feel it's important to take a few things into consideration. First, how objective is Michael Moore in his presentation of things, and how often do these things happen (and while we're at it, how many cases of people having to choose 1 finger over another are we willing to accept as the "cost" of a certain type of healthcare system)? There is also the issue of what it would take for the US to implement a different healthcare system, such as a single-payer nationalized system. What would we be giving up to ensure that everyone in the country was ensured? Higher taxes? Longer waits to see doctors? Lower quality of care? I think it's reasonable to assume that at least a few people would object to "free" universal healthcare if they had to pay more taxes or give up some of the things they enjoy with our current system. Despite the manner in which Moore presents his case etc., several important points are raised in the film which cannot be ignored, and it seems obvious that a system in which someone has to choose which of his fingers to have reattached because of the price is in need of some serious change.