I think when you chose to see a Michael Moore film, you chose to see his point of view...not both sides of the story, unbiased documentary.  Faulting Moore for presenting one point of view and not all others is like reading the editorial page of the newspaper and claiming that the editor has a biased point of view.

Moore makes social and political issues human.  Reading that tens of millions of Americans don't have health coverage is news...seeing the effects of that, or the effects of a for profit health insurance system on a few real, emotional people is tragedy.

I don't think that Moore pretends or aspires to present a balanced, comprehensive portrayal of every side of the issues he choses to explore..any more than a director like Altman seeks to present every side of every human issue that he decided to explore in his films.  

As for portraying insured vs. uninsured, I think the point that Moore was trying to make was:  Look...if this can happent to people who have insurance, what kind of treatment do you think people who don't get?

Again, why would Moore show long lines for national health care? It isn't his intention to present every aspect of the issue...but, you already understand that.

I don't know about all those countries with national health care plans, but having lived in the U.K. I know that people could chose to see private physicians on their own dime.  I'd prefer health care for all...even if it is slower. 

Does the existence of private schools debase the quality of public schools?  Should we not allow private education in this country?

What Moore (and to get back to the film!), has done is stimulated a national dialogue on the topic of universal healthcare the way "An Inconvenient Truth" did for the environment).

He's using anecodates to which the audience would viscerally respond, cause people don't go the movies to see talking heads or data graphs.  We rank 37th in the efffectiveness of health care according to the World Health Organization.  Medical cataastrophes are the leading cause of bankruptcy, and most of those are people who have some insurance. 

To me, the issue isn't is another country's universal health care system perfect. It is do we value each other (particularly our children) enough to provide them with basic healthcare.

  "You ask 2 questions "

The second question you answered was not the second question she asked. Both questions had to do with eductation.

--d

  "Even if kids don't go to college for the sake of the love of learning, isn't a better educated population is population less likely to end up taxing the system in other ways (ill health, unemployment, public assistance?)"

PMFJI, but public higher education is usually seen as a state issue, while the universal health care talked about in Sicko is typically seen as a federal issue.

--d

  "What I'm thinking about:  When I grew up you could make a good living and move into the middle class with a high school diploma (even less).  There were manufacturing jobs in abundance which required just hard physical labor.  We're outsourcing those jobs now (try to find something made in the US anymore!).  So, what happens to those people who have no marketable skills and no education beyond the rudiments?"

I've been trying to follow your arguments and analogies, but it's too much for my pea brain. Are you saying there should be universal higher education and univeral health care, or higher education but not health care, or health care but not higher education, or neither? Do you see them as the same or not the same?

--d