Submitted by Jonnie Wesley-Krueger, Jul 10, 2007 15:15

The troubling aspect of this critique of Michael Moore's film, as well as Moore's critique of health care and the health insurance industry in the US is this: both are trying to make an extremely complex situation black-or-white.

When denying the possibility of shades of gray in this discussion, both the writer here and film-maker ignore those components of both articles that are actually true: that insurance companies are focused first on profit and have in reality denied care to those in need. At the same time, however, what is also true is this: there is no place, no single entity, no nation or government that has "the answer". While there are some genuine advantages to nationalized health care, there are also (and naturally so) some decided disadvantages. Similarly, our current system of insuring and delivering health care has its share of pros and cons, as well.

It will only be when a complete and thorough examination, followed by an open and honest discussion of both sides of this issue take place that we might actually move ourselves to a path of genuine improvement. Why is it that we cannot focus on what genuinely constitutes the "best practice" and move on from there?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.