Sick on Sicko

Granted, I haven't watched the movie, but I've thoroughly enjoyed the reviews. In particular this one. Not so much because it blasts Moore's incursion into Cuba

The fantasy that lies behind Michael Moore's movie is that of the caring and
competent state that eschews self-interest and provides efficiently for all its
citizens' health needs. Where such delusions end up is not in the airbrushed
fantasy of Sicko, but in the nightmare reality of Cuba.

but because it addresses what for me is the fundamental issue with socialized healthcare

The basic moral issue is that under a purely socialized system your body, and
your life, is no longer your own.

Peter Foster minces no words as he attacks Moore not only on his fact twisting to fit his message, but more so on the fact that he takes away from an issue that needs addressing: the uninsured.

It's not that health-care policy is not an important issue in any modern
society, it's that Mr. Moore does not address it in a serious way.
According to Sicko, what is scandalous about America's greater reliance on
private health insurance is not that so many have no insurance, but that the
system makes its profits by systematically denying the needs of its clients.

I struggle with the notion of socialized healthcare. I don't think the goverment has a duty to provide healthcare, while I do think it has a duty to provide education. Like everything else in a democracy, this is an issue of choice. I want to have the choice of choosing my healthcare insurance, my hospital and my doctor. I want to have the choice of choosing which school I go to or send my kids to go to. I do not want the state dictating my decisions or deciding for me. I don't favor a nannay state. Heck, I don't even agree with Social Security.

As a nation we have a problem, and it is not that doctors and corporations want to make money. The first problem we have is the uninsured - if a socialized medicine ever comes around it should be to serve those who cannot afford insurance and the vulnerable populations.

The second problem is that we as a people need to take back control over our healthcare. Corporations have no right telling us what we can or cannot do in terms of seeking treatment for an ailment and provisions need to be created for this. Whether its new clauses, extra insurance, etc. if it is medically necessary they should be duty bound to pay for it.

From all reviews I've read, it seems Mr. Moore has done what he loves to do best, find a small group of people that fit his hypotheses and present them as evidence. Random sampling, internal validity or external validity are issues that never came to mind in this "experiment" of his which leads his results to not be generalizable to a whole population.