I was surprised to see this review here, but I do like the idea of considering opposing views and having a good debate about the issues. As we see from the comments so far, it’s tough to have a debate without a good frame. But maybe it’s useful to realize how differently we do frame the issues. The writer has said he thinks the key issue is lack of health-insurance coverage. Apparently he didn’t realize that others consider the key issue to be one of economic and personal freedom. I hope he will take this view seriously; if so, the dialog may have made a difference. It would be polite to point out something we might gain from the writer’s perspective, but I’m afraid I don’t see anything new or interesting here. The review seems quite naive to me, but I applaud this writer’s willingness to share his views beyond his own circle.
To me the most interesting comment by the author in this comments thread is “I assumed there would be at least one progressive among you.” The assumption seems to be that people are either in the “progressive” camp, and support socialized medicine, or not. (One fears that those who disagree are given a specific label as well, perhaps conservative or neo-con.) Whatever happened to the idea that there are lots of issues on which reasonable people can disagree? (Does one have to be “progressive” to be considered reasonable?)
All that is in a sense an aside, because I agree with Mr. Beloit that the context here was a review of the documentary, and since the review is not deep, and did not present arguments or dissect the content, it seems odd to expect it to lead to a great discussion.
But maybe the attempt could lead to one. How about a follow-up with essays on the issue of health care and economic and personal freedom?
