Michael Moore's latest mockumentary, "Sicko," is about as subtleas a sledgehammer in bashing our cockamamie health care system, andhis lens is way too rose-colored in extolling the virtues of agovernment-run, single-payer alternative. However, his essentialpoint is valid--that dealing with doctors, hospitals and insurersis too often no better than a shell game, and it's a disgrace wecannot summon the political will to fill the life-threatening gapsfacing insured and uninsured Americans alike.

Mr. Moore is very clever in his approach. He doesn't focus onthe 45-to-50 million uninsured--the crowd already likely to backuniversal health insurance because it is literally better thannothing.

Instead, he tries to scare the life out of those who should feelsecure--the ones with coverage, whose support will be desperatelyneeded to force changes in the status quo.

Mr. Moore depicts the plight of some who have found healthinsurance to be a game of Russian roulette, in which evenlegitimate claims don't always get paid. He also exploits theterror of losing your safety net if you are laid off or suffer aserious illness--a pre-existing condition, as the industryeuphemistically labels it.

This was where Mr. Moore really struck a chord. Filing a healthclaim is like gambling your life savings (and possibly your verylife) on a slot machine. Will all the elements fall exactly intoplace so the bureaucrat judging your claim won't have the slightestexcuse to say you are out of luck?

Of course, Mr. Moore goes way overboard in hailing the relativeadvantages of single-payer systems in other countries. He selectssubjects thrilled with the quality of their care. The utopia hepictures is quite a harsh contrast to the grim reality facingunfortunate Americans left to the not-so-tender mercies of the freemarket.

I could have made a very different film with the same "selectiveperception" approach, focusing on a Canadian friend who waitedmonths for the MRI that revealed her brain tumor, and months morefor an operation to save her life.

I would have contrasted that with the case of another dearfriend in New York, who had to stop working due to the effects ofAIDS, and who couldn't afford to continue his private healthcoverage. Before passing away, Medicaid financed first-class care,at no cost to him. Sounds like we must be doing somethingright.

Does this mean our system is superior to Canada's? Of coursenot. But it doesn't mean Canada's is the natural and betteralternative, either. The lack of gray in Mr. Moore's black andwhite portrayal is his film's biggest shortcoming.

The fact is we do many things right with our health care system.Unfortunately, as Mr. Moore points out, we also do way too manythings wrong.

Mr. Moore excels at forcing people to face unpleasant facts.Where he fails is that he becomes the lightning rod in any debatehe inspires. The argument becomes more about him--his bias, hisskewed technique, his iconic image--than about his subject. Themessenger obscures the message.

Still, the problems he spotlights are real, and while the answermight not be a shift to single-payer, who can argue we don't needsubstantial changes to make sure health care is everyone's right,rather than the luxury it has become for far too many?

Can't we have the best of both worlds? Let me know what changesyou could live with in our health care system.