Michael Moore's "Sicko" has had it's run. It's turned heads and gotten people thinking....myself included. I saw it with my very sympathetic and liberal (though becoming a little more libertarian) girlfriend over the summer. Even she murmured an occasional indignant Bull$hi.. during the movie when she thought Moore took a little too much liberty with the facts.

Now John Stossel will step up to the plate and take a look at the issue from a different perspective.

Hat tip to Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek for calling attention to an Op-Ed by Stossel in today's WSJ. He informs us that Stossel will be covering this issue on this Friday's 20/20 at 10pm est. If you've seen Sicko and care about the issue, you should make it a point to watch 20/20 this Friday and get a broader perspective.

It's not a long excerpt. I encourage you to click over and give it a quick 30 second read.

Of course, the bottom line to me is that what Stossel is saying is true but so is much of what Moore is saying.

The hard part is dissect the info and figure why the bad is bad and why the good is good.

My stance is simple. I acknowledge the flaws and problems in our system...many of which Moore points out. I also acknowledge the warnings that opposing views point out. I'm interested in knowing the best answer. The first place to start, IMO, is too see why health care costs so much and to see where incentives can can changed to lower costs. In economic terms, this would mean figuring out how to make the role of prices more effective in the market process...a simple aspect of our everyday lives that keeps most consumer products and services including all other forms of insurance and the services they cover stable and affordable. IOW, Why is the market process for health care and insurance different and how can we take steps to change it in a prudent way?