First...greenshirt, I was an economics major in undergrad, and I'm very glad for that. I am a well prepared to analyze cost/benefit ratios as well as foresee negative externalities, things that Mr. Moore obviously lacks.
I am a very firm believer that policies that affect our economy in such a huge way should NOT be decided by politicians, but by economists.
Read a review of Sicko from The CATO institute (arguably the largest organization of economists). Also,
here is the health care policy of CATO. We are all being trained to be scientists; it is important to not neglect the mathematics and principles that have been proven to be true...open free markets are the most efficient.
About drugs costing a large amount here and pennies in other countries...most don't know this, but, the U.S. number 5 (you heard it--5) export in dollars is...pharmaceuticals (if I remember correctly--I looked it up on the BEA's website last week). This is after cotton and electronic components. For durable goods, it is number 3, and FAR outweighs many other products. The reason why we pay more than them is another amazing feat of economics...profit surplus. What a Cuban would pay for a certain drug may be $.05, but the American will pay $100. This will crowd out some that can't afford it, but, the profit gets maximized.
The negative externality that Moore forgets is that drug companies invest billions of dollars into R&D with the hope of having patents that will assure them profits. If you cap these profits (regulation), then, the level of R&D doesn't reach previous amounts, and, the $100 drug that is $.05 in Cuba isn't ever developed (because there is no incentive to invest the drug). So, while the drugs are cheap, new ones won't exist (we are all very glad we have Gleevec)! With the MRSA crisis escalating, our only hope is for drug companies to develop antibiotics to keep our flora intact.
PLEASE, Don't fall prey to a film maker's claims that has NO economic training and has very little credentials to lead a health care revolution.