Michael Moore's Sicko has been integral to the reinvigorated health care debate in America, but one of its negative effects seems to be that, by touting the Canadian and British health care systems, it serves as a straw man at which conservatives can hurl their cliches ("Long waiting times! Less choice! Socialism!") without actually engaging any of the major Democratic health care proposals. The latest example of this trend is Theodore Dalrymple's cover article in the National Review, the purported "Truth About Socialized Medicine," which suggests retaining our current health care system simply because the British system is imperfect. Perhaps such a criticism would be warranted if any of the major presidential nominees were advocating we adopt a completely socialized system like the British, but the fact is that none of them are. Dalrymple snidely dismisses health care systems, like the French, that are more similar to the Democratic proposals: "As for France: Despite Moore's dithyrambs, its population consumed by far the highest doses of tranquilizers and antidepressants in the world. There must be some reason for it." As statistical proof of the United States' system's functionality, Dalrymple cites a growth in life expectancy at birth in the United States of 2.1 years between the years 1990 and 2003. What he doesn't mention is that, according to the Human Mortality Database (which estimates the United States' growth in life expectancy at birth over this time at only 1.84 years), life expectancy at birth has grown faster over this same period in France and even in dreaded Britain, increasing in each country by over 2.6 years. These dishonest scare tactics are only further evidence of conservative's unwillingness to engage new ideas, as discussed by Jon Chait here . --Ben Crair