Clark Newhall, a physician and attorney who believes the movie is an important commentary on the U.S. health-care system, wanted legislators and other public officials to see it.

The response was an overwhelming "no" from Republican legislators who bemoaned the idea of universal health coverage as a move to socialism.

Moore, for the movie, ventured to Canada, England and France, which all have universal or (dare I say the word?) socialistic health care. According to Moore's account, their systems are better than ours.

Some of the more vocal opponents who turned down Newhall were Reps. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, and Bradley Daw, R-Orem, both of whom decried the idea that we would ever even consider the idea of socialism.

These legislators, along with most of their colleagues, seem to have no problem with Utah's government-run monopoly over liquor sales, however.

The Utah Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, with its $27.2 million annual budget, controls every aspect of the liquor business in Utah.

The state owns 38 liquor stores with 600 employees that sell 2 million cases of spirits, wine and beer, generating $230 million in gross annual liquor sales. The net profit is $52 million a year, with 13 percent of that directed to the public school lunch program and the rest going to the general fund - as dictated in state code enacted by the Legislature.

The department has a huge bureaucracy with its own office building and a warehouse that keeps $21 million worth of inventory at any one time.

State officials determine what brands the state will buy and sell in its liquor stores. They determine which distributors get the most business, how many stores can operate in the state, who gets to operate lucrative private clubs and which restaurants get liquor licenses.

All private clubs and restaurants must buy their booze from the state. And it's illegal to have a bottle of alcohol that does not contain a Utah stamp, meaning it was purchased at a state liquor store.

This is a legal commodity that in most other states is sold by private establishments to make a profit for those establishments' owners. That is called capitalism.

Utah's system, by its very nature, is socialism.

So why don't Reps. Wimmer, Daw, et al., decry that? That's different?

It appears our state leaders want the government to preside over something that hurts our health while keeping in private hands the system that tries to keep us healthy.

The Legislature, it seems, not only wants a socialistic liquor distribution system, it wants to make sure only one party - the Republican Party - is its true overseer.

Sounds a bit Politburoesque, doesn't it?

Several years ago, then-Democratic State Rep. Grant Protzman from North Ogden spent a year putting together a comprehensive liquor law reform bill that did away with the old system of selling mini-bottles in restaurants and private clubs and created direct table service.

The bill did several positive things. It replaced the 1.7-ounce mini-bottle the law had required be used to make each drink in a private club with a one-ounce measured squirt gun - automatically diminishing the strength of the drink. It also helped servers keep track of how many drinks a person had consumed.

The LDS Church had "no comment" on Protzman's bill, which was a signal to legislative leaders that the church tacitly approved the reform. At that moment, Senate President Arnold Christensen, R-Sandy, sponsored an identical bill in the Senate. And that is the one that passed - making it a Republican bill.

The attitude of the Republican-controlled Utah Legislature toward universal health care was revealed loud and clear when one concerned citizen offered free tickets to Michael Moore's new movie "Sicko."

Clark Newhall, a physician and attorney who believes the movie is an important commentary on the U.S. health-care system, wanted legislators and other public officials to see it.

The response was an overwhelming "no" from Republican legislators who bemoaned the idea of universal health coverage as a move to socialism.

Moore, for the movie, ventured to Canada, England and France, which all have universal or (dare I say the word?) socialistic health care. According to Moore's account, their systems are better than ours.

Some of the more vocal opponents who turned down Newhall were Reps. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, and Bradley Daw, R-Orem, both of whom decried the idea that we would ever even consider the idea of socialism.

These legislators, along with most of their colleagues, seem to have no problem with Utah's government-run monopoly over liquor sales, however.

The Utah Department of Alcohol Beverage Control, with its $27.2 million annual budget, controls every aspect of the liquor business in Utah.

The state owns 38 liquor stores with 600 employees that sell 2 million cases of spirits, wine and beer, generating $230 million in gross annual liquor sales. The net profit is $52 million a year, with 13 percent of that directed to the public school lunch program and the rest going to the general fund - as dictated in state code enacted by the Legislature.

The department has a huge bureaucracy with its own office building and a warehouse that keeps $21 million worth of inventory at any one time.

State officials determine what brands the state will buy and sell in its liquor stores. They determine which distributors get the most business, how many stores can operate in the state, who gets to operate lucrative private clubs and which restaurants get liquor licenses.

All private clubs and restaurants must buy their booze from the state. And it's illegal to have a bottle of alcohol that does not contain a Utah stamp, meaning it was purchased at a state liquor store.

This is a legal commodity that in most other states is sold by private establishments to make a profit for those establishments' owners. That is called capitalism.

Utah's system, by its very nature, is socialism.

So why don't Reps. Wimmer, Daw, et al., decry that? That's different?

It appears our state leaders want the government to preside over something that hurts our health while keeping in private hands the system that tries to keep us healthy.

The Legislature, it seems, not only wants a socialistic liquor distribution system, it wants to make sure only one party - the Republican Party - is its true overseer.

Sounds a bit Politburoesque, doesn't it?

Several years ago, then-Democratic State Rep. Grant Protzman from North Ogden spent a year putting together a comprehensive liquor law reform bill that did away with the old system of selling mini-bottles in restaurants and private clubs and created direct table service.

The bill did several positive things. It replaced the 1.7-ounce mini-bottle the law had required be used to make each drink in a private club with a one-ounce measured squirt gun - automatically diminishing the strength of the drink. It also helped servers keep track of how many drinks a person had consumed.

The LDS Church had "no comment" on Protzman's bill, which was a signal to legislative leaders that the church tacitly approved the reform. At that moment, Senate President Arnold Christensen, R-Sandy, sponsored an identical bill in the Senate. And that is the one that passed - making it a Republican bill.