How do HRC supporters feel about Michael Moore's latest flick?

[snowbear]

Among "Sicko's" villains are politicians who pocket millions from HMOs and pharmaceuticals while denouncing universal care as little better than a Communist plot. The film is particularly tough on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D.-N.Y.), once an advocate for universal care and now among the healthcare industry's biggest money recipients. (Moore says "Sicko" distributor Harvey Weinstein, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons, asked him to cut the sequence, but he refused.)

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-moore21may21,1,2729792.story?coll=la-headlines-entnews&track=crosspromo


~~~

[Kagemusha]

1. The LAT doesn't say - is Lieberman picked on too here?

My understanding is that he's a huge recipient of pharma money.

Not trying to pick on the LAT - the paragraph was meant to give one prominent example, and did so.

[snowbear]

5. Dunno about Lieberman. HRC was mentioned on the news because she's running..

Would've been fun going to the Cannes Film Festival though!

[flpoljunkie]

15. HRC is the #4 recipient from insurance and the #2 recipient from health industry. Links below.

Joe Lieberman is #2 recipient from the insurance industry. Senator Barack Obama's name is not on either of these lists.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=F09&cycle=2006

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?ind=H&cycle=2006

[Kagemusha]

17. Thanks, thought it was something like that.

Was curious if Lieb got a mention in the film.

[question everything]

2. I am not her supporter, yet but they way

she is expected to be an angel, to satisfy every whim and every wish list of every one is ridiculous.

[ulysses]

4. what's an acceptable amount of criticism, to your mind?

[papau]

3. "healthcare industry's biggest money recipients" -pointless - Could Moore discuss policy positions

Hillary has taken that were against single payer national health? - no- because there are none - she has worked as a minority party member to get a little accomplished - which means working with the GOP and their love of insurance companies - and Moore does not like that for some reason.

I was in the insurance industry and we always gave to both sides - the giving means nothing.

[AZBlue]

12. Exactly. I'd like nothing more for a candidate to take lots of their money, then win &

turn the tables on them, making healthcare affordable and accessible to everyone in this country! That would be SWEET!

[ConsAreLiars]

13. Giving 20-30 million and 2/3 to the Cons - that is not

"giving to both sides" and that kind of money certainly does not mean "nothing."

(edit out typo)

[papau]

14. True - the GOP are cheap whores and money talks - the Dems only really respond to fear of

insurance agents and their customer lists - but one does need to give a little to the Dems so they can pretend they are not running away from principle because of fear -it is just those damn but needed campaign contributions that make them make those decisions - and by the way there are those jobs provided by health insurance companies - LOL - it was too easy - I was the token liberal allow into these conversations and meetings - mainly to see me squirm I think.

I was in a board room once where the pre-meeting conversation was about those damn Democrats running D.C. - they were not worth a damn compared to the folks in the solid south because, unlike the state politicians and regulators in the favored south, those DC folks would not stay bought. You spent your money for political gain on the DC folks - and could never be sure of your return.

Indeed in the 80's you'll see in the record that most - 3 - of the DC companies (life and health )relocated their legal residence to Virginia or merged and terminated their DC charter so as to be under the Virginia charter of the new company. We had got spoiled by the ease of purchase of Reagan administration decisions and now had "higher" "standards" for our political regulators. Once again an unreported story by the Reagan loving media.

[FrenchieCat]

6. I haven't seen it just yet.......

LA times are a little dubious these days, considering that Jonah Goldberg has a column! :eyes:

[William769]

7. This is America, we do have freedom of specch (at least so far).

I like Michael moore, but that doesn't mean he's always right.

[MethuenProgressive]

8. What did Moore say Clinton did in return for the money?

If she's been "anti-poor sick people", I'd like to hear some proof.

[SaveElmer]

10. Guilt by association...

Typically you hear little about actual accomplishments or policy positions...

I will be curious to see if he goes after Ted Kennedy, who is aftaer all, no slouch at raking in donations from big pharma!!!!

[quinnox]

9. not going to see it

Moore bashing Hillary is no surprise. and I think a film titled "Sicko" should be a miss anyway.

I did like his last move Fahrenheit 9/11 but now I wonder if he was entirely honest in his portrayal of the events in the movie.

[Forkboy]

11. "but now I wonder if he was entirely honest in his portrayal of the events in the movie."

You'll never know for sure because you wont see it.

[wyldwolf]

16. probably the reason FOX News gave it a glowing review

Another review I read said it attacked multiple Democrats. We'll see.

But it does seem that political reality often escapes some people. An elected official can't wave a magic wand and make things happen.

Does Moore prefer the politicians who make bold statements about healthcare but are in no position to follow through? It is easy to say what play your would have ran in the big game from the comfort of your lazy boy.

[mtnsnake]

18. HRC doesn't need MM's support. Michael was the kiss of death for General Clark

so Hillary is probably happy he won't be on her band wagon.