Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Michael Moore hits Clinton in 'Sicko'

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:33 PM
Original message
Michael Moore hits Clinton in 'Sicko'
Michael Moore hits Clinton in 'Sicko'

One of the differences between Michael Moore's forthcoming "SiCKO" and his previous films, he writes in the publicity materials, is that "there's not one character or company to hate in SiCKO," which I caught at a screening yesterday. And indeed, most of the politicians appear as anonymous figures in suits, with price tags indicating their contributions from the drug industry. Billy Tauzin, predictably, takes a bit of a beating.

And so, less predictably, does Hillary Clinton.

Moore's brief political history of American health care policy at first seems to lavish praise on Clinton, if with a satirical, and gendered, edge. (She's introduced as "Sassy...smart...sexy.")

But his conclusion is that she sold out. After her defeat in the first Clinton term, he says, she fell silent on the issue. And "for her silence, Hillary was rewarded. And she has been the second-largest recipient in the Senate of healthcare industry contributions."

The movie, which like most of his movies, is powerfully made, will probably drive some debate on the issue when it's released at the end of this month. It's basically a commercial for Western Europe, with an over-the-top ode to Cuba tacked onto the end. And Moore isn't personally in sympathy with any of the Democrats.

"They don't seem to want to grapple with the real issue. It's very sad," he says of the presidential candidates in the publicity package distributed at the screening. "Even the well-intentioned people like John Edwards -- his plan seems to be to take our tax dollars and put them into the pockets of the private insurance industry."

Moore, needless to say, is for single-payer.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0607/Michael_Moo...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
1. Does Moore has the influence he thinks he has?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. You had better hope that he does
because some time in the none to distant future, your life will depend on it.

Our system is irretrievably broken. It can't be repaired and allowed to continue to deny sick people care so some insurance company can make a buck off the corpse.

That corpse might be yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roguevalley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
49. if clinton did wrong, then he deserves attention
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. All I know is that I saw a TV trailer for his movie just today, in Missouri of all places...
I think this may be his biggest movie yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
45. Probably not in Republican circles but around the world hell yes..
Do you pay any attention to how other look at America?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
47. 2000 proved that
he's not very good at picking presidents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glowing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
2. I do believe Kucinich has the plan that doesn't feed the corp. machine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
30. I do too. Dennis is right on so many issues. It is a shame so few acknowledge this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. It is a shame and very puzzling. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemBones DemBones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #2
36. Yes, he does. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Moore is wrong...
Hillary has not been silent on health care...and in fact has been just the opposite...she is no longer pushing for a single payer plan because she realizes it has zero chance of passing in the current environment, and has been concentrating on making progress in more digestible chunks...

I can see why Moore would use Clinton...he is trying to sell tickets, so uses a high profile name...however if he claims Hillary has been somehow paid off by the health care industry he is flat wrong...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hardrada Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Are you so sure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I am sure of this...
Hillary has not been silent on healthcare...

Has a better record of accomplishment on health care than any other candidate..

There is no evidence whatsoever that her silence has been bought buy big healthcare...

So if these are really the claims Moore is making, then he is wrong...

I wonder how much he mentions Ted Kennedy in his piece...after all, until recently he was the biggest recipient of big pharma money...

But then again...attacking Ted Kennedy won't sell tickets!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jefferson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Evidence suggests otherwise...
From The Nation --

It's a rousing speech, though ultimately not very convincing. If Clinton really wanted to curtail the influence of the powerful, she might start with the advisers to her own campaign, who represent some of the weightiest interests in corporate America. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, not only polls for America's biggest companies but also runs one of the world's premier PR agencies. A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm--the Glover Park Group--that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton's campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons' closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton's economic team in waiting. Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay. "She's got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors," says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

***

July 12, 2006
Once an Enemy, Health Industry Warms to Clinton

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ and ROBERT PEAR
When she tried to overhaul the nations health care system as first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton alienated some people and institutions in the health care industry by championing a huge expansion of the federal role. She provoked a fierce reaction from the industry, which mocked her proposal in television advertisements and dispatched lobbyists who ultimately helped kill the plan.

But times change. As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.

Some of the same interests that tried to derail Mrs. Clintons health care overhaul are providing support for her Senate re-election bid. The Health Insurance Association of America ran the famous Harry and Louise commercials mocking the Clinton health care plan as impenetrably complex. Some companies that were members of that group are now donating to Mrs. Clinton.

Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, now works with the senator on some issues as president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobby for hospital companies like HCA and Tenet. He describes his battles with the first lady as ancient history, and he said health care executives were contributing to her now because she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue.

Senator Clinton has received $150,600 in contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which she accused in 1993 of price gouging and unconscionable profiteering.

The financial support is an intriguing turn of events for a political figure who became a pariah for many in the health care industry after President Bill Clinton appointed her to head the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. The recommendations spawned by that panel calling for universal health care, minimum coverage requirements and potential limits on health care spending increases were derided as Hillarycare by opponents and arguably cost Democrats control of the House of Representatives in the 1994 midterm elections.

The rapprochement partly reflects how Mrs. Clinton has moderated her positions from more than a decade ago, proposing legislation to increase Medicare payments or stave off cuts in payments to doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, managed care companies and home health agencies.

She has introduced a bill to lower the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors who disclose medical errors to patients. With strong support from the industry, she has pushed legislation to promote the adoption of health information technology. Providers and consumers praise her efforts to expand insurance coverage for mental health care and to finance long-term care for older Americans living at home.

Mrs. Clinton often disarms health care groups by saying she learned from her past wars. We tried to do too much too fast 12 years ago, and I still have the scars to show for it, she said in an address in March before the annual conference of the Federation of American Hospitals.

MORE AT LINK ---> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Not a lick of evidence in there...
Just criticism on her contributions...criticism I don't see leveled at any other Democrat...

Her actions speak to her commitment on the issue, the only candidate as far as I can see that can point to actual progress on the issue...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
50. You mean the union-busting, pro-corporate aides on her campaign are not facts
These pro-corporate prostitutes are the dolts who are advising Hillary on policy. She will server her corporate masters well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. ....
:rofl:

And which function key is that steaming pile programmed into...

So I imagine the gambling lobbyist Obama has working for him in New Hampshire will come under your wrath as well!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Please no more Ariana Bermington. And yes Moore is wrong on this.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Healt...

Perhaps she hasn't been as vocal as he would like but to cast her as silent is incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. To use a football analogy
Hail Mary's rarely work...with Hillary you are gonna get 3 yards, a cloud of dust, and alot of first downs

And being a loudmouth on an issue does not equate to leadership...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. You'd still have to punt or go for the 4th and 1.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Ok...3 and 1/3 yards and a cloud of dust...
:-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. LOL
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
28. 1) Why is money a bad thing? 2) Who gives a rat's ass where the contributions come from??
1) I'm not talking about what some people decide to do with their money. Just money. People who work with her have money. Who cares. Don't we all wish we had that kind of money. And you've not shown that she's given any favors to anyone who doesn't deserve them because of this "evil money." In fact, your own article states she's pushing health information technology (a money-saving system that will improve patient care), mental health coverage and the elderly. What's the problem?

2) I would LOVE nothing more than to see any candidate take money from a disreputable industry (like healthcare for example), win the election and then stick it to them! That would be fantastic!!

Sounds like Michael Moore wanted to include a "big" name in his film for PR reasons and since the film was almost in the can before anyone declared their candidacy, he chose the one everyone assumed would run all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. But they rarely stick it to them. Rather, they usually climb into bed with them instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #28
38. If she likes health information technology so much--
--she'd be in favor of real universal health care. Countries that have it are already way ahead of us in health information technology.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. She didn't push for single payer the last time, her first plan was, to put it bluntly, a mess...
Edited on Thu Jun-07-07 05:22 PM by Solon
It was another combination of private/public where, half the time, people had no freakin' clue what type of reform she was advocating. All I remember from that time are a lot of ads against "Socialism" from the insurance companies. Then again, I was 14 at the time, so my exact memory may be fuzzy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Krugman wrote a column about the Clinton plan
Yes, it was a mess. I was older than 12 at the time, and remember all of the press interest in the subject of health care. There were a series of town hall meetings on NightLine and PBS. That is when I came to realize that single payer would be the only way to get the cost under control. I was very disappointed in the Clinton proposal since it leaned heavily toward putting tax dollars into the already stuffed pockets of the private sector. Krugman points out how needlessly complex Clinton's system would have been.

This is very sad, that at a time when we really need to fix our broken system both for American's health benefits and to make our businesses competitive, we have to endure this timid triangulation. It is never about what's right for America, it's always about someone or other's political spin. Americans really want a workable plan. If we accept the current boondoggles, plans that will surely end up too costly and ineffective to work, then we'll loose this prime opportunity.

My brother-in-law, a PHD in economics, teaches insurance at a university. He is very worried, and tells me that single payer is the only real fix.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. I won't say Hillary is unique in this regard...
The 3 front runners don't have good plans, period. They can call them transitional if they want, the problem is there is no NEED for a transition in the first place. We already have a working system in place, why not just expand that and let it supplement, and then take over, the insurance industry nationwide? I don't see why this is so HARD for politicians to do, it just goes to show how much money is in the political process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donna Zen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. A matrix
I believe a matrix is needed as we turn this huge ship around. Yes, expansion of the current system is a starting point, although it must be remembered the current system is what is broken. The actual insurance industry would still exist since they would be in some cases the policy producers, and in some or most cases they would still be needed to service the account. But the payer would be central for all of the insured. It now costs 10 times as much to process a private claim as it does to process a medicare claim. Why is that? Duplication of service of is one, and of course the high margin of profitability is another.

To bring the cost done there is much to be done including the institution of preventive health care for everyone, and the negotiation of drug costs. If the system should be put in place without first negating the factors that would cause the system to fail, then we will be pushed back further from the goal. What we must avoid is gimmicks that put the money into the pockets of those who don't give a damn.

Although Hillary's plan was the subject of the first part of my post, she is surely not alone. Not at all. What I don't understand is why the politicians are framing this issue as it should be. We really do need to revamp our system if we are to be competitive in the world. And we really do need to bring down costs. And we really do need a system that works for all of us. The majority of Americans can understand that if it is presented to them. Personally, and here I may be cynical but I've watched this debate too long not to be, I believe that the problem lies with the lobbyists and the money.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #27
40. All of the "front runner" plans are about subsidizing the very people who are responsible--
--for our present mess. When anybody talks about "personal responsibility" in health care, you can be sure that they mean "We will force you (or your employer) to buy insurance from the same companies who won't honor your claims now, and raise your taxes to subsidize them."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #27
46. Actually, I was pretty specific in the system I want to expand...
Medicare should be expanded to cover all Americans, regardless of age, income, or employment. Medicare should also be allowed to negotiate prices in drugs and medical services, and cover all necessary treatment and doctor visits, for preventative care, 100%. Everybody already pays FICA taxes, pretty much, and they will probably not see an increase of no more than a few percentage points in FICA to pay for expanded Medicare, less so if we divert funds from the Pentagon or other pork to help pay for it. The Health Insurance industry will still be around, at least for a little while, but they shouldn't receive ONE dime of public money, rather, they should be driven out of business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #11
39. You' d think she would have learned from that, and she didn't
She asked the big insurance companies to the table to help her put the plan together, and her reward for that was that they screwed her over anyway. Charlie Brown never figured out Lucy and the football either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
9. ...
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
12. Bless you Michael Moore...
Keep 'em coming baby!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
13. Moore said in an interview that he likes Hillary. He added that his
partner on the film asked him to remove the Hillary part (partner a big Hill fan), but he refused. They were laughing and hitting each other about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. I like Hillary too, for many reasons...
But it's important to call it like it is ~ our country is a mess, we all have to face it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
14. Say it ain't so Michael....cause it ain't
"And "for her silence, Hillary was rewarded. And she has been the second-largest recipient in the Senate of healthcare industry contributions."

This is silence?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Healt...

In her first address from the Senate floor, Hillary Clinton offered an agenda of health care initiatives, casting herself as a moderate on the very issue that resulted in one of her most embarrassing defeats as first lady. The Clinton administrations failed attempt to overhaul the nations health care system was widely derided at the time as big-government liberalism. She said that the experience the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done, she said.
She called for expanding eligibility for the government-run Childrens Health Insurance Program. Her plan, she said, would enable roughly five million more children to enroll. Clinton also proposed financial bonuses as a reward to states that aggressively enroll more children in the program. And she called for establishing a new national health insurance program for low-income families that is modeled after a NY program. She offered no details in her speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BikeWriter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Her first address? What has she done since except cash their checks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. That is what the link was for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nannah Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
34. health care for children is a warm fuzzy. it is their working parents who
need to stay healthy to work. the working poor are the hardest hit on health care; they work in jobs with no benefits and no sick time; they need access to health care to keep being able to work. and children of people working at low wage jobs are usually covered under federal children's health care benefits. but the adults and parents still need a way to be health enough to keep working and caring for their families. i agree. single payer is the only way to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
41. Well, I went hungry as a kid, not because I didn't have health insurance--
--but because my fecking PARENTS didn't have it. No one insures people with "pre-existing conditions" at any price, and our substantial bills were all out of pocket. Thanks, but no thanks.

Everybody IN--nobody OUT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brigid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
25. All I know is . . .
We have about 47 million Americans without health insurance, and there is no other industrialized country that would allow that. Our system is also the most expensive by far. Anyone who thinks our system works is just not living in the real world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. The US has been left in the dust by progressives elsewhere.
Edited on Thu Jun-07-07 06:22 PM by polichick
We lag behind in healthcare, global warming leadership, trade, technology, etc...long-term investments for the people and the planet ignored in favor of enormous short-term gains for corporations, incl. drug companies, and the wealthy who run them and sit on the boards. It's shameful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robeson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-07-07 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
29. Looking forward to seeing it....
...thanks for the review.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
32. "she has been the second-largest recipient in the Senate of healthcare industry contributions."
Enough said...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Major Hogwash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
33. I can't wait to see this movie. You know it's been fact checked.
And that's the way the cookie crumbles - some of our Democrats in Congress are owned by SPECIAL INTERESTS

The truth hurts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
35. She sold out more than this. She sold out her party as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 02:05 AM
Response to Original message
42. I'm not wild about Hill these days but
Edited on Fri Jun-08-07 02:07 AM by snot
she was absolutely savaged for her role in the healthcare reform effort. I remember feeling shocked at how bad it was. She was in the first line in that particular battle; I feel she's done her duty in that area and there are plenty of others who can and should step up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzPolitics Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 03:09 AM
Response to Original message
43. I'm Still Confused...
After reading through all of these responses, I'm really still confused about who's right on this. Maybe that's why I prefer Obama; he doesn't have all of this early 1990's health-care baggage associated with him...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 07:21 AM
Response to Original message
44. Michael Moore is so right on this.
Supporters of all the candidates (except Kucinich) can cheerlead their health care proposals and it's all noise. If it feeds the insurance industry, it's just more of the same. Anyone who is not demanding universal, single payer is a person who has insurance and thinks they're covered. Don't get sick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-08-07 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. Yeah, on this and so many other issues...
We need a real revolution ~ something Kucinich understands. And yet, it's very unlikely that such a revolutionary (f*** the status quo) leader could win, even the primary. Sigh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr 20th 2014, 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC