Michael Moore "morally prohibited" from voting Clinton

[mudesi]

Like usual, Mr. Moore is right on target. Watch the video from Larry King Live last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGv6XBxk1IA&e

Clinton's IWR vote, and her subsequent refusal to accept any sort of responsibility whatsoever is the deal breaker. I can't believe the number of people who support her. Are you willfully ignoring the facts about her enabling of the Iraq war, or do you just not care?

Thank you, Micahel Moore, once again, for speaking for us.

[ursi]

1. that was something else, saw that last night ....

[DaLittle Kitty]

23. K&R Way To Tell The Truth Mike... The Folly IS Amazing...

:)

[derby378]

2. I figured he also took Clinton's recent approach on health care into account

According to Sicko, she's been accepting money from various insurance and pharmaceutical corporations, possibly in exchange for certain, ah, "considerations."

[joshcryer]

3. Her health care plan is superior to Obama's in every way.

Everyone is on agreement with this.

[JackORoses]

7. you mean her Health INSURANCE plan

I notice Hillarites don't understand the difference between Healthcare and Insurance.
It is quite major.

[joshcryer]

12. BOTH plans are health insurance, BOTH plans have a government insurer.

Only Hillary's government insurer and mandates resemble single payer in any concievable way. Obama's plan puts money into the pockets of insurance companies and allows premiums to rise because it lacks mandates.

I have a heart attack in Hillary's plan, I'm covered, my hospital bill is covered.

I have a heart attack in Obama's plan, I go to the hospital, if I don't have insurance, others will have to sink the cost. Premiums go up. Done.

Obama's plan is more profitable for insurance companies.

[JackORoses]

19. yet Hillarites continue to lie to the Public and call her plan Universal Healthcare

They don't care that the public gets the wrong impression, in fact, that is their intention.

Mandates do not make premiums go down. That is still up to the Insurance companies.
Mandates just assure them permanent customers who have no choice but to pay.

Both plans involve the Insurance Companies.

Hillary's plan will force you to pay for a plan even if you cannot afford it.
She is betting that her mandate will make premiums go down, but she has no way to enforce this.
She hopes that with all the new customers coming in, Insurance companies will charge lower rates. But there is no was to assure this.

Obama's plan concentrates on first making the Premiums go down through direct public negotiations with the Insurance companies.
Through this process, affordable Insurance rates will be reached.
Once affordable rates have been negotiated, people will be able to purchase Insurance on their own.
Noone is not forced by law to pay out money that they don't have as in the Clinton plan.

[joshcryer]

28. Mandates do keep the costs down!

Don't be silly. Insurance companies (and the government insurer) can only keep themselves afloat if enough healthy people are paying into the system when they don't need medical care. If not enough people are paying into the system, then costs go up, because you have to *cover* those other people even if they don't have insurance (it's called the patients bill of rights, no one in any American hospital can be turned away, legally; yes it happens, but not usually).

Rates aren't determined by "negotiations." They're determined by the market. You can't just go to an insurance company and say "oh, just take a hit thanks." They'll laugh in your face.

Clinton's plan is proportional to income. You don't make any money, you don't pay anything into it. You make a little money, you pay a little. You make a lot of money, you pay a bunch. It's a no-brainer.

You know how you have medicare and medicaid on your income filing? It's the same thing, and because they are reducing the costs of medicare in their plan, the overall costs are not much more at all.

SIMPLY REMOVING BUSH'S BS TAX CUT PAYS FOR IT

[JackORoses]

39. if the insurance companies want a future, they will negotiate with Obama

Mandates do not guarantee lower rates. Do they create the right conditions for lower rates? Probably.
Will the Insurance Companies actually drop Premiums as low as should be the case based on customer numbers? No.
Why? Because they do not have to.
Are you really telling me Hillary's plan is built upon trusting the Insurance Companies to lower their rates voluntarily?

"You know how you have medicare and medicaid on your income filing? It's the same thing"

No, that is not true. Medicaire and Medicaid are Single Payer. Taxpayer money goes into Government accounts.
In Hillary's plan, the wages that are garnished from your paycheck will go straight to a 3rd Party insurance Company who will be making a PROFIT.

Government Health Programs should not be guaranteeing Profit for 3rd Party Corporations.

[joshcryer]

40. No, Hillary's plan is based on insurance companies having to compete with the government insurer.

The government insurer would be competing with private insurers. People would, overwhelmingly, chose the government insurer, if they had a mandate. The government insurer would be the one determining premiums, and most corporations in actuality won't be able to compete with it by having lower premiums than the government insurer.

However, Obama allows people to game the system by not paying into it when they're healthy. This affects not only the government insurer, but the private insurers, and it makes profit go up. You're not competing with the government insurer, you're competing with the rest of the market, because the government insurer cannot guarantee low costs.

You seem to be completely confused about the role of the government insurer, which is *non-profit* and the same one the senate uses. It *is* single payer if evryone choses it. Some people won't chose it, so what.

[JackORoses]

44. I think you are the one who is confused.

Hillary's system is not set up to wipe the Insurance Corporations out. It is set up to give them 300,000,000 clients.

Your so called 'Government Insurer' is a 3rd Party entity, not part of the US Government.
And it does make profit.
It is not like Single Payer at all.

[Bread and Circus]

22. you are absolutely ignorant of the facts, "in every way" if you actually believe that.

[joshcryer]

29. Yeah? I've read both of their plans. I understand both of their plans.

I'm very concerned about Obama's lackluster insurance padding plan.

[Bread and Circus]

32. Then you need better reading comprehension skills.

[joshcryer]

37. Feel free to express where I'm wrong.

[no name no slogan]

5. That was the reason why the original HillaryCare in 1994 was so rotten

It would have consolidated the health insurance industry into the hands of a handful of major insurers. Small insurance companies would've been locked out, and we still would not have gotten a single-payer universal system out of the deal.

Most on the left hated it because it was a give-away to big insurance, while most on the right hated it because it had government mandates to buy insurance.

[joshcryer]

14. I don't think you appreciate the role of the government health insurer.

The same one the senate and congress uses. Both Obama and Hillary plan to use a very similar system. But because Hillary has mandates it prevents people from gaming the system. Not paying into it when they're healthy, sucking from it when they're sick.

Obama calls for penalities. They are bullshit and not even in his original plan. He only invented them to rebutt Krugman when it was pointed out how bad no-mandates are.

[no name no slogan]

24. I appreciate the role

I've worked in public sector health care policy for the past several years. I've seen the best and the worst of it. Before that I worked in the private sector in the life/health insurance industry, so I've seen that side, too.

I DO NOT think that any sort of "universal" plan will work unless it is single-payer-- something which neither Obama OR Hillary is considering. Adding a government layer in between (or on top of) the large private insurance industry will NOT do anything but jack up the costs and put more money in the pockets of private industry.

Several states have tried what Obama and Clinton are suggesting, but it has NOT controlled costs, nor provided universal coverage. Until we eliminate the role of the for-profit insurance industry from our health care system, we will continue to pay too much and receive too little in return.

[joshcryer]

30. They underestimated how many people were uninsured in Mass.

In fact, that's what Obama is doing, he's underestimating exactly how many people are fucked in our country when it comes to health insurance.

Obama's plan is a lot further away from single payer than Hillary's.

[no name no slogan]

36. How soon they forget...

Dukakis passed a plan just like Romney's in 1988, with the same goal and intent. Read the article at the link in my previous post for the full details.

Nearly 20 years later, Romney had to pass ANOTHER version of it to cover the uninsured. And now, MA is facing a HUGE unfunded mandate because people cannot afford (or will not sign up for).

Neither Clinton's or Obama's plans will cover everybody. And sadly, neither one will support a plan like H.R. 676, which would expand Medicare and cover EVERY American at a cost LESS than what ClintBama is proposing.

www.hr676.org.

[DearAbby]

43. I agree - Well said n/t

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

31. Possibly, but it wasn't in the OP interview

He claimed he can't vote for Hillary because of her "war" votes. He didn't mention any other issues.

[izzybeans]

4. They'll just tell you that Obama was secretly for the war because

he chose to fund the troops like 99% of other democrats at the time. Then they'll say he never voted against the war, then they will say that he would of voted present like Planned Parenthood suggested he should, then they will call him Hussein, then they will call him libtard, oh what that last one is a freeper comeback.Then the

You get the picture.

[Bread and Circus]

6. I wonder if he is aware of Hillary's cluster bomb vote...

[Proud2BAmurkin]

8. He voted for Nader nt

[hill08]

9. Moore's endorsement would be damaging for any Democrat candidate

because with all due respect Michael is just too liberal for America's taste.

[Solon]

10. Heh, I feel the same way about Obama...

Hillary isn't excepted either, actually.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Oh Who Gives A Fuck What He Thinks. Nader Lover That He Is.

[mudesi]

15. He admits he made a mistake there

Unlike Ms. Clinton, who seems incapable of admitting her mistakes.

[Occam Bandage]

21. And yet he's positioning himself to make that mistake again.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

13. Another evil librul for the Hillary fanatics to trash

[Iceburg]

16. I wonder if he was morally against the renewal of the Patriot Act?

[calico1]

17. He isn't speaking for me.

And he voted for Nader in 2000, and not Gore. Remember?

[mudesi]

18. He admits he made a mistake

Why is it so hard to forgive Michael Moore, who admits his mistake in something that was inconsequential to begin with, yet Clinton gets a pass? She caused millions do die by enabling Bush and his war, yet Michael Moore is more vilified because he exercised his constitutional right to vote for anyone he damn well pleases, and even says it was an error afterwards.

[DesertRat]

20. As a Catholic...

he is also morally prohibited from voting for a pro-choice candidate.

[incapsulated]

25. Yeah, Moore has a record of being wrong on voting day

Don't give a shit.

[TexasObserver]

26. I'm morally prohibited from kicking his fat ass over Nader

But I tend to agree with him on Hillary.

[whatchamacallit]

27. Wow read some of the comments by Huckit

It's hard to believe guys like this really exist.

[Bucky]

33. As an Obama supporter & Michael Moore fan, I wanna distance myself from that comment

Clinton is, in my opinion, not as disireable as president as Obama is. But only a lunatic would find her indistinguishable from the Republicans running this fall.

[JVS]

34. Standards. It's what;'s for dinner!

[Nimrod2005]

35. Bingo!

[ElboRuum]

38. I don't care...

I'm voting for the Democratic nominee, period. The rest of you can slap each other silly trying to demonize the other candidate all you like, and if Michael Moore, whose opinion I respect even if I disagree with it from time to time, is welcome to join the fray.

It just seems to me that the average GD:Primaries poster cares a hell of a lot more than I do about one or the other, and even those championing those who've dropped out seem to not be able to accept the situation and deal with the now.

I neither support Clinton or Obama specifically, but I don't spurn them either. Both are, in my mind, classier than average representatives of modern politics (not saying much there), and MUCH more qualified to hold high office than their Republican opponents.

If Michael can't find it in his brain to vote for Clinton as a measure of progress forward in the general election should she become the nominee, so be it. It's his vote and he can squander it away on Nader again, or he can just stay home, or wipe his ass with it, whatever.

[pathansen]

41. Michael Moore supported Nader against Gore thus giving Presidency to Bush

He used really poor judgment by attacking Gore and is significantly more responsible than Hillary for Bush's war.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

42. nice try with the old film clip.......i hope you have to eat crow