Did he see the movie?

One other thing that's frustrating about the Los Angeles Times article Matt links to is its factual looseness:

Rejecting Moore's prescription on healthcare could alienate liberal activists, who will play a big role in choosing the party's next standard-bearer. However, his proposal — wiping out private health insurance and replacing it with a massive federal program — could be political poison with the larger electorate.

Alright. Let's be precise for a second. Michael Moore appeared on Capitol Hill and basically gave his endorsement to the Conyers-Kucinich bill--a Medicare for all proposal that would, in fact prohibit private insurers from duplicating Medicare benefits. It would basically limit the roll of private insurance to cosmetic care, and would give displaced private-sector employees first dibs on jobs at the "United States National Health Insurance" program. It's the most drastic reform on offer either in the Congress or by any of the leading presidential candidate.

But in the movie, Moore heaps generous helpings of praise on to a dead and decaying plan you might have heard of long ago called Hillarycare--a plan that mandated a large role for the sort of competing, though heavily regulated, private HMOs Conyers and Kucinich would like to see eliminated. That's not totally unlike the plans on offer from other Democrats, and so it probably follows that even craaaazy Michael Moore could get behind something a bit less radical than the Conyers plan for the sake of getting everybody covered. Not a convenient detail for Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar. It's even sillier that this article got published when the exact same piece could have been written about Moore vs. the Democrats on the Iraq issue, and been largely accurate and much more damning. This criticism, on the other hand, is both unpersuasive and inaccurate--traits which constitute the stupidest kind of criticism.