In his new documentary SiCKO, filmmaker Michael Moore exposes the deplorable tactics practiced by some health insurance and pharmaceutical companies who deny coverage to individuals who are insured.
Moore is now facing "a multifaceted counteroffensive" from front groups supported and funded by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. FreedomWorks, for example, recently launched a new campaign claiming that under policies favored by Moore, "healthy individuals" would "wind up subsidizing people like Moore, who are overweight and and/or live decidedly unhealthy lifestyles by frequenting fast-food restaurants, smoke, or use drugs."
Several health care industry members serve on the FreedomWorks board of directors, and the group is run by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, whose PAC has received significant contributions from the health care industry.
The Cato Institute, which has written numerous pieces attacking Moore's film that argue that he "ignores the positive side of American health care," receives funding from multiple insurance and pharmaceutical companies, including Amerisure Insurance, Pfizer, and Merck. Additionally, a senior fellow at The Manhattan Institute, which receives funding from multiple pharmaceutical giants such as Bristol-Myers Squibb, started a site called Free Market Cure, which argues SiCKO is "set to inject a large dose of misinformation and propaganda into our national dialog about health care policy." Other health care industry front groups -- such as the Galen Institute, Pacific Research Institute, and the Heritage Foundation -- have also recently launched their own attacks on Moore's film.
The health insurance and pharmaceutical industries clearly view Moore's film exposing some of their misdeeds as a serious threat, and they have no shortage of funds to try to attack it.
There is a First Amendment.
While I have my doubts whether the Supreme Court's ready assimilation of corporations to "natural persons" and of commercial speech to core political speech were fully justified in the first instance, I favor robust debate on matters of public consequence--including the identification of the source of funding of such PR campaigns. I'm also curious about the tax treatment of money supporting such campaigns. Is such funding support regarded as a legitimate business expense or as a non-deductible political contribution-- or as a bribe?
No comments:
Post a Comment