jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (12 posts)

Has anybody seen the latest Michael Moore movie?

  1. rhamson profile image76
    rhamsonposted 8 years ago

    Okay I will be the first to ask the question and await the answers I recieve.  While he is in the entertainment business and he pokes fun at a lot of issues can you not see his point and what he is trying to expose?

  2. staceyleah74 profile image55
    staceyleah74posted 8 years ago

    I havent seen it yet, but Im looking forward to it! Love him or hate him...even the previews show things that you HAVE to pay attention to!

  3. Ralph Deeds profile image62
    Ralph Deedsposted 8 years ago

    I saw it last Friday when it opened in Royal Oak, Michigan, and did a HubReview on it. It's worth seeing, but his formula is getting a little tired, in my opinion. It's a hash-up of old movie and news reel footage combined with current film of foreclosures, and Moore's attempts to get the TARP money back from the Wall Street Banksters. The only new item to me was his interview with a widow told about how the company employing her husband collected $1.5 million on a "dead peasant" life insurance policy upon his death. She got zilch. WalMart is apparently a big user of dead peasant life insurance policies on its employees. I'd never heard of "dead peasant" insurance.

  4. Pearldiver profile image80
    Pearldiverposted 8 years ago

    This style of insurance policy has been around since Adam was a boy.  Certainly common in NZ during the eighties; when it was called key personel cover. 
    Dead peasant is probably a more appropriate description, as it is used to recoop the cost to the company of making employee payments! 
    The biz pays the premiums and the employee assigns the biz as beneficiary.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image62
      Ralph Deedsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      In the cases cited by Michael Moore the employee was not even informed that the company had taken out a policy on his life. The WalMart "dead peasants" are hardly "key employees."

  5. Flightkeeper profile image72
    Flightkeeperposted 8 years ago

    Apparently, not many people have.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Are you going to see it?

      1. Flightkeeper profile image72
        Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        No. This is a guy who blamed capitalism for not underwriting his first movie attempts and discounts all the wealth he has earned by being successful in a capitalist society. No, I woulnd't go see his movie.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Wow! What book did you read that in? You can make all those statements without any regard for the truth.

          He had a hard time getting his first movie done because the powers that be did not want any exposure to their business practices.  He slamed them as he did with his movoes based on an exposure of things our mass media and politicians don't want to be known.

          You sound like the last guy I talked to about Michael Moore and he said Moore should keep his mouth shut and go back to Canada.  When I told him he was from Flint, Michigan he retorted with well he should be from there.

          1. Flightkeeper profile image72
            Flightkeeperposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Okay, I guess you didn't see his interview. He said that capitalism didn't help him.  Why should he expect it to? Capitalism rewards efforts if there's a place for it in the marketplace, it doesn't exist to fund movies like France.  If he had a hard time getting his movie done it was because he wanted to work that way.  He chose not to use certain business practices so why should he be resentful of capitalism?  Especially when he earned success the way he wanted to?

  6. profile image0
    Leta Sposted 8 years ago

    Yes, but didn't the New York Times do sort of an expose recently refuting some of Moore's 'facts?'  One of which was Walmart actually did away with these policies a number of years ago.


    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I don't know if they ever stopped but the practice has been in effect since 2002.  Here is a quote I found.

      The Ellen E. Schultz and Theo Francis of the Wall Street Journal state the case a bit more bluntly in the article 'Janitors Insurance' Issue Leaves Workers in the Dark on Coverage (April 24, 2002) when they state:

      Until the 1980s, employers weren't allowed to take out policies on workers because they had no "insurable interest" in their survival.  In other words, the company couldn't argue that it would suffer financial hardship if janitors, file clerks and nonessential executives perished.  Insurable interst rules were designed to prevent life insurance from providing an incentive for murder or negligence, and ultimately discourage one person from "wagering" on the life of another.

      I know that it does not give a date to it stopping but I would not bet on it.