Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who Will Stand Strong in Heat of Healthcare Fight?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flashed some mighty sharp fangs last week at the insurance industry. The industry, along with drug companies, hospitals, and medical associations, is trying to torpedo government insurance options to insure all Americans. Saying the industry is conducting a “shock-and-awe carpet bombing’’ to “perpetuate the status quo,’’ she went so far as to say the insurance companies “are the villains in this,’’ with their “exorbitant profits.’’ She charged, “they have been immoral all along how they have treated the people that they insure.’’
But considering insurers’ campaign contributions to Democrats, including Pelosi, who is actually going to bite the health industry in the leg on behalf of the American people? Is it really going to be Pelosi? Senate majority leader Harry Reid? President Obama?
We already know that the Republicans and conservative Democrats, known as the “Blue Dogs,’’ are dead-set defenders of a status quo where 46 million Americans are uninsured. They were the first to be bought off by the $263 million in lobbying by the health sector this year, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
But will other Democrats be slowly picked off, and allow reform to be picked apart into irrelevance in the coming weeks, given that the party long ago took single-payer off the table?
Back In the 2008 election, the health sector contributed nearly $20 million to Obama’s campaign, more than twice the amount it gave to Republican John McCain. But now that the issue has come to the fore, the political action committees of the top five contributors in 2008 - the American Dental Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, Pfizer, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists - have all given thousands of dollars to the Blue Dog PAC.
The health industry has more than enough PAC and campaign contribution cash to shower Democrats of all stripes. At this moment, the top nine recipients of campaign cash from the health sector in the 2010 election cycle are all Democrats, led by the $467,000 for Reid and including $126,000 for House majority leader Steny Hoyer and $125,000 for Pelosi. Reid and Pelosi are also the top PAC recipients from the health sector, with Hoyer coming in fourth.
The Democrats, of course, deny that any money will sway their opinions. Pelosi’s spokesman, Brendan Daly, was quoted last week by Congressional Quarterly: “As the speaker’s opposition to the health insurance companies being in charge of Americans’ health care shows, there is no link between political contributions and positions on policy.’’
Only time will tell if Pelosi or some other Democrat will be a weak link. While Congressional Quarterly reported that Pelosi’s contributions specifically from health insurers were relatively small, the medical biotech firm Amgen was the second-leading giver to her campaign committee and leadership PAC in the 2008 election cycle. Amgen has been lobbying with the other major pharmaceutical companies - so far successfully - to make sure that any reform of healthcare does not force them to lower their costs or compete with Canadian imports.
In no surprise, Amgen’s PAC also gave to the Blue Dog PAC in the 2008 cycle. It spent $6.1 million in the first half of this year lobbying on Capitol Hill, bettered only by the $13 million of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Council, the $11.7 million of Pfizer, and the $7 million of Eli Lilly. The political action committees of all those other companies or trade groups have given to the Blue Dogs.
Thus, the Democratic leadership must be watched carefully over the next several weeks. Despite the carpet-bombing of lobbying, Americans themselves are not yet completely brainwashed against a more sane healthcare system. A Time poll shows that 63 percent of Americans still favor healthcare coverage for all Americans, even if the government needs to subsidize it for those who cannot afford it, and 80 percent say people should be covered regardless of pre-existing conditions. The majority of Americans want Pelosi, Congress, and Obama not just to bare their political teeth, but to chomp down hard on the forces that put profit before coverage. To borrow from Pelosi, anything less is immoral.
- Posted in

26 Comments so far
Show AllWho Will Stand Strong in Heat of Healthcare Fight?
Almost nobody.
Did ANYONE, even the best, get up and make a fuss so that single payer advocates be allowed "at the table"? Did Obama speak out like a mensch to allow his doctor of 22 years to testify? If so, it passed me by. There are a handful who might do something, including Kucinich, Conyers, Sanders. Donna Edwards and others have tried to make the public option meaningful. Anthony Weiner showed some battling feist when he offered an amendment to stop Medicare, since government sponsored health care is such a threat.
But the rest will allow issues to be mangled, allow complete erosion of the bill's intent on behalf of their pharmaceutical and insurance company sponsors, and meanwhile manage their images so that they can get elected by an American populace who desperately wants and needs health care in the model of Medicare or the VA.
Our job is to talk about the options and make it more and more impossible for them to get away with their usual mealy-mouth shenanigans.
Joe
During August, the big money interests will feverishly pour money into finishing off the brainwashing on health reform, and throw at it every dirty trick imaginable. If successful, the result will be a large increase in people with cardboard signs at mall and freeway entrances, and an increase in business for funeral homes.
"Who Will Stand Strong in Heat of Health care Fight?"
WHO ELSE?! Visit the link....
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44975
Kucinich2012 (love the sound of that!) Much as I admire Dennis and would like to support another of his runs for the presidency as I did in 04 and 08, I have to enter a caveat about the states-option amendment that he has offered to the bill, for which he apparently expects to "stand strong" in lieu of the single payer measure that he co-authored. Going to the link, which you helpfully furnished, it describes a public meeting in Illinois in which he was touting the state-option version of single payer which promotes statewide health care "co-ops" and one questioner asks whether the program really promotes co-ops or a cop-out: by which he think he meant the suspicion of many that the states-option is really a "cheap" victory for universal health care, one that well may not work when it gets in the reality of state-by-state politics (it would never happen in Florida, in my opinion) but that it's "progressive" enough to have the Progressive Caucus get on board with the "at least we're getting something" of the very flawed "health reform" bill that's likely to come out of Congress, especially if the Caucus supports it. There's no record in the afterdowning report you link that Dennis actually ever answered the "cop-out" question or the political realities of state politics that might make the states-option a cruel holding out of single payer hope in a very unlikely format. As I said in my posting today to Nichols' article on single payer, I'd much rather see Dennis and other progressives "stand strong" for the HR 676 bill for which so much of the progressive public has advocated for so long. If there is any ray of hope that HR 676 could pass, I'd see it in the (not so unlikely) prospect that a stalemated Congress, dealing with incredibly complex and contradictory details of the proposed "reform bills," might throw up its collective hands in desperation, and say, what the hell, let's make it simple and go for what most Americans want and will work most effectively: HR 676. If we come to that glorious point in the stumbling democracy known as the American political system, I'd hope that a few courageous Americans like Dennis Kucinich would be there to say: welcome aboard, we've been waiting for you.
Supporting Kucinich's state-based single-payer amendment and supporting HR 676 are not mutually exclusive.
q
True, as long as you reject the suggested "cop-out" interpretation that a meaningless "alternative" will drain away support for HR 676. As I tried to convey, I'm not so sure about this.
Jerry Rose,
Your last scenario is so brilliant to me, probably because I'm clutching at straws, but it's a crazy ol world. May it come to pass.
netminnow: Clutch onto that straw, brother or sister; It WILL come to pass, hopefully without too many more intervening disasters. As MLK said we the people will get to the mountaintop whether any one of us lives long enough to make that journey.
netminnow: I just saw a new posting by Bruce Dixon on Black Agenda Report who repeats essentially my "scenario" of single payer coming suddenly into prominence as the Washington fumblers are unable to come up with a coherent "plan" out of the morass of separate "plans." He says that the deadlock in Congress that extends across an August recess is actually a big "opportunity" for single payer, though he predicates that opportunity on relentless campaigning on its behalf, in convincing both the D.C. decision makers and our fellow citizens that single payer (probably better "sold" as "Medicare for all") is not only possible but actually inevitable. My favorite quote from the article is his saying that every salesman knows that the word "no" is just the beginning of a conversation; and likewise the "no, single payer is not on the table" should begin and not end signficant conversation.
Dixon's article; http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=print/content/battle-health-care%C2%A0-between-now-and-labor-day-its-still
double post
Pelosi’s spokesman, Brendan Daly, sez: “As the speaker’s opposition to the health insurance companies being in charge of Americans’ health care shows, there is no link between political contributions and positions on policy.’’
***
Wow. Goebbels himself never said anything so blatantly bizarro-world backward. So, a single, meaningless but well-fanged propaganda statement somehow supercedes a career of serving corporate interest?
One question for the speaker -- explain it like I'm a small child, please -- why can't all USAns have YOUR health plan? Or are you the only constituent for whom you oppose health insurance companies being in charge of health care?
Judging from today's Democracy Now, Waxman is surely one that is being "picked off." The guy wouldn't even say that he would vote against any healthcare bill without a public option and criticized Kucinich's stand on the "greenwash" global warming bill, saying Dennis was "wrong."
Expect to see a very minimal public option, one with no leverage to force lower rates. At the most, it will be simply a vehicle for those who have been thrown off private systems to buy private insurance with a government subsidy. There will be no cost containment and we taxpayers will be simply subsidizing an already bloated profit-based insurance system.
In addition, should taxes be raised to provide this subsidy to the insurance and pharma industries, there is nothing in the bill to suggest these monies will be earmarked for healthcare. Likely, as with all govt taxes, they will simply be absconded by whichever fuhrer see it in his/her best interest to bomb more brown people in mud or straw huts.
America deserves better than this, but with the Supreme Court willing to grant corporations full "personhood" status, with rights to "free speech" campaign donations to directly influence legislation, we have a corrupt "legal" government and nothing short of drastic change will deal with this. Sad but true.
IF campaign contributions have no bearing on how Policy designed then why donate money to a campaign?
GwNorth
To quote [or paraphrase] a line from Spencer Tracy in the classic film Bad Day at Black Rock, your query is simply brilliant in its clarity. Pelosi must take the citizens of this country to be either incredibly naive or to be simpletons to believe that there is no quid pro quo in the money that the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have showered upon both the Democrats and the Republicans. Both major parties have been, for the most part, bought and sold by the major corporations, lock, stock and barrel.
Lets hope that someone will be strong enough to right the wrong that the Bush/Cheney regime did when they destroyed any hope for forty-seven millions people lost their insurance, under the corrupt action of the repugs.
Jarhead,
I am glad you are here and I am glad like the rest of us you want to hold Bush/Cheney accountable for their innumerable crimes. I just hope you understand that those two and their party are the belly of the snake, whereas the Demoks are the dorsal side of the same corporatist (fascist) snake. Until we plebes unify and demand our rights back from the oligarchs,we're just taking potshots into the fog.
What ever happened to MOVE ON.
If you mean moveon.org, they don't get involved in working class matters like these. Their only goal is to load up more Democrats.
Well that's interesting considering that moveon.org has been gathering petitions, and holding rallies about health care, and the public option all over the country. It is their top priority voted on by their membership that numbers 3 million. I hope you spend as much time working on the issue as you do criticizing those who are.
The public option that moveon is fighting for is a lobbyist-shriveled joke that will neither contain costs nor significantly expand coverage, according to the CBO. It leaves most Americans to the tender mercies of the HMO and Big Pharma greedheads, with no brakes on their unconscionable profiteering.
Why do you think Big Pharma is taking out "Harry and Louise" ads supporting this legislation? Doesn't that tell you all you need to know?
Please read the following to educate yourself on this subject:
http://www.pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/20/bait-and-switch-how-the-%E2%80%9Cpublic-option%E2%80%9D-was-sold/
The trouble with MovingOn.org is not energy but direction.
I get one petition after another to support watered-down health measures involving ridiculous layers of bureaucracy, perhaps from some infatuation with 0bama, perhaps because they have some tactical misreading of the benefits of compromise between elections.
Just because Americans want national health care and a bill comes labeled "National Health Care" does not mean the bill will give Americans what they want.
Similarly, MovingOn has worked hard for Obama, but insofar as MovingOn members have progressive hopes, Obama has worked against them.
Oh, I knew this URL would be handy, but not this fast. It's another CD post, "Did You Hear the Democrats Won the Election?":
http://www.commondreams.org/comment/reply/45495/1266567
Hey, I still look at those emails to see what I can sign. But as long as things like the abvoe things do not convince MO to quit supporting the perpetrators, why oh why would I be glad they're working hard?
They do intercine quibbles between Demoplican & Republicrat.
Can we change PAC to People's Action Committee and demand that Congress must start representing US, the people who elect them? (I know, I'm dreaming...)
And my brainwashed loyal Democratic friends keep telling me, "I hope you're not giving up on Obama" and insisting that it will all work out all right. I keep reminding them that single payer is the best plan, and that in the past Obama publicly stated he supported it- and they say, "Single payer can't pass in the US. Not now. At least his plan is a start." As if, by some miracle, health insurance companies will shrivel up and go away, as will the one million medical debt-related bankruptcies and 22,000 annual deaths. Another friend, who's been more critical of the proposals, now insists-- very enthusiastically, that "the Democrats are going to allow a vote on Single Payer!!! Even Pelosi is on board!!!" What kind of drugs are these people taking?
Meanwhile, the only thing I hear in MSM are scary tales of government-run health care systems and socialism. Today a local businessman and Republican remarked that he was watching Fox News this morning and they talked to a British citizen about how bad the British system is. Long waits, rationing, etc. I said, "Well, it's the same thing here. I don't have coverage; therefore, I never go to the doctor-- so I have long waits and my health care is rationed." Of course, there is never an intelligent comment in response to this.
I don't know who you supported in the general election but I doubt that you had any doubt about the nature of Washington politics. Neither did Obama. The general election was about rearranging the deck chairs what you are reminding us is that the Titanic is still aimed at the iceberg. The investors are still screaming full steam ahead, and the monied aristocracy are obliviously posturing in the grand ballroom. There is a difference.
When our "captain" took the helm, his first message was this is not the end, it is the beginning. To paraphrase,he said,"OK we got control of the ship, but we're still aimed at that iceberg and we can divert if we all stay on task.
All I can say about Obama and the dems is they are required to play the political game that hasn't changed. The game is get elected. It is only because we had 18,000,000 behind them that they got in in the first place. But Audre Lorde warned, "You can't tear down the masters house with the masters tools." WE ARE THE CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN," We elected a leader now damn it follow him... support what we know he wants to do. What he promised to do. We won because we got 38 million people out to vote for this change.So we have to stay engaged, engage them, fire up those engines, reverse those turbins and lets not blame the captain but get the damn ship back on course. And,we better start building our lifeboats just in case. We have to continue to keep the pressure on and let them know they need to give us the change they promised.
Re irishblueileen August 5th, 2009 12:02 am
This old deck ape loves a good nautical metaphor. I hope you don't mind my adding some detail:
O'Bummer is only nominally the captain. The harbor pilot (the bond-holding class) is actually in command. The first class passengers (politicians) are dancing and drinking in the saloon while the rest of us are sweating in steerage, hoping to find an unwary rat or two for dinner.
Oh, about those lifeboats? Due to a chronic lack of funds for maintenance, they're not quite seaworthy.
Bon voyage.