Bernie will win because most Americans worry far more about health care costs than they worry about socialism

[Bjorn Against]

They tell us that Bernie can't win because he calls himself a socialist, well I am here to say that those people are full of shit. Bernie will not be hurt by the socialist label, he will be helped by it and this is why.

Bernie's opponents seem to think that Americans will run for the hills the moment they hear the word "socialism", but the fact is that word has already been used against Bernie countless times but instead of running for the hills voters are running to the arenas to hear Bernie speak.

Here is what Republicans and the third way Democrats who like to "reach across the aisle" don't understand, the average American spends a lot more time feeling pissed off at the political establishment than they spend reliving the Cold War. The typical American thinks that our Congress is made up of a bunch of corrupt assholes that care more about themselves than they do about our country. Americans spend a lot more time thinking about how frustrated they are with our current political system than they do about the names that are on our modern day Joe McCarthy's list of suspected socialists.

If the Republicans go after Bernie on socialism then Bernie can use the same argument that he has already very effectively used, he can move the discussion beyond the single word and on to the issues. Bernie is a Democratic Socialist because he believes everyone has a right to health care, everyone has a right to a good education, everyone should be paid decent wages for their labor, and everyone should be able to get Social Security benefits when they retire. These are all ideas that most Americans find attractive and a person can not make these ideas unattractive simply by screaming "SOCIALISM!!!!111!!!" at the top of their lungs.

Every time that the Republicans and Third Wayers do scream socialism Bernie will remind them that he supports health care for all, they support a system that denies people access to health care. Bernie supports a system that increases the wages of the workers, they support a system that benefits the CEOs and screws the workers. He supports a system that allows any qualified student to go to college regardless of income, they support a system that leaves students with crippling debt. The average American worries far more about their access to health care than they do about socialism and if the Republicans think they can defeat Bernie in a debate on health care by saying the word "socialism" over and over again I think they are in for a shock.

If Bernie's opponents think they can effectively attack Bernie for being a Democratic Socialist I got three words for them: BRING IT ON!

[MADem]

1. Really? How many times has the GOP voted to try and repeal Obamacare?

And a substantial percentage of the dumbasses in this country had their back on those votes...?

Don't confuse your enthusiasms with a majority POV. There's an angry and vocal minority out there, egged on by corporate interests, who want to scrap what rudimentary healthcare America has.

[Wilms]

3. Really? How many times has the GOP managed to repeal Obamacare?

Angry Vocal Minority

[MADem]

11. Look, you're acting like the whole of America is ENAMOURED of Obamacare--they aren't.

It's going to take a while before it becomes part of the fabric of our lives. Don't shoot the messenger.

One picture of someone with a (dumbass) hand made sign isn't proof of anything. Save, maybe, that there's at least one moron wandering the earth.

What might be more useful is seeing how people's POV of their healthcare is trending--better, or worse? Right now, that number ain't going the way you want it to go--at least according to this recent poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

Monday, August 24, 2015

Voters are less satisfied with the health care they personally receive and remain pessimistic that the national health care law will make the system any better.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of Likely U.S. Voters still rate the quality of the health care they receive as good or excellent. Still, that’s down from 70% in April and is the lowest finding in nearly two-and-a-half years of regular surveying . These positives have generally run in the high 70s and low 80s for most of this period but have been trending down since the first of the year.

Only seven percent (7%), however, rate the care they get as poor, just slightly above findings for much of the past two years. (To see survey question wording, click here.)


The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 19-20, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

There's more work to be done. Rest on your laurels and you may find yourself knocked on your best intentions.

[roguevalley]

33. I live in the sticks in Alaska and the governor by himself pushed through the expansion

to include 40K people. Its well liked up here.

[MADem]

42. That's good. But that's a long, long way from single payer.

40K people is a drop in the bucket.

[brooklynite]

2. Show me polling that suggests majority support for Single Payer Health Care

[Bjorn Against]

5. Here you go...

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds

[MADem]

12. Hmm. So half the country agrees with what FLOTUS Hillary Clinton was saying back in the 90s! nt

[Armstead]

13. She was hardly the only person supporting universal care

And unfortunately the Clintons came up with an overly complex version that was trying to placate insurers

[MADem]

15. Oh. PLEASE. She was the ONLY person heading up a TASK FORCE on the subject in 1993.

Damn--it just kills you to give her any credit!



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

[Armstead]

16. No it killed me at the time to watch them screw it up

[MADem]

17. Yes, and "Bernie's" task force--they got it done? Never saw anything about that in the paper...?

Come off it.

It's one thing to say "Gee, that'd be a good idea," and sit on your ass waiting for someone else to do the work.

It's a lot harder to actually DO the WORK.

[Armstead]

19. He wasn't sitting on his ass, nor have millions of others

Problem is he and others are shut out of the conversation by the corporate political leadership and big media.

Even the mild compromise of a slight xpansion of medicare to certain ages got shot down by the corporate conservative faction of the Democratic Party.

[MADem]

20. He wasn't? What was he doing, besides running his mouth? Talk is cheap.

Did he have a seat on the task force? I must have missed that.


And what happened to that great plan to use VT as the test bed for single payer, like MA was used as the test bed for Hillarycare-Romneycare-Obamacare?

Ah....yes:


https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/25/costs-derail-vermont-single-payer-health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html

But reality hit last month. Governor Peter Shumlin released a financial report that showed the cost of the program would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases for residents and businesses. Shumlin, a Democrat and long-time single-payer advocate, said he would not seek funding for the law, effectively tabling the program called Green Mountain Care.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2014/12/17/shumlin-right-time-single-payer/20547557/

MONTPELIER – Calling it the biggest disappointment of his career, Gov. Peter Shumlin says he is abandoning plans to make Vermont the first state in the country with a universal, publicly funded health care system.

Going forward with a project four years in the making would require tax increases too big for the state to absorb, Shumlin said. The measure had been the centerpiece of the Democratic governor's agenda and was watched and rooted for by single-payer health care supporters around the country.

[Armstead]

21. The failiure of Vermont;s system have nothing to do with Sanders

Saying Sanders was "sitting on his ass" is BULLSHIT. He's been longtime and tireless advocate for it. The are also others in Congress who have been working for it, But it's an uphill battle because of the ingrained corruption in the present political system

And if Congress wasn't bought and sold -- and Obama had not locked the door on advocates for public insurance -- it might be possible to actually get health coverage that is affordable and accessible to everyone.

As some people are so fond of saying, no one person can do things alone. Especially in a corrupt system. And we have a corrupt system. And too many people die needlessly. And that is an indictment of the system -- not Sanders.

[MADem]

23. Why was he trying to pass it off as a minor bump in the road, then, instead of the abject failure

that it is? Here he is, whistling in the dark about a plan that is TOAST:


http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/232848-sanders-puts-brave-face-on-single-payer-troubles

Henry Aaron, a healthcare expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that if the plan did not work in liberal Vermont, it is unlikely to pass muster in other states.

"If you wanted to pick a state where the politics were more favorable, you would be hard pressed to find a better one," he said.

The state budget in VT is growing (obscenely) by leaps and bounds, the population can't keep up, there aren't enough jobs--they've got a Tax and Spend problem in the northeast kingdom. If VT can't make it work, in their tiny little six hundred thousand people state, without taxing businesses and individuals to death, then what hope is there?

What is Bernie doing to revive this program? Besides kick it down the road with vague words that just won't bear fruit?

[Armstead]

24. Wellllll...maybe if we had a decent national systemm to support it.....

I don't feel like engaging in a stupid political nyah nyah sniping match over it. There's enough blame to go around for the fact that we are incapable of doing what every other industrial nation has done.

Hillary screwed it up. Bernie has not been able to overcome the inexcusable refusal of our broken system to put in place a humane system that doesn't break people's budgets and cause neeless sickness and death.

The situation is obscene and inhumane -- to say the least -- and it should be a priority for whomever is president (assuming a democrat) to get off the dime and corral Congress to push for that relentlessly.

[MADem]

27. Where's the ACTION? Hillary chaired a task force--all I see is talk, talk, talk, and a can-kick

down the road from your supposed "champion." I see no path from him. No attempt to even carve one out.

Hillary did not "screw up." She was fucked over by the GOP and the insurance lobbyists. Good grief, were you even alive then? Harry and Louise? Hello?

THIS is what screwed her--the wingnuts:

Love the way people blame her while they didn't even NOTICE the beat down she took from the right wing.

Maybe if more people piped up to support her back then, we'd all have single payer. Instead, nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking and some really bizarre blame gaming.

Who chaired the task force? Where's Bernie's task force? Shoulda, woulda, coulda....talk, talk, talk. Never any action.

Mmm hmm.

[Armstead]

28. Oh give it a rest -- I told you i don't feel like a nyah nyah match

And I said there's enough blame to go around.

But since you want to go there...

I remember the big Roll Out andd the long-winded speech and the cute health care cards and the indescribable complexity of it that even made democrats turn on it.

And then how, instead of trying again with a better plan they put it on the shelf for over a decade.

If more Democrats had shared Sanders commitment to it, and stood up to the GOP and educated the public and didn't dismiss it as a "leftist unicorn" and stopped counting their contributions from the Big Insurance Lobby something might have gotten done.

Why don't you take off your partisan blinders once in a while?

[MADem]

29. How could they "try again with a better plan?"

Don't you remember the Newt Gingrich days?

Good grief.

Why don't you take off your partisan blinders once in a while?

It's not about partisanship--it's about HISTORY. If you don't remember history, you'll be stuck repeating it.



There was NO PATH. The GOP effectively blocked any revitalization of the effort.

And then, we got Bush.

[Armstead]

30. Excuses, excuses....there's always excuses. The All Powerful GOP

That handy all purpose excuse, whether we are in control of all branches, have divided government or are in the minority. Doesn't matter. The GOP always has the upper hand. The convenient all-purpose excuse for inaction and not even trying.

THAT'S history, and it repeats itself endlessly.

[MADem]

31. You were either too young or your memory is short.

The term "gridlock" gained currency during that timeframe.

The frigging government was shut down. It was the height of acrimony the likes of which DC had never seen.

This is a pointless conversation, as you are not in command of basic facts. There's a considerable difference between reasons and excuses.

[Armstead]

36. I wish I were too young

It is a pointless conversation, because you refuse to even consider anything outside of your frame.

I remember it in great gruesome detail.

Here's the basic problem. the GOP are like wolverines. They keep coming and coming and coming, They are relentless. They keep voting to overturn teh ACA, for example, knowing that it;s a losing battle but they know that they will prevent any further progress, and may eventually chip away to get what they want, or some of it.

We're like scared little bunny rabbits. "Oooooooooo we can't do that. Those mean old Republicans won't let us." "Those swing voters will not like us." "We have to keep our powder dry." ad nauseum......Or worse "Screw those leftists. We're going where the bucks are."

I said there is enough blame to go around. I also suggested that it is achievable if we apply ourselves -- because a majority wold be in favor if there was education about the benefits,........But you still insist on making your point, that familiar mantra -- "We can't do it. We couldn't do it. We'll never do it."

[MADem]

38. I don't think either Clinton was a scared bunny rabbit.

There was nothing to be done with that gridlock, and to characterize them as scared/unable is just wrong.

That was the worst it's ever been--it's why some of the procedural rules in the House and Senate were changed; to make it harder for any one group to be total assholes.

It's not a question of people not "liking" us or being scared--it's appealing to a majority of people. And any time "the people" perceive that the government has their hand in their wallets, they aren't happy. That is NOT a winning look--unless you have no money and you're counting on someone else's money to pay your way. Then, it sounds just swell!

I'm not saying we can't do it, but we sure as hell can't do it with bullshit sunshine, lollipops and rainbows and wishing and hoping. VERMONT proved that. They QUIT, they GAVE UP. They couldn't make the math work.

We need a PLAN--not words, not blah-blah-blah, not "we should"--but an actual plan. First thing we need to do is develop a formulary of affordable drugs--that's one of the biggest blocks to affording health care. The government should look to the MILITARY for this--they have a wide ranging formulary and they rarely have to go outside it. Then we have to find a way to do it WAY WAY CHEAPER than VT--because people just aren't willing to pay that kind of dough. It's not a "can't - couldn't - never" thing....it's a cheap assholes thing--and no amount of "leadership" is going to make people put up with a ten percent or greater rise in their tax burden.

If the price doesn't come way down, give it up. That's plain truth.

[LeftOfWest]

43. well said Armstead

"It is a pointless conversation, because you refuse to even consider anything outside of your frame."

You gave it an outstanding try anyway!

Post should be an op:

"Here's the basic problem. the GOP are like wolverines. They keep coming and coming and coming, They are relentless. They keep voting to overturn teh ACA, for example, knowing that it;s a losing battle but they know that they will prevent any further progress, and may eventually chip away to get what they want, or some of it.

We're like scared little bunny rabbits. "Oooooooooo we can't do that. Those mean old Republicans won't let us." "Those swing voters will not like us." "We have to keep our powder dry." ad nauseum......Or worse "Screw those leftists. We're going where the bucks are."

[slipslidingaway]

32. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THE GOP, they are such a handy scapegoat!

[roguevalley]

35. good thing that LBJ didn't give up on his stuff becase of stupid opposition or civl rights

wouldn't have happened. YOU FUCKING FIGHT BACK! I am sick and tired of watching dems crawl away from fights. I am also sick of hearing about the fuckers in the opposition. You attack them back and you push for the good because its what you were sent there to do. They didn't. End of story.

[MADem]

40. Not. The. Same.

How many people do you think would have been "for" civil rights if the result of the passage of the act was that your taxes would go up 11.5 percent, hmmm?

You are making a spurious comparison.

Someone has to pay for this. The poor don't have it, and the rich don't want to pay. Who does that leave to hump the shit over the finish line? The middle and working class.

Vermont failed. They couldn't make it work. They couldn't get the math to be anything that wasn't EGREGIOUS....and if the numbers were unacceptable to Vermonters, how do you think they'd go down in places like Alabama and Texas?

[roguevalley]

34. If health care abject failure is the topic here, then Hillary wrote the book.

I remember watching here with her little teapot and being furious. She didn't have a damned clue what was coming from that committee toward her. She failed miserably. But apparently only Bernie's count.

[MADem]

41. OK, cough up "the plan" then. Don't talk in generalities--get us to the place

where everyone's taxes aren't going up eleven percent or more. VT failed because they couldn't make it "affordable." If you think everyone to the left of the center line is going to leap through their own butt holes at the prospect of paying an extra eleven percent or more of their salaries in taxes to fund this, I have a bridge for sale.

I'd like to see this happen, even though I don't need it, thanks to a military career. I know it will help people and be a boon to our nation in other ways. But wishing and hoping ain't going to cut it. Vermont was supposed to be the Great Northern Hope that would show us the way--and they couldn't make it work; they admitted defeat.

So--where do we go from here? Do we keep talking about it, crabbing, pointlessly, aimlessly? Do we try to tighten up/cheapen down the ACA? What?

Because single payer ain't happening any time soon--not until we see a successful demonstration project. And our best hope for one just crapped out.

[Armstead]

44. Okay for what it's worth....

Here's what I (and others) would like to see. It's similar to what was proposed but scuttled with the ACA. Although nothing in healthcare is truly efficient or simple, it is comparatively straightforward in concept, without a lot of downside.

Open up Medicare to voluntary coverage to anyone who chooses to buy into it, no matter what age, with payments based on affordable percentage of income (sliding scale).

Make it a basic program, that provides decent coverage, not a "cadillac plan."

Totally voluntary. You don't want to have anything to do with "socialized" medicine? Happy with your existing coverage? Fine. Ignore it. You want to mix it with additional private coverage, go ahead.

There are several advantages. It makes access to overage truly universal, and staightforward without all the qualification crapola of the current system.(It also could or could not be combined with Medicaid or some other subsidy for the truly needy.)

It would provide a baseline of affordable care in the market, forcing private insurance to compete.

It could have the potential to actually strengthen Medicare by the same principle that private insurance use -- you have young healthy people paying into the system, which can help to offset the higher costs of older sicker clients.

It could also take the onus off employers for coverage, or make it more affordable for them to provide it too.

Politically? Sure the GOP will raise holy hell, and some conservatives will howl and complain. But if the Democrats got behind it and actively (relentlessly) pushed for it and explained it to the public, it could get done. When people realize the advantages -- access to less expensive coverage -- I'm convinced a majoity of the public, except diehard conservatives and insurance executives -- could be won over.

[MADem]

45. That's not real single payer, though. That's more like a hybrid approach.

The Cadillac or even "expanded basic" people would be dealing with insurance companies, still. Maybe they'd be a little more customer oriented if they had some competition.

It would be nice, I personally like the idea a great deal, but it is a proposal that obviously has many enemies. I can't begin to imagine who those enemies might be (lol). If it didn't get an overabundance of pushback, it would have stayed on the table.

Vermont fell on their ass trying to implement a genuine, EVERYBODY IN single payer plan. The taxes would have been insanely usurious, and businesses would have been raked over the coals.

Perhaps revisiting the hybrid apprach might be the way forward down the line. For the near term, though, we've got to live with what we've got, because our "test bed" isn't going to try anything new.

[Armstead]

46. It's not single payer -- that;s fine wth me

I'm just talking for myself (obviously) but in my view, it matters less whether it is philosophically single payer or a mixed system. (Other countries with universal care have mixed systems.)

Bottom line is putting something in place that gives everyone an affordable option, whether they choose to use it or not.

I think that idea could either be a step to single payer someday -- and if not, it alleviates the worse problem we have, which is the human cost of private insurance being too expensive for many people, and too many people falling through the cracks. It would also be good for business and employers.

[MADem]

47. Well, I think ACA was the first step on a long journey.

A lot of people are surprised at how much they like it. The GOP was trying to get it repealed before too many people got hooked on that "Dem" drug. I think they're hosed now--too many Republicans are getting used to it.

[Wilms]

6. Majority still supports single-payer option, poll finds

Majority still supports single-payer option, poll finds

By Sarah Ferris - 01/19/15 04:57 PM EST

GOP tactics on ObamaCare move away from full repeal

TheHill.com

More than five years after the single-payer system was scrapped from ObamaCare policy debates, just over 50 percent of people say they still support the idea, including one-quarter of Republicans, according to a new poll.

The single-payer option – also known as Medicare for all – would create a new, government-run insurance program to replace private coverage. The system, once backed by President Obama, became one of the biggest casualties of the divisive healthcare debates of 2009.

The idea remains extremely popular among Democrats, with nearly 80 percent in support, according to the poll, which was shared first with The Hill by the Progressive Change Institute.

“There is a hunger in America for big progressive ideas," spokesperson TJ Helmstetter wrote in a statement. "The state of our union is progressive, and the president would be smart to give America the big, popular, progressive economic ideas that people have been crying out for.”

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds

[MADem]

18. Looks like health care satisfaction has been trending DOWNWARD since that poll was taken.

I would not trust those numbers, especially in light of the downslide in health care satisfaction in the Aug Rasmussen poll.

We need another pulse taken on this issue--I'm sure someone will do it -- probably soon, too.

[Mnpaul]

9. Not hard to find

Majority still supports single-payer option, poll finds
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229959-majority-still-support-single-payer-option-poll-finds

More than five years after the single-payer system was scrapped from ObamaCare policy debates, just over 50 percent of people say they still support the idea, including one-quarter of Republicans, according to a new poll.

The single-payer option – also known as Medicare for all – would create a new, government-run insurance program to replace private coverage. The system, once backed by President Obama, became one of the biggest casualties of the divisive healthcare debates of 2009.

The idea remains extremely popular among Democrats, with nearly 80 percent in support, according to the poll, which was shared first with The Hill by the Progressive Change Institute

[slipslidingaway]

10. The support has been there for years, but the corporate media and corporate candidates dismiss ...

the opinion of the majority of people.

[redstateblues]

4. Sorry. Socialism is not a winning platform in the General.

It's great here in DU but it will be a major talking point the Rs will use against Bernie should he win the nomination. Don't kid yourself. If it takes five long paragraphs to extoll it's virtues the average uninformed voter is not going to pay attention.

[Armstead]

8. Yeah Corporate Oligarchy is much more popular

It is quite possible that the rightward swing of thee pendulum may be preparing to move in the opposite not that the chickens from uncontrolled free-market "supply side" Corporate CONservatism are coming hiome to roost.

And it doesn't take five paragraphs -- Affordable health care. Make the wealthy share the tax load. Re-regulate business to restore fair pay for employees and protect rights of consumers. Restore a truly competitive and diverse busones climate and broadly based economy.

[MADem]

14. They used to call that proposal HILLARYCARE. How soon people forget...!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan_of_1993

[Armstead]

7. Amen -- But that'll go through one ear and out the other with some

Can't favor a Dirty Commie, er socialist.

[Juicy_Bellows]

25. And with some it makes a stop in a Waring blender and shot out their pie hole with enough english

to make Minnesota Fats blush.

[sabrina 1]

22. They keep trying, and it's just not working because McCarthyism is from history, and not a very part

of history.

Today's world views Bernie's Democratic Socialism as one of the best forms of government.

Some people just can't move out of the past, for whatever reason.

[Juicy_Bellows]

26. I agree, thanks for posting! nt.

[slipslidingaway]

37. Why Congress Did Not Enact Health Care Reform - 1995

By Vicente Navarro, Johns Hopkins University
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Summer 1995

http://www.pnhp.org/news/1995/august/why-congress-did-not-enact-health-care-reform

"Many explanations are given for the failure of the 103rd Congress to enact health care reform. The most frequent explanation in the mainstream media and academic press is that people were not ready and were confused. Congress, it is said, merely reflects the voice of the people because the U.S. political system represents the population. Thus the roots of health care reform’s failure can be found in people’s ambivalence: They wanted health care reform but were not quite ready; they were confused or misinformed.

I believe this view is wrong. The American public certainly has a voice in its political system, but it is not one of the most important voices that shape the federal government’s decisions, including those about federal health policies. Most people agree with this perception. Seventy-four percent believe that the U.S. Congress does not represent their interests but rather the interests of what they call the “rich,” the popular term for the corporate and upper middle classes.1 And much evidence supports the accuracy of this perception. The gap between what people want from their government and what they get is substantial and growing, which may explain citizens’ increasing anger with the political establishment. Since 1954, whenever polled on whether they favor a universal health care program, large pluralities or majorities have supported it.2 Even during the 1980s and early 1990s, when concepts such as the “greed” of the privileged few and austerity for the many were supposed to be fashionable, most Americans supported a government-run national health care program (Shapiro and Young 1986).3 Yet Congress has failed time after time to enact such a program.

Another proposed explanation for Congress’ failure to pass health care reform is that government experts have not yet got it right. In this scenario, professionals and experts are primarily responsible for establishing public policies and convincing key political actors of the merits of various proposals. But this scenario is clearly insufficient to foster an understanding of the failure of health care reform. It ignores the sociopolitical context in which these “experts” operate and the interests with which they are identified or represent. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Health Care Task Force, for example, was not merely a group of experts. Its key members were persons identified, for the most part, with some of the primary forces (including the insurance industry) responsible for the current predicament of the U.S. health care system. I offer just one example: The chairman of the Governance Committee, a critical committee of the task force, was for many years a high-ranking official of the Health Insurance Association of America. The task force was a predominantly white, male, upper middle class group in which the interests of insurance companies (large and small) and other components of the medical industrial complex were well represented. Obviously, these persons were not on the task force as “representatives” of these groups, but their positions were, for the most part, the same as those of the industries in which they worked and with which they were identified. Others who had no professional association with these interest groups accepted the theoretical framework dictated to them by their spokespersons — the Jackson Hole Group. Indeed, the primary objective of the task force initially was to achieve a synthesis of the major interests at work in the health care sector, to develop a blueprint — managed competition — that could be approved by the major players in this sector.

Similarly, the members and staff of key committees of the House and Senate that craft health care-related legislation have long-standing relationships with these health sector interests. The list of recipients of donations from insurance and professional groups reads like a Who’s Who of federal health policy circles (Kemper and Novak 1992). Of course, part of the official discourse is that such intercourse between politicians and lobbyists does not influence policy makers. None other than Congressman Thomas Foley, then Speaker of the House (and himself a recipient of health care industry funds), has denied the existence of such influence. Empirical evidence shows, however, that lobbyists and their financial contributions do influence the behavior of congressional recipients (New York Times 1994). Common Cause has also documented how most Washington lobbyists for the medical industrial complex previously worked within the U.S. Congress, with which they retain close ties (Kemper and Novak 1992).

.............."

[McCamy Taylor]

39. If we voted with our minds instead of our emotion, we would not be in this mess.

You must be thinking of some other American country.