Harry and Louise backing Hillary: Her sell-out to health care industry, $800k in contributions

[Dems Will Win]

Hillary has gone over to the HMO side - just when we need socialized medicine!

Harry and Louise backing Hillary
Health-care sector, once a critic of then-first lady's plans for reforms, now lavishing contributions on senator.
July 12 2006: 10:41 AM EDT


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The health-care industry, once a fierce critic of then-first lady Hillary Clinton's reform plans for the sector, is now lavishing campaign contributions on the U.S. senator ahead of her expected presidential bid.

According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354.


Hillary Clinton is the No. 2 recipient of campaign contributions from the health care industry, according to a non-partisan group that tracks donations.

Clinton, the only Democrat to be in the top five in total donations from the sector, is also the No. 1 senator in terms of donations from nurses and health professionals, and the No. 2 recipient of donations from employees of hospitals and nursing homes, as well as insurance companies.

...

"If the usual rules apply," Mr. Graefe said, early donors will "get a seat at the table when health care and other issues are discussed."

...

"Now as we all remember, I sought, along with my husband and his administration 12 years ago, to address the challenges that we saw in our health-care system. I still have the scars to show from that experience," she said in a speech in March to the American Medical Association. "And it is fair to say the AMA and I did not always see eye to eye. That's probably an understatement. And all I can say is thank goodness for the Hippocratic Oath."

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/12/news/newsmakers/healthcare_clinton/index.htm

[joeybee12]

1. Does it break it up into amounts by insurers as opposed to healthcare

providers?

I certainly have no problem getting money from doctors and nurses--some of the most outspoken criticsof the current state of the healtcare industry.

[K Gardner]

3. ?? Because all of us nurses out here know how much Hillary is really going to reform the system??

I work in a major university teaching hospital. I know ZERO nurses backing Clinton. I know ZERO doctors backing her. There's a reason for that. Not going into it for the umpteenth time here. I wish people would just freakin wake up.

[Cha]

6. Hard to when

they're comatose.

[liberalnurse]

10. Ohio Nurses are.

Every Nurse I talk to is backing Hillary.

[joeybee12]

11. No, all I asked was whether the total amount divided this up...

between providers and insurers...the OP makes it sound like everyone who contributed is some HMO...the total amount could be across a wide spectrum.

I used to work in healthcare, and still know many people who do...some who will be supporting Hilary, so apparently you might want to gooevr for the umpteenth time to make us ALL see everything as clearly as you do.

[CoffeeCat]

27. It's frustrating isn't it?

With the Hillary supporters, I sometimes feel as if we've really
gone down the rabbit hole.

I feel like screaming, "You like WAR? You like corporate corruption? You
like politicians who plant questions?"

I don't understand any sort of support for Hillary at all--unless you favor
the neocons.

[Beacool]

29. My two best friends are nurses in Florida

and they're strong Hillary backers. Not just them, I was at their hospital's Christmas party and there were plenty there who preferred Hillary's plan.

[papau]

13. The single payer folks are sending her money - nurses/doctors/etc. + lower level employees of

ins and drug companies are the ones sending money as far as I can see.

I work in the insurance industry, and not one of the several hundred folks that might be called senior execs that are known directly or one off, or two off to me, are giving a dime to Hillary. Nor are insurance PACs sending a great deal of money to Hillary.

The limit on executives (actually anyone) is a $5000 contribution to federal PACs.

Corporations and unions may not contribute to federal PACs.

Then the PACs are limited in the amount of money they can contribute to other organizations:

at most $5,000 per candidate per election. Elections such as primaries, general elections and special elections are counted separately.
at most $15,000 per political party per year.
at most $5,000 per PAC per year.

This threads original post is a smear that is not needed in our primary. We can discuss issues and experience and ability without this kind of nonsense.

[PresidentObama]

2. Besides DK, who isn't viable, HC and JE have the best plans. But who can successfully get it done?

When you read stuff like this, it makes you wonder if Hillary can and will. And the fact she hasn't commited to it in her first term worries me. She speaks a lot about the problem, and offers a solution. But talk is cheap. What happens when she gets in the White House, and healthcare goes to the end of the list on her agenda?

Almost a million dollars in the 06' election? Ouch.

That really hurts her case that she says she can get universal healthcare done, when she's in the back pocket of the industry.

[regnaD kciN]

8. Do you define "best plans" as...

...plans that tell average Americans "from now on, you're required by law to carry private insurance"...?

Because that's the only way in which those two plans are "the best." :eyes:

[Dems Will Win]

12. Robert Reich explains why Obama's plan is better than Hillary's

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail.

Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old.

Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so.

HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness.

HRC is far less specific on both counts.


In short: They’re both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

[papau]

14. Reich is an idiot - his response to the comments of all those that actually know something about ins

has been to drop the nonsense quoted in your post - and to go to more bland praise of Obama.

The specifics of his reasons - mandates make a plan not as good as a plan without mandates - are easily shown to be false.

Edwards and Hillary have the right idea - Obama is close - but has a weaker proposal.

[sandnsea]

19. No, the people supporting the mandates are idiots

who don't know a damn thing about being poor, or who are blinded by populist red meat.

[papau]

22. Those that study the topic disagree w/Bob - Reich's ONLY point is that some will ignore mandate -

which if you think about means nothing since the question is do you insure more or less with a mandate - and the answer in every example known to the actuarial world is that you insure more with a mandate.

[sandnsea]

28. Did you even read the post

This is what Reich said which is the exact same thing Obama says and which is the exact thing that the half of the country who make below median income would say.

"mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so."

You don't start with mandates when you haven't implemented an affordable system.

[sandnsea]

9. Mandates are not the best plan

My state insurance pool would be over $1,000 a month without any assistance. How do you think mandating that is the best plan? How are people supposed to pay that, and then wait until tax time for their credit. Their plans are DOA.

[papau]

15. Mandates are the best idea - unregulated pricing by ins companies is a bad idea n/t

[sandnsea]

17. Obama has proposed regulating insurance

That's the best idea. Mandates before the details are worked out is just going to end up with people homeless, especially if they start garnishing wages. It's a horrible idea. If you ever wanted to get poor people to vote, scare the shit out of them with $1,000 a month mandated insurance.

[papau]

23. Obama is on the right track with regulation - indeed his plan is similiar to Edwards/Clinton except

for mandates.

As Krugman has noted Obama's plan would be a vast improvement over the current situation -

It is just that his claiming no mandates is a better plan - if better means more effective - is wrong.

If better means more easily passed by Congress, he may well have a point - but that is not how he has expressed his "better" claim to date.

[Dems Will Win]

30. There should not be health insurance companies

Socialized medicine has clearly worked the best, just like socialized education, fire departments and police departments.

Do your homework! GO SEE SICKO!

See the special segment on Hillary and you'll never vote for her in the primary.

[Cha]

4. hillary and bill think they know

the way back to our white house is paved with corporate contributions and obligations.

Greed begets delusion.

[suston96]

5. How can that be? How can the health care industry support Hillary?

I don't get it. Maybe - dare we say it - a bribe?

I don't think so.

[Dems Will Win]

7. She sold out after getting defeated on Hillarycare in '94

She just folded her tent and sold out. This is what to expect more of in her reign.

[papau]

16. The health care industry does not support Hillary - indeed they fear her and prefer Obama's idea

of can't we all get along - thinking they can work a bargain that this not real reform but meets his political needs. At least that is the feeling I get in conversations with insurance management.

[sandnsea]

18. Being mandated to provide coverage??

Maybe the people you talk to have been listening to propaganda to keep them from the truth of Hillary's insurance give-away.

[papau]

24. The Medicare like policy which Edwards/Clinton - and Obama - want kills excessive health

profits over time. In that sense they are all feared.

Hillary is a known quanity that is not known to compromise all that much - they have higher hopes of a compromise with Obama.

As to a mandate - it is just history that participation is better with mandates. It is true that some will ignore mandates - but the question is which approach gives better participation.

[suston96]

25. The people have been screwed over about healthcare insurance enough -

- that young woman who needed a liver transplant and died just as the insurance company "approved" the transplant?

You really believe that Hillary Clinton or any other candidate will "sell out" to those insurance companies? Hardly.

Keep digging, y'all may come up with something that makes sense. None of this does.

[NashVegas]

20. Health CARE or Health INSURANCE?

According to Open Secrets.org, Chris Dodd, Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani all get more insurance industry dollars, while Hilary is #1 in health care.

A closer look in fundrace.org shows Hilary and Obama very close in health care industry dollars, while she tips the scale with individual, self-employed health care workers.

[madrchsod]

21. none of these plans would cover me

since i do not work how could i afford insurance. since i have to have another operation in several more months if i could buy insurance would they cover me? i doubt it. having a heart condition would raise my rate. none of these plans are economically viable for me. only dennis`s simple well thought out plan is viable for true health care in america.

[nealmhughes]

26. I haven't worked in almost 3 years after a very, very serious life threatening brain infection that

was topped off with a stroke. I've been trying to get SSDI for three years come the 10th of next month. Hearings. Denials. Federal suit -- still waiting to hear on that from April.

No income, no insurance. No nothing but a family and friends.

Screw Hillary R. Clinton. Screw anyone who is so steeped in the talking points of "competition," and "unAmerican", etc. that they can't see the freaking answer to our nightmare, and that is Dennis Kucinich's proposal.

The idea of a national renaissance of Social Darwinism is the most disgusting thing to happen in the US. Good Lord, one almost wishes for Nixon back again! Minus Kissinger and Vietnam and paranoia.

It almost seems that a hack "novelist" named Ayn "Rhymes with Swine and Mine" Rand, nee Hedda Schlipschitz, I believe -- or some similar name ---has taken over the mutual commonweal at times.

Fine, mandate till hell freezes over, then I can go to jail and not worry about the electric bill when my savings run out. One probably meets a nicer class of criminal, vice the "health insurance executives" that are so nice and disingeneous. At least a hood has the balls to admit he is a hood.