Why I WON'T support HRC

[backwoodsbob]

Her campaign and her supporters is the reason.

I don't care what her positions are.
I don't care about her experience.
I don't care about any of it.

I haven't decided between Obama or Edwards (leaning Edwards) but I WON'T vote for Hillary.
I'm voting against the negative rumor mongering meanspirited rovian crap they have decided is the way to victory.
I am voting AGAINST the dirty tricks campaigning they have learned so well from the repukes.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

[still_one]

1. That is cool, but what if she gets the nomination? /nt

[backwoodsbob]

3. not sure

may hold my nose REALLY HARD and vote for her or may sit it out.

I can't stand what groups like hillaryis44 are doing and her aids arent any better.

[still_one]

14. I am in the same boat you are, and do not want her to get the nomination

but without a second thought if she were the nominee I would vote for her over the republicans if for nothing else then the Supreme Court

However, this election is going to be quite interesting, and if nothing else, Iowa has shown in spite of the media that she isn't necesisarily the nominee

[LoZoccolo]

2. lol

That's a pretty stupid reason.

[backwoodsbob]

5. voting against Rovian dirty tricks is stupid?

WoW

[LoZoccolo]

16. That's not what you're doing.

You're voting against Hillary Clinton.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I don't think you will be alone

more and more Americans have seen through the dirty tricks and stuff and want substance and not rumor. This goes for candidates on both sides of the aisle. I think Huckabee won voters by saying he wouldn't go negative on Romney. Btw, welcome to DU! :hi:

[Cha]

24. Right before he put up

a negative ad that he said he wasn't going to use because it was too negative.

[msongs]

6. people who don't like rumours might want to quit spreading them? nt

[annie1]

11. seriously. picking up the word rovian, b/c people say it here in connection...

with hillary and that's their all encompassing reason not to vote for someone. right. oh yeah, hope.

[Kucinich4America]

21. If it walks like a pig named Rove, and it oinks like a pig named Rove....

chances are it ain't a goddamn duck.

[caligirl]

7. While Hil has some good points as all candidates do, its not enough

to get past the money she has taken from the health care industry. this is the single biggest issue facing America today. Voters looking at health care available to people in Europe, Sweden for example,and demanding change are not impressed with the prospects Hil offers with that baggage. Its a tough enough battle to get health care we all want for all people as it is. She takes a ton of money from corporate interests in this industry. End of story. As long as I can vote for Edwards or Obama I will.

[papau]

13. she takes money from single payer nurses and because nurses are "health ind" you won't vote for her?

[caligirl]

23. I said as long as I can vote for the other two I would, I'lllvote for Hil if I am forced to. read on

she takes a lot of money from a lot of lobbists and is often in the 1st or 2nd place position of Senators taking the most from an array of lobbist groups, military lobbist groups as one example. And as a former CNA member and Ca licensed RN myself I appreciate that nurses donate to a variety of candidates for a variety of reasons. Universal health care is a good reason, I don't think Hil will get us there as well as the others though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.html
"But times change. As she runs for re-election to the Senate from New York this year and lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008, Mrs. Clinton is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug manufacturers and insurers. Nationwide, she is the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry, trailing only Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership.

Some of the same interests that tried to derail Mrs. Clinton’s health care overhaul are providing support for her Senate re-election bid. The Health Insurance Association of America ran the famous “Harry and Louise” commercials mocking the Clinton health care plan as impenetrably complex. Some companies that were members of that group are now donating to Mrs. Clinton.

Charles N. Kahn III, a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in 1993 and 1994, now works with the senator on some issues as president of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobby for hospital companies like HCA and Tenet. He describes his battles with the first lady as “ancient history,” and he said health care executives were contributing to her now because “she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue.”

Senator Clinton has received $150,600 in contributions from insurance and pharmaceutical companies, which she accused in 1993 of “price gouging” and “unconscionable profiteering.”

The financial support is an intriguing turn of events for a political figure who became a pariah for many in the health care industry after President Bill Clinton appointed her to head the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. The recommendations spawned by that panel — calling for universal health care, minimum coverage requirements and potential limits on health care spending increases — were derided as “Hillarycare” by opponents and arguably cost Democrats control of the House of Representatives in the 1994 midterm elections.

The rapprochement partly reflects how Mrs. Clinton has moderated her positions from more than a decade ago, proposing legislation to increase Medicare payments or stave off cuts in payments to doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, managed care companies and home health agencies.

She has introduced a bill to lower the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors who disclose medical errors to patients. With strong support from the industry, she has pushed legislation to promote the adoption of health information technology. Providers and consumers praise her efforts to expand insurance coverage for mental health care and to finance long-term care for older Americans living at home.

Mrs. Clinton often disarms health care groups by saying she learned from her past wars. “We tried to do too much too fast 12 years ago, and I still have the scars to show for it,” she said in an address in March before the annual conference of the Federation of American Hospitals.

While some people in the health care industry are still wary of Senator Clinton, many say they see her as the likely next Democratic presidential nominee and are moving to influence her agenda on an issue that polls indicate is of growing concern to voters.

Frederick H. Graefe, a health care lawyer and lobbyist in Washington for more than 20 years, said, “People in many industries, including health care, are contributing to Senator Clinton today because they fully expect she will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008.”

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

Tellingly, one of her fund-raisers in the industry is a Republican, William R. Abrams, executive vice president of the Medical Society of the State of New York.

Some Republicans accuse Senator Clinton of political opportunism in courting old foes. Tracey Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, questioned the sincerity of Senator Clinton’s new, more pragmatic approach on health care.

“This reveals that Hillary Clinton is a politician more concerned with campaign contributions than policies she claims to support,” Ms. Schmitt said of the senator’s efforts to court the health care industry. In fact, during her 2000 Senate campaign, she sharply criticized her opponent, Rick A. Lazio, as being beholden to the pharmaceutical industry for taking donations from drugmakers.

Kenneth E. Raske, the president of the Greater New York Hospital Association and a Clinton fund-raiser, said the relationship between Mrs. Clinton and some industry leaders got off to a “rocky start” in the early 1990’s. But, he said, many now believe that she was right in what she said about problems plaguing the industry, and think she is in a strong position to take a lead on the issue once again.

“I think right now the issue of health insurance and the worries of the American public about losing insurance are a political gold vein waiting to be tapped,” Mr. Raske said. “You have to think health care is going to be a major issue in ’08.”

Separate analyses by the Center for Responsive Politics, an independent group that tracks campaign finance, and by The New York Times show that Senator Clinton has received $854,462 from the health care industry in 2005-6, a larger amount than any candidate except Senator Santorum, with $977,354. Other industries have opened their wallets to Senator Clinton, a formidable fund-raiser. But none warred with her as the health care industry did.

Contributions to Senator Clinton over the last 18 months include more than $431,000 from doctors and other health care professionals and more than $142,000 from hospitals and nursing homes.

* 1
* 2

Next Page »

[caligirl]

28. page two same article with some good some bad.

For example, she has received $1,000 from America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main lobby for insurers; $1,000 from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; $7,770 from Pfizer and its employees; $10,500 from Roche Group and its workers; and a total of $16,000 from three big companies that manage prescription drug benefits under Medicare and private health plans: Caremark Rx, Express Scripts and Medco Health Solutions.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
Graphic: Health Industry Contributions
Graphic: Health Industry Contributions

While the health care industry was among her top supporters in her 2000 Senate race, the trend has accelerated in 2006 as her political prominence has grown and as she has become an important legislative player on health care issues. With about four months left before Election Day, Senator Clinton has already raised more money in this campaign from the health care industry than she did in her 2000 run.

Senator Clinton has received more money from health care providers than from insurers, in part because she has been more outspoken in support of the providers, while criticizing insurers from time to time. But the fact that she has received tens of thousands of dollars from insurance companies and their employees underscores the shift in their view of her. Beyond that, Mrs. Clinton, a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, has been helpful to insurers in New York, responding to their concern that they were not being adequately paid for their participation in Medicare.

State Senator Kemp Hannon, a Long Island Republican who is chairman of the Health Committee in Albany, expressed surprise at the amount of money that the industry, particularly insurers, had pumped into Senator Clinton’s campaign coffers.

But upon reflection, he said, it makes sense, given that many in the industry regard her as an authority on health care who can help advance the industry’s agenda. “She’s already paid the intellectual dues of struggling to learn the system,” he said.

Some health care providers are giving more money to Republican candidates over all, but they are hedging their bets by donating to Senator Clinton as well.

“Regardless of any future office she may seek, she will be a player on the national scene for as long as she wants to be,” said Mr. Abrams, the executive at the New York medical society.

Last year Mr. Abrams and Mr. Raske, the head of the hospital association in New York, held an event in New York City that raised tens of thousands of dollars for Senator Clinton from dozens of prominent doctors and hospital executives.

Mrs. Clinton has changed her style and toned down criticism of the industry in speeches about health care. But her audiences still see flashes of the old populism.

Speaking to a conference of the American Medical Association in Washington this year, she said, “Money is leaking or even escaping out of the health care system in record profits for pharmaceutical and insurance companies.”

Also, hospital executives now say they welcome Senator Clinton’s attention to the plight of the uninsured — a problem that has severely strained the finances of many hospitals.


Note: after rereading this it underscores Micheal Moore's dislike of her. (SICKO)

[papau]

34. I love Moore & SICKO - but his dig at Hillary was an unjustified smear based on the same employee

equals industry stupidity.

It is actions that one must evaluate - and Hillary's actions in health care are the best in the group.

but some may prefer smears that have no factual basis.

Now Hillary's bankruptcy bill vote is a reason to tear her down - but there is not a damn thing in health care that she has ever made a decision on that was not correct - from begging Bill to include single payer in 93 to the children's and veteran's health care expansion bills she has initiated and passed.

In 93 I worked with our lobbyists (I was in international taxation and its integration into US insurance company taxation - I was head of the tax Department and responsible for all tax planning and taxes paid and tax notices required by law in the US for Sun Life of Canada). Hillary was the only Democrat that was pushing for single payer back then - as she notes in her book it was Bills decision to both start the task force and to tell Hillary that her task force was forbidden from reviewing single payer - so at the very beginning she was hand cuffed by Bill - and Bill went in that direction because our insurance company lobbyists told him the ins companies would support universal if he promised no single payer - we lied.

Now I see crap on DU about Hillary being weak om single payer - what nonsense.

[caligirl]

35. Hilary's stance since 1993 has modified,as she began taking money so unapologetically

from big insurance companies< BCBS is one and they were just fined a paltry $1million here in ca. for illegally rescending policies of single policy holders>and big organizations representing them. I would have to hope and pray she is going to stop modifing her position on single payer or Universal and that she would move back to her 1993 position. If the industry is having lunch with her while they are screwing me how do I know she will do right by the people getting screwed like CIGNA just did to the 17 year old in LA.

My husband is of the belief she would still stand up to them and do her job. I am less convinced and its her change since 1993 and the $$ she has taken. They expect something at the table they paid for.

[papau]

36. I became more of a lurker rather than a player post 98, so I have no personal knowledge of

any HRC change - or non-change.

But I know of no buzz in the lobbyists world about Hillary being easyier to control - indeed only a few weeks ago I was being told that Obama was our choice as he would be easier to work with.

Perhaps you are correct - I just have no reason to believe so - and a bit of a reason to believe she is the strongest after Edwards on the issue.

[papau]

32. Medical worker donations are "industry lobbyist donations " - NOT - and that is my point -

as to whose medicare like policy option will get us there more likely than another - it is only an evaluation of which person will trade the Medicare option away in order to get bipartisan support - and here history teaches that all 3 are likely to stand tall - but that Obama is more likely than the others to trade away parts of a proposal to get a GOP co-sponsor - as that is what he has done in the past. Edwards appears least likely - leaving Hillary in the middle - IMO

Of course opinions can differ! :-)

[caligirl]

37. The CNA disagrees, they believe it is Hil who can't be trusted on health care reform

"The nurses’ union is equally glum about the chances for real reform. “Given how much money she’s gotten from the industry, the room for innovation is very limited,” says Michael Lighty, director of public policy for the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, whose research arm conducted the health-care-donations study. “You either have to take on the stakeholders or you have to accommodate them. She is likely to accommodate all the major ones, certainly all the ones with deep pockets.” That’s a charge Harry and Louise would never have seen coming."

I am not aware that any patient advocacy group has a seat at her health care table, as a nurse and known strong patient advocate this worries me.And the nurses everyone loves to hear about from out here in Calif. aren't the only ones concerned about her.>>>

"But some consumer groups aren’t convinced. They look at the healthy contributions she’s received from health-care groups and wonder how far into the industry’s pocket she’s climbed. “There’s nobody in this race with her knowledge to make health care available to every American at a cheaper cost, but it would take going after the insurance industry that’s funding her candidacy,” say Jamie Court, president of consumerwatchdog.org. “I don’t know if there was a smoky back room, but her positions are certainly not threatening her cash stream, and their cash stream is helping her maintain her position as a front runner. In politics there aren’t too many coincidences.” Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign responds: “Reaching out, talking to and listening to the stakeholders is how you make change. Americans from all walks have a stake in seeing a better health-care system.”"http://healthnewsdigest.com/news/National_30/How_Hillary_Won_Over_the_Health-Care_Industry_printer.shtml

[papau]

39. I read that-and was curious- do they not know the size of the Obama "health industry" contributions?

Neither is "on the take" and their complaint is about the lack of federally financed elections - not really contributions.

But the writer does want us to worry about too many doctors and nurses and DNA researchers contributing to Hillary - I wonder if that reveals a political spin or bias :-)

[caligirl]

40. from the CNA web site this is what they have said on Obama, his plan has problems too

In frequent comments, Sen. Obama has verbally chastised the insurance and drug companies, yet his healthcare plan “fails to rein in the healthcare industry pricing practices that have put so many American families at financial and health risk,” says CNA/NNOC President Deborah Burger, RN.

“Sen. Obama should adopt a single-payer plan because it is the only one that will control costs and eliminate the private insurance industry,” said Quentin Young, MD cofounder of Physicians for National Health Program.

[papau]

42. Excellent - I like consistency - besides I agree with them - but back in this election

thing - the plans are out there and only the Medicare like option keeps the single payer flame alive - and Obama has a past of giving up things so as to get passage - and that bothers me.

[caligirl]

44. read what these guys say,

Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) http://www.pnhp.org/news/2007/september/pnhp_experts_who_can.php

I just posted it in a separate thread here.

[papau]

47. thanks for posting that - it is spot on - can't disagree on any point n/t

[caligirl]

41. I am about to post an ad run by CNA in Iowa that calls on Obama to address the short

comings in his plan.

[papau]

43. Cool - but I was waiting for the meds to kick in and the wait is over - till tomorrow :-)

[paulk]

8. well, jeez - aren't you special?

[Stuckinthebush]

9. You'll vote for her if she gets the nod

I agree with you at some level. She is certainly not my favorite either. But let's be honest...when it comes down to having a Huckabee or Romney or Rudy as the president or Hillary, she will get your vote and mine too.

[FreeState]

10. I feel the exact same way about Obama n/t

[Beacool]

19. Me too!!!

Some of us won't vote for Obama and his vapid promises of hope, change, etc.

[FreeState]

12. dupe - self delete n/t

[emilyg]

15. My sentiments exactly - on Obama.

[localroger]

17. Let me be perfecly clear about this:

I don't like Hillary. Unlike most people, I didn't like Bill; I pretty much agree with the sentiment that he was the best Republican president of the 20th century. However, if HRC gets the nomination I WILL work like a dog to get her elected and I WILL vote for her. Because whatever my beefs are with the Clintons' centrist kowtowing, they at least aren't both incompetent and evil at the same time. I may disagree with them but Bill at least managed to pay down the debt and keep us out of unnecessary wars. We simply cannot afford four more years like the last eight. If it's that or HRC, I will ENTHUSIASTICALLY vote for HRC.

Incidentally, being from Louisiana I do have some experience with this. I held my nose and voted for Edwin Edwards in the infamous "Vote for the crook, it's important" cycle, when he was running against David Duke. Principles are fine, but sometimes you really do have to select the lesser of the evils or you get a bigger evil.

[sniffa]

18. here's a K&R

but please, don't discourage them.

[Forkboy]

20. Basing your support or lack thereof based on supporters is shallow and moronic.

Especially when half the clowns are probably trying to get that exact reaction from you. There are some Hillary supporters who aren't playing this game and you should listen to them if anyone, not the trolls and fakes and groupies.

[Cha]

26. Oh really? I don't think

I've encountered any. :(

[Forkboy]

29. I'd name them if I could.

Sadly, they often get drowned out by the idiots.

[Cha]

31. Cause I'd like to know

what they see in her besides throwing out red herrings and strawman attacks. It's okay, though..I've been observing hillary as my senator for 7 years now after meeting her in May 2001 to the latest campaign smears coming from her quarters.. and it was a lesson in the slippery slopes of political hell with our Soldiers as their pawns.

Ted Kennedy's reaction to the bushits and his votes are more what I have in mind for a senatorial representation.

[Forkboy]

46. You'll never find any argument from me on old Teddy!

One of the few who hasn't run screaming from Liberal tag! In fact, he embraces it!

[smoogatz]

22. And if she ends up using Rove's bag o' tricks against McCain, say?

What then? Will you stay clean and pure and good and vote for the injured party?

[Catherine Vincent]

25. Welcome to....

NOBODY CARES!

[mtnsnake]

27. Dam right. I'll support the Huckster before I'll ever support HRC!

Awesome post, bobbydem. I can't believe how well you expressed it, and you haven't even posted here that much yet.

Praise the Lord!!

[backwoodsbob]

30. there isnt enough money to make me vote repuke

but thanks for playing.

This thread is a perfect example of why I despise HRC and her minions.Nothing positive ever.Nothing but venom and distraction.

Yeah I'll vote HRC if she gets the nod but I sure as hell wont be happy about it :(

[CyberPieHole]

33. I WON'T support Obama.

So there.

[caligirl]

38. k&r with comments about her ties to health insuance deep pockets

"She’s raised more money directly from lobbyists—including those representing health-care interests—and their families than any other presidential candidate, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While she’s been challenged by Edwards not to accept lobbyist cash, she’s attended fund-raisers hosted by lobbyists themselves, including a $1,000-a-plate event last month in Chicago, according to ABC News. Clinton defended herself at this summers YearlyKos convention, where liberal bloggers both applauded and booed her. “A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” she said. “The idea that somehow a contribution is going to influence you—I just ask you to look at my record.”

But some consumer groups aren’t convinced. They look at the healthy contributions she’s received from health-care groups and wonder how far into the industry’s pocket she’s climbed. “There’s nobody in this race with her knowledge to make health care available to every American at a cheaper cost, but it would take going after the insurance industry that’s funding her candidacy,” say Jamie Court, president of consumerwatchdog.org. “I don’t know if there was a smoky back room, but her positions are certainly not threatening her cash stream, and their cash stream is helping her maintain her position as a front runner. In politics there aren’t too many coincidences.” Phil Singer, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign responds: “Reaching out, talking to and listening to the stakeholders is how you make change. Americans from all walks have a stake in seeing a better health-care system.”

The nurses’ union is equally glum about the chances for real reform. “Given how much money she’s gotten from the industry, the room for innovation is very limited,” says Michael Lighty, director of public policy for the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, whose research arm conducted the health-care-donations study. “You either have to take on the stakeholders or you have to accommodate them. She is likely to accommodate all the major ones, certainly all the ones with deep pockets.” That’s a charge Harry and Louise would never have seen coming."

With Karen Springen, Eleanor Clift, Richard Wolffe, and Roya Wolverson

www.HealthNewsDigest.com

[caligirl]

45. Hil's Electronic medical records idea never saved any money

Electronic medical records (EMR) are unlikely to save much money according to a commentary by Harvard Medical School health policy experts Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler that appears in the September/October issue of the journal Health Affairs. The commentary debunks a Rand Corporation report appearing in the same issue that forecasts massive savings from EMR.

The Rand report (which was financed by medical computing firms) is the latest of many recent claims that medical computing will save hundreds of billions of dollars in medical costs. Politicians across the political spectrum from Hillary Clinton to Newt Gingrich see in computing a painless solution to our nation’s health care crisis (additionally, Sen. Ted Kennedy has introduced federal legislation calling for the widespread adoption of EMR).

The Himmelstein/Woolhandler commentary points out that computer vendors have been claiming that such savings were imminent for the past 30 years. Yet during that time thousands of hospital computer systems have been installed that “haven’t saved a nickel.” The commentary criticizes the Rand researchers for basing their forecast on little or no reliable data. Moreover the Rand forecast assumes that “interoperability” among disparate medical computing systems, which has yet to be achieved in practice, can be readily accomplished nationwide.
“Computers won’t solve the health care crisis. Since hospitals started computerizing, bureaucracy has multiplied and costs have risen faster than ever. Only national health insurance can streamline health care bureaucracy and save enough money to make universal coverage feasible. We need politicians to provide real leadership, not wait and hope for a technologic miracle.” according to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard and prominent health policy researcher

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2005/september/projected_savings_fr.php