Who do Hillary's backers at Pfizer, Novartis, HCA and Tenet Healthcare Corp think WON THE DEBATE?

[Faryn Balyncd]

Who won last night's debate?


Seemed that it was all about "change" . . .

"Wait a minute now, wait a minute. I'm going to respond to this because obviously -- making change is not about what you believe........

".....I want to make change, but I've already made change.............I'm running on 35 years of change. I'm running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies......"

- - - - - - - Hillary Rodham Clinton, January 5, 2008







- - - - - - - (Transcript) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?pagewanted=all

- - - - - - - VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07u6uffKvpA

Who won last night's debate?


Well, WWLT? (What Would the Lobbyists Think?)

www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/told/|The Kiplinger Letter: Hillary Clinton...business’s candidate for president in 2008?


So far, at least, the money says yes. Donations are piling up
from a variety of executives who think she has a good chance to win.
Business honchos will cover all the bases, of course,
giving to other Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls, too.
But Clinton has a good track record on many business issues,
helping her attract corporate cash to her cause. For example,
the N.Y. senator votes for free-trade deals, backs tax breaks
for small firms and opposes stricter controls on foreign investors.
Two-thirds of Clinton’s donations will come from business.
Labor will kick in about 25%, with the rest coming from other sources.
Her fund-raising prowess is unmatched. By January, Clinton’s war chest
will hold close to $100 million, more than any other candidate’s.

Among her biggest contributors: Rx drug and health care execs
who were among her biggest foes when she headed health reform efforts
during her husband’s administration. Companies including Pfizer,
Novartis, HCA and Tenet Healthcare Corp. figure that if Clinton wins,
health reform will be big on her agenda, and they want to be sure
to have seats at the table. But they’re just the tip of the iceberg.
Leaders of financial firms are also high on the donor rolls.
They include execs at Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup,
three firms that Clinton confers with frequently on financial policy.
Influential investor Warren Buffett is another supporter and adviser.

-- The Kiplinger Letter, February 23, 2007


........(Update, Kiplinger Letter):


. . .And What Happened

Clinton's roll continues when it comes to raking in campaign cash. She scored her best quarter in fundraising in the just-ended third quarter of 2007, raising $22 million and outpacing all other candidates in either party. She has raised a total of $75 million to date for the primary season, putting her right on track to meeting or even exceeding the $100 million mark by the beginning of 2008. About two out of every three dollars she raises comes from business interests, including financial services, health care and telecommunications. Clinton's success at raising money from health care firms has drawn fire from her rival former Sen. John Edwards, who has suggested Clinton is unable to reform the health care industry because she hasn't accepted his challenge not to accept any contributions from federal lobbyists.


http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/told/

There's "change", and then there's "change"......Perhaps it may even "depend on what the meaning of the word 'change' is"......

Hillary's Healthy Turnaround

by Joe Conason


That’s right: One of the pillars of the new Clinton plan was originally fashioned by a prominent policy analyst at Washington’s largest conservative think tank......


......Yet by folding the Heritage plan into her own new plan—and by simultaneously adopting aspects of the Massachusetts and California universal-coverage plans—Mrs. Clinton is shielding herself against the inevitable barrage from both partisan and corporate adversaries. How radical is a plan that echoes the Heritage Foundation, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney?


. . . . .


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070920_hillarys_healthy_turnaround/

If industry lobbyists were to design a national health care plan in which the top priority would be industry profits, what would such a plan look like?

Hillary Clinton’s Orwellian Health Care Plan


It appears that the Senator from New York will take a few minutes off from her normal routine of collecting illegal campaign contributions to grace us with another chapter in the ongoing saga of Hillarycare. Here’s how one of her minions described it to the AP:

“It puts the consumer in the driver’s seat by offering more choices and lowering costs,” Neera Tanden, Clinton’s top policy adviser, told The Associated Press.

And how does Her Majesty plan to “put the consumer in driver’s seat”? She will issue a royal decree mandating that all her subjects buy coverage:

The centerpiece of Clinton’s plan is the so-called “individual mandate,” requiring everyone to have health insurance.

That’s right. In the Orwellian world of Hillarycare, “more choices” means a law requiring you to buy insurance, whether you want it or not.


http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/17/hillary-clinton%E2%80%99s-orwellian-health-care-plan/

Who won last night's debate?

Should we ask the lobbyists?

Which of the 3 Democratic candidates is prepared to (in Sen. Clinton's words) "take on" corporate interests?

Who have the corporate media chosen to subject to a corporate media blackout?







Who is not only our most vertebrate :), but our most electable candidate?












:kick:








UPDATE:

The industry contribution totals (for all candidates) linked in Comment #7 show very similar totals from both "Insurance" industry and "Pharmaceutical/Health Product" industry for both HRC & Obama, and markedly less lobbyist and industry contributions to Edwards. Take a look:

Here are the contributions to all candidates from "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products":

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04



Here is the candidate contribution breakdown for the "Insurance" related industry:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09


Here are the totals for "Lobbyists":

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02

[no name no slogan]

1. Psssst... you do know that Obama and Edwards ALSO take pharma $$$?

So in a way they are all tainted.

Sorry if this bursts your bubble.

[MADem]

4. Awww, don't go torching that straw man, now!!! Ruins the self-righteous high dudgeon fun!

Let's not even get into the energy sector and our friends at "clean coal!!"

[lisainmilo]

29. You are wrong!

John Edwards has NEVER TAKEN A DIME FROM A WASHINGTON LOBBYIST!

mETHODOLOGY: The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than
$200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC.

as the article correctly stated about Hillary

Hillary Clinton...business’s candidate for president in 2008?
So far, at least, the money says yes. Donations are piling up
from a variety of executives who think she has a good chance to win.
Business honchos will cover all the bases, of course,
giving to other Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls, too.
But Clinton has a good track record on many business issues,
helping her attract corporate cash to her cause. For example,
the N.Y. senator votes for free-trade deals, backs tax breaks
for small firms and opposes stricter controls on foreign investors.
Two-thirds of Clinton’s donations will come from business.
Labor will kick in about 25%, with the rest coming from other sources.
Her fund-raising prowess is unmatched. By January, Clinton’s war chest
will hold close to $100 million, more than any other candidate’s.

Among her biggest contributors: Rx drug and health care execs
who were among her biggest foes when she headed health reform efforts
during her husband’s administration. Companies including Pfizer,
Novartis, HCA and Tenet Healthcare Corp. figure that if Clinton wins,
health reform will be big on her agenda, and they want to be sure
to have seats at the table. But they’re just the tip of the iceberg.
Leaders of financial firms are also high on the donor rolls.
They include execs at Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup,
three firms that Clinton confers with frequently on financial policy.
Influential investor Warren Buffett is another supporter and adviser

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/told/

There is a significant difference when an individual contributes compared to a corporation hoping to gain profit.

EDIT TO ADD THIS:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?ID=N00002283&Cycle=2008


Individual contributions
$30,121,494
99%

PAC contributions
$20
0%

Candidate self-financing
$0
0%

Federal Funds
$0
0%

Other
$207,638

Not a dime from a lobbyist!

[metisnation]

2. Obama

Aren't these the same backers of Obama? Clinton and Obama are corporate whoreistas and are no better than Romeny or Huckabee!

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. I wonder who the lobbyists that give Edwards millions think won the debate?

Of course he had to admit this morning on ABC that he would not allow them in his White House--he will take their money, but they must come in the back door.

And then we could ask: what do you suppose the Lobbyist who is helping Obama in his campaign thinks about being outed in the debate?

What a bunch of hypocrites

[Saturday]

6. I was going to mention Obama's personal

lobbyist but I see you already did. Funny how Obama didn't respond to that last night, isn't it?

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. Take a look at these INDUSTRY CONTRIBUTIONS to ALL CANDIDATES...Who do you think is in a better...

position to "take on" (as Hillary said) insurance and pharmaceutical interests when formulating healthcare reform?


Here are the contributions to all candidates from "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products":

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04



Here is the candidate contribution breakdown for the "Insurance" related industry:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09


You have a valid point - - the corrupting influence of our current campaign financing is a factor with every candidate..... But if you look at the current contributions, and at who has elected to accept public financing (and is getting far more votes per dollar than any other of our candidates), there is a huge difference.


Look at the figures....

Who do you think is in the best position to "take on" the insurance, healthcare, and pharmaceutical special interests?

[Garbo 2004]

10. Another breakdown of donations, including PAC money, is perhaps helpful.

Clinton: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Obama: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Edwards: http://opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00002283&cycle=2008

[creeksneakers2]

5. What does an investors newsletter from February 23, 2007

have to do with big pharma's opinion about who won the debate?

It doesn't take a PHd in political science to tell you that if Obama solidifies a lead those same people who donated to Hillary will swarm to donate to Obama too, and he'll take their money.

Hillary has a great record for taking on big pharma too. They give her money but get no return. Perhaps they fear that if they don't give her money it could be even worse for them.

[Faryn Balyncd]

8. The current Kiplinger link which was cited compared the original 2/07 data with 3rd quarter totals..

(Those are the most recent available, as 4th quarter, 2007 contributions are still unreported.)


Actually,Creeksneakers2, I would think your statement regarding Obama (in your 2nd paragraph)) is probably correct.

The industry contributions from both the "Insurance" industries as well as from "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products" show similar figures for contributions to Clinton & Obama.

But there are huge differences regarding Edwards.

And since Edwards alone has elected to take public financing, when looking at these totals, who do you think is best able to "take on" (in HRC's words) these special interests?


Here are the contributions to ALL CANDIDATES by industry:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04






:kick:

[creeksneakers2]

11. I'd say Hillary

Hillary has been fighting the health insurance companies for a long time and understands how to do it. The donations haven't influenced her to abandon what she stands for.

[Faryn Balyncd]

19. She's better than a Republican, but her current plan is an insurance company's dream........

She (as well as Obama) is unwilling to consider a single payor system, which is the only system that could tap the 30+% inefficiency inherent in our current insurance system, without which full coverage will remain unaffordable.

See : Physicians for a National Health Program - http://www.pnhp.org/ and http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/hillary-clintons-first-health-care-non-reform/

Edwards's current plan is not single payor either (only Kucinich, no longer a contender, favors single payor).

I would favor Kucinich's plan, or that of PNHP above.

Of the contending candidates, only Edwards appears to be financially non-dependent upon insurance and pharmaceutical interests.

If HRC had a plan that was not so favorable to the insurance industry, I would agree with you.

But without confronting these special interests, I do not believe universal coverage can be financed. We simply can't afford that much corporate welfare.

[creeksneakers2]

23. Its not all favorable to the insurance industry

They have to admit patients with prior conditions. Even with mandates not everybody who should buy insurance will. The insurance company is taking on big costs with no guarantee of funds to cover the costs.

Why buy insurance if as soon as you get ill you can automatically get it?

[Faryn Balyncd]

26. You have a valid point. . . . .

Waiting until a chronic condition develops (before buying insurance), with or without mandates, has deleterious effects.

However, the insurance industry has developed a most perverse current system: Under our present system people commonly find themselves unable TO CONTINUE insurance for a variety of reasons: a job change (either voluntary or involuntary), a decision by an insurance company to cancel an entire group policy, or leave the state (so that even when individuals are guaranteed they will not be cancelled individually, they find themselves without coverage). These individuals find themselves without coverage, in need of making a new application, but now with a chronic, pre-existing condition.

Such individuals, without coverage, now find themselves commonly denied coverage & among the un-insured, and subjected to grossly inflated so-called "normal fees", some of which are 350-800% higher than the steeply discounted (but still profitable) insurance company rates. Hospitals truthfully claim that the collection rate on these "self-pay" accounts is 10-15%, yet a financially responsible, honest self-pay patient is billed amounts often several hundred % higher than insurance company "discounted" (& profitable) rates. (An preposterous example, documented by the Houston Chronicle, involved an out-patient lithotripsy , in which the hospital billed the insurance company slightly over $8000, but after the insurer denied payment (despite giving pre-authorization) the hospital refused to accept the payment from the patient, and demanded their "regular rate" of over $60,000 from the self-pay patient. Note that this was for an out-patient proceedure, which involved 2 treatments of outpatient lithotripsy. In this particular case, to the amazement of many, the hospital refused to relent, despite the negative publicity, and continued to demand over $60,000 from the patient as their "normal" self-pay rate, and that such pricing discrimination was standard for the industry.)

Similar discriminatory (and usually impossible to access) pricing schemes have doomed many who have attempted Medical Savings accounts. The extremely large inflated fees charged to everyone who has not purchased a policy involving huge discounts from grossly inflated "normal", fantasyland fees doom such plans from the start.

I believe such industry practices are a disgrace and are an embarassment to our free enterprise, capitalistic system. In fact, such examples represent what happens when monopolistic special interests threaten to destroy free enterprise.

I do not see how it is wise to continue to pour over 30% of the healthcare dollar into insurance company coffers.

Insurance companies do not provide care. Care is provided by doctors, nurses, other providers, hospitals, and clinics.

Insurance was initially formulated to ease the burden of irregular & unpredictable expense.

Our present insurance system has become a large part of the problem.

It will be expensive to provide universal coverage. I fail to see how this can be done without utilizing the funds that now go to 3rd party non-healthcare providers (insurance companies).

Of all the candidates, only Kucinich advocates a single payer plan such as that proposed by Physicians for a National Healthcare Program, and the California Nurses Association.

But Kucinich is no longer a contender.

Of the contenders, only Edwards has shown the willingness to forgo financial dependence on insurance companies, and "take on" (in HRC's words) the special interests.

A single-payer, "Medicare-for-all" system will, of course, be labeled as "socialized medicine" by the Republican corporatists, but "Medicare-for-all" is no more "socialized medicine" than is the Medicare system that now applies to all over 65. (or of the Medicare plus Federal Employees Health Plan that paid for Dick Cheney's heart treatment, John McCain's melanoma surgery, and Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's Disease).

[creeksneakers2]

27. The Edwards plan isn't single payer either. n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

28. Unfortunately, that is true. . . . . . .

His current plan is not that much better than his rivals. Only Kucinich, no longer a contender, currently advocates a single payer "Medicare-for-all" plan like that of Physicians for a National Health Program, or that of the California Nurse's Association.

But, of the 3 contenders, Edwards is the only one willing to forgo financial dependence on special interest money, and to be willing to confront these entrenched interests.

Without this independence, it would appear that any health care reform that eventually emerges will be guaranteed to be heavy on corporate welfare, just as was the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug benefit.

[papau]

9. LOL - I like Joe Conason - who praises Hillary's plan at the OP's link - but that's secret I

guess -

it seems DU posts are getting "more interesting"

[L0oniX]

12. The candidates that haven't taken corporate candy are already out of the running.

DK and Gravel. I guess we want another corporate whore (man or woman) for president.

[K Gardner]

13. "If Clinton wins, they want to be sure to have a seat at the table"...

"But Clinton has a good track record on many business issues,helping her attract corporate cash to her cause. About two out of every three dollars she raises comes from business interests, including financial services, health care and telecommunications. Yet by folding the Heritage plan into her own new plan—and by simultaneously adopting aspects of the Massachusetts and California universal-coverage plans—Mrs. Clinton is shielding herself against the inevitable barrage from both partisan and corporate adversaries. How radical is a plan that echoes the Heritage Foundation, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mitt Romney?"

Judas Priest.. wake up people !

[robinlynne]

14. k&r!

[Moochy]

15. Kick

Hilary did score a few "likability" points for me, with her reaction to the "people like obama better" question, but thats about it...

K&R!

[liberal N proud]

16. What happened to the peoples election?

[Faryn Balyncd]

17. UPDATE: The contribution totals show HUGE DIFFERENCES in how BEHOLDEN each candidate is to LOBBYISTS

Take a look:


Here are the contributions to all candidates from "Pharmaceuticals/Health Products":

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04



Here is the candidate contribution breakdown for the "Insurance" related industry:

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F09


Here are the totals for "Lobbyists":

http://opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=K02





HRC & Obama totals are similar. As the only candidate to go the public financing route (and to get far more votes per dollar than ANY of our other candidates) Edwards has MARKEDLY DIFFERENT totals.


This is particularly important when it comes to health care reform.




:kick:











:kick:

[Uncle Joe]

18. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, charles.

[Quixote1818]

20. K and R. nt

[Sparkly]

21. Can you name 5 ways her plan is different from Edwards' plan?

Or 3 ways?

Or one?

[shenmue]

22. Companies are evil! Let's eat twigs!

Because nobody needs the products and services of those companies, right...

Edwards is going to get the health care system to change not by working with the actual companies that make it up, but by smiling a lot in pictures with his family.

:dunce:

Seriously. Do you have anything else to offer besides childish Clinton-bashing?

[Faryn Balyncd]

24. Companies are not evil, but our current system is broken..........

In response to your request for what I would offer, perhaps these 2 programs may be of interest:

- - - - - Physicians for a National Health Program http://www.pnhp.org/
- - - - - California Nurse's http://www.calnurse.org/

Both of these professional organizations believe the only way universal coverage may be achieved is via a single payer model ("Medicare for All" or a variant), which is advocated by Dennis Kucinich.

Only such a program allows tapping the 30+% inefficiency of the current insurance system to pay a portion of the cost of universal coverage.

Dr, David Himmelstein of PNHP gave a detailed account in 1993 regarding the resistance of Hillary Clinton and other Washington forces to a single payer system:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/09/hillary-clintons-first-health-care-non-reform/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n9_v25/ai_13276711

Currently, we have a system in which our sickest patients are often excluded from coverage, and subjected to artificially inflated "normal prices" which are frequently 350-800% higher than discounted prices negotiated by (and paid by) insurance companies. Note that the prices paid by insurance companies are at a level which have allowed quite favorable profits. While hospitals may only collect 10-15% of these inflated bills from "self-pay" patients, a responsible self-pay patient asking to pay cash-up-front will generally only be able to negotiate a 10-20% discount, thus paying (cash-in-advance) a fee still several hundred % higher than that paid by the insurance company that denied patient coverage.

Physicians, nurses, other healthcare providers, hospitals, and clinics provide care. Insurance companies do not. While their original purpose was to facilitate access to care, insurance company policy has been a major factor in the astronomical rise in medical prices, consumes over 30% of the healthcare dollar, and is often counterproductive in achieving access.

But such entrenched financial interests will not be dislodged easily.

That would be fine if we could afford both healthcare and continuation of payment for the 30%+ of the healthcare dollar which insurance companies consume.

But we cannot.

Unfortunately, John Edwards does not presently advocate a single payer system.

But he is the only contending candidate that is not financially beholden to the insurance industry, and willing to "take on" (in HRC's words) such entrenched special interests.

HRC, on the other hand, is solidly opposed to a single payer system, as is Barach Obama, and both are financially dependent on such interests.

It would appear that the prospects that either HRC or Obama will lead the necessary difficult confrontation with those (primarily the insurance industry) that have a vested financial interest in the perpetuation of our broken and unaffordable system, is negligible.

Only John Edwards has demonstrated the willingness to forgo financial dependence and confront these entrenched interests.

Are these companies evil? No

Will they resist necessary change with every tool they possess? Yes





Do we need a leader wiling to make necessary confrontation?










:kick:









I am not going to "bash Hillary" (as you phrase it) - - I will, in fact, work to elect her if she becomes, unfortunately, our nominee. She has many great qualities.

But it looks like the candidate who has both the most spine, as well as being the most electable (even appealing to more than a few Republicans, besides all the independents) is, as per your reference, that smiling family man:











:kick:

[HughBeaumont]

25. I'm sick about the blackout.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x81575

Seems to me that it's all a damned dog and pony show. Power is too precious a commodity to be decided by something that's outdated as democracy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3967438