Obamacare, Max Baucus, and the price Democrats will pay for both

[blackascoal]

Democrats who have supported the corporate-written fraud of Obamacare without any investigation into its source will have a price to pay .. AGAIN .. in the coming midterms.

The Max Baucus Health Care Lobbyist Complex

Mapping Max Baucus' Health Care Lobbyist Complex. Click image for full visualization.

As the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Sen. Max Baucus is at the center of the congressional effort to craft health care reform legislation, a top priority of President Barack Obama. The Baucus-headed Finance Committee has been singled out by advocates and news organizations as the toughest obstacle for the President's health care priorities. Containing more moderate and conservative members may not be the only reason. The committee is packed with lawmakers who have close ties to the health care and insurance industries, receiving large campaign contributions as their former staffers turn around to lobby for the very interests whose issues -- in this case health care -- they previously worked on. Baucus, as chair, stands out in particular.

Lobbying disclosure filings for the first quarter of 2009 reveal that five of Baucus' former staffers currently work for a total of twenty-seven different organizations that are either in the health care or insurance sector or have a noted interest in the outcome. The organizations represented include some of the top lobbying organizations in the health sector: Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Researchers of America (PhRMA), America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), Amgen, and GE Health Care.

The former staffers turned lobbyists include two former chiefs of staff, David Castagnetti and Jeff Forbes, and one former legislative assistant, Scott Olsen. Other former staffers working with health care portfolios include Angela Hoffman and Roger Blauwet.

The overall health and insurance sectors haven't just been kind to Baucus' staffers, but they've also aided his campaigns handsomely over the years, especially in his barely contested 2008 reelection campaign. In 2008, Baucus received $1,148,775 from the health sector and $285,850 from the insurance sector. For his career he has received $2,797,381 from the health sector and $1,170,313 from the insurance sector.

The accompanying visualization shows the connections from Baucus to his staffers-turned-lobbyists to their health care sector clients, which, in some cases, overlap. Most of the organizations are directly involved in the health care or insurance industries. A couple, the Business Roundtable and Wal-Mart, may seem to fall outside of the realm of health care, however both are playing key roles. The Business Roundatble is lobbying heavily on the issue and Wal-Mart is a big seller of prescription medications and has a large stake in the outcome.
http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/06/22/the-max-baucus-health-care-lobbyist-complex/

Max Baucus Retiring: Montana Democrat Won't Seek Another Term In U.S. Senate
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/max-baucus-retiring_n_3138758.html

Obamacare was never designed to be actual reform. It doesn't even address costs which was the major purpose of reform in the first place. It was designed to be a fraud that benefits the health insurance industry far more than the American people .. disguised as healthcare reform.

Whenever it was pointed out and demonstrated that Obamacare was a corporate-written fraud from a corporate-owned president .. democrats screamed foul. Such attacks on Obama must be racist.

Now democrats face seeing a republican-controlled House and Senate after the midterms because they never had the courage to lead.

 

[Howey]

Word is he's retiring because of his no vote on gun regulation.

 

[evince]

it is a step towards a public option which will result in single payer.


Everyone with a brain knows that s where wwe will end up.

Just look at the rest of the world.



dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good bac.



Just like dont ask dont tell was a step towards real freedom that is what this one is.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

it is a step towards a public option which will result in single payer.


Everyone with a brain knows that s where wwe will end up.

Just look at the rest of the world.



dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good bac.



Just like dont ask dont tell was a step towards real freedom that is what this one is.

I agree Desh, that's exactly where this is heading....and should be heading. You're also right that the most important aspect of the ACA is that it establishes precedent. It's just a beginning.

 

[evince]

if you cant run you walk


to bad we have to walk but its better than lying down and giving up

 

[blackascoal]

it is a step towards a public option which will result in single payer.


Everyone with a brain knows that s where wwe will end up.

Just look at the rest of the world.



dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good bac.



Just like dont ask dont tell was a step towards real freedom that is what this one is.

With great respect for you perspectives and vision my friend, I have to seriously disagree. Obamacare is a corporatist fraud. It's no step towards anything but disaster.

Democrats are going to face a republican-controlled House and Senate .,. how do you plan to get anything done towards a getting real healthcare reform? Most Americans don't support it .. and even that support is dropping.

The time for democrats to stand up against this fraud has passed. They now own it.

It doesn't address costs, weakens Medicare, and doesn't address the doctor shortage. It's not reform by any measure.

It invites 32 million people into an already broken system without ever addressing why the system is broke.

Obama never wanted SP .. and democrats let him get away with it.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I don't see a path to single payer from this bill. I also think that Baucus is a corrupt mf'er and don't see how that can be denied. Boy that article tells the story of who owned him lock stock and cock to be blunt, and most of his staff too. Sorry.

 

[Bonestorm]

So Baucus is owned by corporate interests but Obama could have gotten single-payer though his committee how exactly?

Respectfully, BAC, your narratives don't tie together very well.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

if you cant run you walk


to bad we have to walk but its better than lying down and giving up

Oh I don't think that was ever an option. These reforms were going to happen and are being lead by corporate America. The insurance companies are making a ton of money off of health care but everyone else is paying out the ass and getting less service for their money than elsewhere in the world. When the typical corporation is paying 15% or more in overhead for employee health care costs.....well they'll only put up with that so long before the rest of Corporate America turns on the insurance companies.

 

[blackascoal]

if you cant run you walk


to bad we have to walk but its better than lying down and giving up

Rights are determined by what you can demand good sister. They don't come from campaign slogans.

Democrats didn't have the political courage to demand real healthcare reform from Obama.

In fact, they don't demand much of anything from Obama .. who now wants to cut Social Security.

 

[blackascoal]

So Baucus is owned by corporate interests but Obama could have gotten single-payer though his committee how exactly?

Respectfully, BAC, your narratives don't tie together very well.

It doesn't matter what you think of my narratives brother. The truth is staring America in the face.

Obama never wanted SP, he's a corporatist .. and if you don't know that by now, your methods of analysis are seriously flawed.

Surely you know he's a corporatist .. but what are you thinking .. he's a good corporatist????

Respectfully, democrats deserved the spanking they took in the 2010 midterms, and they are well-deserving of the one they're going to take in 2014.

Never had the courage to take a stand.

 

[Bonestorm]

It doesn't matter what you think of my narratives brother. The truth is staring America in the face.

Obama never wanted SP, he's a corporatist .. and if you don't know that by now, your methods of analysis are seriously flawed.

Surely you know he's a corporatist .. but what are you thinking .. he's a good corporatist????

Respectfully, democrats deserved the spanking they took in the 2010 midterms, and they are well-deserving of the one they're going to take in 2014.

Never had the courage to take a stand.

Let's assume for argument's sake that Obama wasn't a corporatist. How does he get single-payer through a committee run by Baucus? I don't see it.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

With great respect for you perspectives and vision my friend, I have to seriously disagree. Obamacare is a corporatist fraud. It's no step towards anything but disaster.

Democrats are going to face a republican-controlled House and Senate .,. how do you plan to get anything done towards a getting real healthcare reform? Most Americans don't support it .. and even that support is dropping.

The time for democrats to stand up against this fraud has passed. They now own it.

It doesn't address costs, weakens Medicare, and doesn't address the doctor shortage. It's not reform by any measure.

It invites 32 million people into an already broken system without ever addressing why the system is broke.

Obama never wanted SP .. and democrats let him get away with it.

Are you saying this is better than no reform at all? Dude....after what my family went through with my brother you're just simply wrong. If it hadn't of been for the first stages of the ACA having been implemented he would have had to of sold everything he owned to get medical treatments.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't see a path to single payer from this bill. I also think that Baucus is a corrupt mf'er and don't see how that can be denied. Boy that article tells the story of who owned him lock stock and cock to be blunt, and most of his staff too. Sorry.

It will because it establishes precedent. One of two things will happen with our health care financing system. We'll either adopt a single payer system, like most of the industrialized nations have, or we'll require all health care insurance companies to operate at non-profits. That's a matter of "when" and not "if".

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So Baucus is owned by corporate interests but Obama could have gotten single-payer though his committee how exactly?

Respectfully, BAC, your narratives don't tie together very well.

I concur.

 

[evince]

the slow walk continues but we all know where it ends.

 

[Phantasmal]

I agree Desh, that's exactly where this is heading....and should be heading. You're also right that the most important aspect of the ACA is that it establishes precedent. It's just a beginning.

It is where we need to steer it, please continue to pressure your legislators, thanks.

 

[blackascoal]

Russ Feingold: Obama got the health care bill he wanted

According to Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), among the most vocal supporters of the public option, the ultimate responsibility for a Senate health care bill without a public option or Medicare expansion lies with the Obama administration.

Many progressives have painted the Obama administration as powerless to stand up to the will of Congress, blaming Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for single-handedly forcing Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to drop the public option and Medicare expansion from the bill. It may not be realistic, however, to believe that one Senator has that much power and influence. On the other hand, it may be more practical to believe that the White House, with Presidential directives, veto and other means does have the power to force or mold legislation.

Russ Feingold probably knew exactly that when he said, according to The Hill:

It would be unfair to blame Lieberman for its apparent demise...[because] President Barack Obama...could have insisted on a higher standard for the legislation.This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth. I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect.

If one looks closely at the twists and turns in the health care debate over the past few months, there is much evidence to support Feingold's assertion. Keep in mind that Joe Lieberman was Obama's mentor in the Senate. There was also the deal cut by Obama with big Pharma, behind closed doors, to ban bulk price negotiations and drug reimportation that clearly contradicted both Obama's campaign positions on those issues and his promise to conduct all White House business out in the open. Then there was the warning by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to liberal groups to stop running attack ads against centrist Democrats who opposed the public option. According to Jonathon Martin writing for Politico, "there is no winking and nodding when Obama and Emanuel deliver their message."

In an unrelated issue regarding lack of support for supplemental war funding, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and other freshmen in the House also got a message from the White House: "We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again." The White House, clearly, can give a forceful message to members of Congress when it chooses to do so.

There are also very practical reasons, in terms of Washington politics, that the Obama administration would want to cater to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries and not those in favor of a public option or Medicare expansion. According to Glenn Greenwald writing for Salon:

The evidence was overwhelming from the start that the White House was not only indifferent, but opposed, to the provisions most important to progressives. The administration wants not only to prevent industry money from funding an anti-health-care-reform campaign, but also wants to ensure that the Democratic Party -- rather than the GOP -- will continue to be the prime recipient of industry largesse. If you're interested in preserving and expanding political power, then, all other things being equal, it's better to have the pharmaceutical and health insurance industry on your side than opposed to you.

So which is it? Is the Obama administration a champion of progressive causes, but impotent to stop the minority party, centrist Democrats and Joe Lieberman from perverting health care reform from a public option or the popular Medicare expansion into a politically disastrous and highly coercive "mandate" gift to the health insurance industry? Or is it politics as usual, and all about money, power and the influence that corporations have on all branches of our government? The evidence seems to support Sen. Feingold's assertion.
http://www.examiner.com/article/russ-feingold-obama-got-the-health-care-bill-he-wanted

The head-in-the-sand approach of democrats in the face of the obvious is exactly why they deserve to lose.

 

[Bonestorm]

You have posted that umpteen times and it still doesn't answer the question: even assuming he wanted it, how does Obama get single-payer through the Senate?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

It will because it establishes precedent. One of two things will happen with our health care financing system. We'll either adopt a single payer system, like most of the industrialized nations have, or we'll require all health care insurance companies to operate at non-profits. That's a matter of "when" and not "if".

I really don't see that. I actually think this bill puts off single payer. I think we would have gotten it sooner without this. Maybe I am wrong, it's hard to tell. I personally am not saying it was worse than no reform at all...I agree it helps some people. But I don't really like the bill, don't think Obama even attempted to fight for single payer ( I think that's been pretty well established too, and just because he couldn't get it through, he should have staked out that position, that's how you eventually get shit, by using the bully pulpit to explain to people how good it would be!), and Baucus is a corrupt bastard. A great example of how diseased our political system is and how it is owned by monied interests. They are told what to do and like slaves, they say yes sir, and they hop to it and they don't give one flying fuck about the people.