Insurance companies spend $380 million to fight Obamacare

[bascule]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-healthcare-reform

 

...paying 6 lobbyists for every member of Congress. Oi.

 

I cannot help but suspect that the recent defeat of the public option has something to do with this.

[Mr Skeptic]

*Wonders where they got all that money from* Not!

[iNow]

Whoops.... Just shared that link in another thread. Seriously... what are going to do to stop this insanity?

[A Tripolation]

I was under the impression that the democrats had the numbers to pass anything they wanted? Was I wrong? If not, then what the heck is going on?

[Dudde]

I can't remember where I heard it, but I'm pretty sure I've heard a republican along the lines say that it better be a partisan agreed bill, or they were promising to dismantle once they get in office or something stupid like that. I'll look for a link.

 

Beside that, I've heard Obama say a few times they wanted to come to a mutually agreed conclusion in order to prolong the affects and keep it in motion once he was out of office.

[bascule]

I was under the impression that the democrats had the numbers to pass anything they wanted?

 

Yes, they do! As Jon Stewart noted, they have a Democratic Super Majority.

 

Was I wrong? If not, then what the heck is going on?

 

I think many of us are wondering the same thing.

 

My suspicions, as noted in this thread, are that the insurance companies are successfully manipulating the Democrats.

 

The public option died not over worries about Republicans (it's assumed they'll filibuster regardless of what bill the Democrats try to pass). They're worried they can't get all the Democrats to agree to a public option. For that reason, they're trying to push through a more expensive bill without a public option.

[Dudde]

USnews, cleveland.com and tpmdc all seem to agree kind of with my earlier referenced post, as well as some controversy over whether the healthcare plan only affects spending and taxes on the federal level. Apparently reconciliation has a rule about that.

 

Wiki

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644) outlines what reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be extraneous in six cases:

 

(1) if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

(2) if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;

(3) if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

(4) if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

(5) if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and

(6) if it recommends changes in Social Security.

 

EDIT: and because I was posting when bascule was I'm completely in agreement with his last hypothesis, it's a pretty weak sales tactic because it's cheap, but it works well and pretty consistently if you know how to manipulate

Edited October 3, 2009 by Dudde
bascule made a good point

[A Tripolation]

The Jon Stewart thing was freakin' hilarious.

 

I don't know if this is a testament to the insurance companies' lobbyists' skills, or the general weakness of democrats...they have a super majority...and they still lose.

They're just screwing themselves over.

Wow.

[padren]

The Jon Stewart thing was freakin' hilarious.

 

I don't know if this is a testament to the insurance companies' lobbyists' skills, or the general weakness of democrats...they have a super majority...and they still lose.

They're just screwing themselves over.

Wow.

 

They have a super majority only when every single democrat votes in favor of the bill. When one of them sells out to lobbyists they don't. When one of them simply doesn't like the bill they don't.

 

The sad fact is, when it's a given that every single Republican will vote against and actively try to filibuster any and all legislation proposed by the other side on principle alone the only way to pass anything at all is to have unanimous support.

 

That's insane when you think about it: How far would any group get, whether a city council or a parliament or a congress or board of directors if to do anything they always had to have a unanimous result? How effective would the Supreme Court be if in order to make any active ruling it had to be with zero opposed to the ruling?

 

 

 

Honestly, the only way I see them getting anywhere is (until Republicans are willing to work with the legislative process again) to agree to hold an internal "democrat" vote and then all vote with 0 or 60 in accordance with that casual vote. Those who have the power to sink Health Care that would "vote rogue" against such an agreement should be worrying about when they do have something they want to pass and see the impossibility of unanimous agreement.

 

The Republicans could actually have something to complain about then, and the Democrats could simply tell them "when they are done holding their breath and throwing their tantrums, they can play too" which honestly is the only way to get them to act like adults again.

[CaptainPanic]

In addition to some other post I made in another thread:

 

Democracy is dead if the agenda of the politicians is made by lobbyists.

 

What's the point of voting if a group of companies can spend a rather negligible amount of money (380 million is negligible on the scale of an entire country) to remove one of the most important political topics from the political agenda?

 

I urge Americans to take (non-violent) action against the destruction of their democratic system.

 

It's bad enough that you only get 2 options in the elections, but it's unacceptable that companies can then reduce that to only 1 option (effectively making the USA a dictatorship).

[A Tripolation]

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

 

Churchill said that and I pretty much agree with him. Do you have a suggestion as to how we can reformat the entire US system without causing major conflicts that almost will certainly come to violence?

 

Lobbyists have wayyyy too much power in our legislative system, but we aren't anywhere near a dictatorship.

[SH3RL0CK]

In addition to some other post I made in another thread:

 

Democracy is dead if the agenda of the politicians is made by lobbyists.

 

Except when there are differing groups of lobbyists "voting" with their cash.

But, I suppose you are right, that's not really a democracy , more of an oligarchy.

 

It's bad enough that you only get 2 options in the elections, but it's unacceptable that companies can then reduce that to only 1 option (effectively making the USA a dictatorship).

 

In my view, the Democratic party is very nearly the same as the Republican party; at least in terms of what will actually get accomplished. The distinction is only in the rhetoric and perhaps a few inconsequential items at the periphery of public opinion, IMO. So, yes I agree, in the last election for President we had two choices, Nader or Obama/McCain. That certainly wasn't a great set of options, now was it?

 

That said, I disagree we are near a dictatorship. The politicians do still fear getting voted out of office (either in the general or the primary election) and so they aren't going to take a stand on any unpopular (at least for their district) issue. As long as this is still the case, it can't be a dictatorship.

[bascule]

I'm unable to find it now, but a recent episode of the Daily Show had a Democrat noting that about half the spending on the new healthcare bill will go to private insurers anyway. That blew my mind.

[CaptainPanic]

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

 

Churchill said that and I pretty much agree with him. Do you have a suggestion as to how we can reformat the entire US system without causing major conflicts that almost will certainly come to violence?

Split up the democrats into 3 parties.

Split up the republicans into 3 parties.

Vote again.

Have the 6 new parties form a coalition government with the already existing parties. Have that new coalition government figure out who is the best person to guide them - and that will be your head of state.

Alternatively, you keep the presidential elections as it is, but choose only the rest of the government according to the new way.

 

That way you can have a lot more freedom to vote exactly what you think is the correct party, and a larger chance that this party will take place in the government.

 

Except when there are differing groups of lobbyists "voting" with their cash.

But, I suppose you are right, that's not really a democracy , more of an oligarchy.

Democracy is not about who has the most money to spend on a certain topic. It is about who has the most people supporting a certain idea.

 

In my view, the Democratic party is very nearly the same as the Republican party; at least in terms of what will actually get accomplished. The distinction is only in the rhetoric and perhaps a few inconsequential items at the periphery of public opinion, IMO. So, yes I agree, in the last election for President we had two choices, Nader or Obama/McCain. That certainly wasn't a great set of options, now was it?

No, you had 1 choice. Without a chance for a coalition government, it was completely pointless to vote for Nader.

And the choice between republicans and democrats seems pointless too, since the social healthcare topic is being raped and murdered from all sides right now.

 

That said, I disagree we are near a dictatorship. The politicians do still fear getting voted out of office (either in the general or the primary election) and so they aren't going to take a stand on any unpopular (at least for their district) issue. As long as this is still the case, it can't be a dictatorship.

Oh, comon!

The problem isn't so much that the politicians don't take unpopular decisions (they shouldn't do that anyway).

The problem is that they actually DO take unpopular decisions all the time. the problem is that the general public first gets brainwashed into thinking it is the right thing to do...

 

With proper information, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been unpopular. The Patriot act would have been unpopular. A law system that sends about 1% of its population to prison would be unpopular. And a social healthcare system would be popular.

Democracy is dead if the majority of the population of the "land of the free" seems to disagree with my points here.

 

Name me one topic where Washington did not choose for either big money or religious ideas. Just ONE topic would be sufficient.

Edited October 6, 2009 by CaptainPanic

[SH3RL0CK]

captain,

 

With all due respect, there are problems with a coalition government too. For one thing, with the media reporting as it does, the problems you cite regarding the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the patriot act, our legal system, etc. would be unchanged even if the US had a coalition government. Politicians don't fight public opinion which is primarily (but not entirely) shaped by the media.

 

As such, what you claim

The problem is that they actually DO take unpopular decisions all the time. the problem is that the general public first gets brainwashed into thinking it is the right thing to do...

is self-contradictory. If the public thinks these area the right things to do, it is popular and will be the course of action taken by politicians. Only later when the media switches sides (to boost sales and increase revenue as they have just created controversy) do these become unpopular. And the media executives wonder why their readership/viewership continues to plummet...

 

At any rate, you asked to name a policy not affected by Big money or religion...that's asking a lot because ANYTHING Washington decides will have an effect such that afterwards you should be able to point to someone who benefited financially from the decision. But you can't necessarily make the connection that this financial benefit to someone was why the decision was made.

 

For example, the invasion of Afghanistan was a direct result of the USA (Edit: and to be fair, I really should credit and thank our friends in the world community for their invaluable assistance) trying to defeat Al Queda and catch Osama Bin Laden. This was neither a monetary nor a religious decision; the world trade center attack demanded some kind of response. However, I suppose you could say the money gained by various defense contractors was why we invaded and not because AQ killed thousands of innocent people and the Taliban in Afghanistan decided to shelter them. Or you could claim a religious Christianity vs. Islam motive. But I think its clear this was not a monetary nor a religious decision, don't you agree?

Edited October 6, 2009 by SH3RL0CK