Healthcare tyranny

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Politicians with ties to the insurance industry are keeping the U.S. from real healthcare reform

By David Sirota

...

Here we have a major congressional push to fix a healthcare system that leaves one-sixth of the country without coverage. Here we have 535 House and Senate delegates elected to give all 300 million of us a voice in the solution. And here we have just 13 of those delegates holding the initiative hostage.

In the Senate, both parties have outsourced healthcare legislation to six Finance Committee lawmakers: Max Baucus, D-Mont.; Kent Conrad, D-N.D.; Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The group recently announced it is rejecting essential provisions like a public insurance option that surveys show the public supports. Meanwhile, seven mostly Southern House Democrats have been threatening to use their Commerce Committee votes to gut any healthcare bill, regardless of what the American majority wants.

This, however, isn't about the majority. These lawmakers, hailing mostly from small states and rural areas, together represent only 13 million people, meaning that those speaking for just 4 percent of America are maneuvering to impose their healthcare will on the other 96 percent of us.

Census figures show that the poverty rates are far higher and per-capita incomes far lower in the 13 legislators' specific districts than in the nation as a whole. Put another way, these politicians represent exactly the kinds of districts whose constituents would most benefit from universal healthcare. So why are they leading the fight to stop -- rather than pass -- reform?

Because when tyranny mixes with legalized bribery, constituents' economic concerns stop mattering.

Thanks to our undemocratic system and our corrupt campaign finance laws, the healthcare industry doesn't have to fight a 50-state battle. It can simply buy a tiny group of congresspeople, which is what it's done. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, health interests have given these 13 members of Congress $12 million in campaign contributions -- a massive sum further enhanced by geography.

Remember, politicians trade favors for reelection support -- and the best way to ensure reelection is to raise money for TV airtime (read: commercials). In rural America, that airtime is comparatively cheap because the audience is relatively small. Thus, campaign contributions to rural politicians like these 13 buy more commercials -- and, consequently, more political loyalty.

The end result is an amplifier of tyranny: precisely because the undemocratic system unduly empowers legislators from sparsely populated (and hence cheap) media markets, industry cash can more easily purchase tyrannical obstruction from those same legislators. In this case, that means congresspeople blocking healthcare reform that would most help their own voters.

Of course, there is talk of circumventing the 13 obstructionists and forcing an un-filibuster-able vote of the full Congress. Inside the Washington palace, the media court jesters and political aides-de-camp have reacted to such plans by raising predictable charges of improper procedure, poor manners, bad etiquette and other Versailles transgressions.

But the real crime would be letting the tyrants block that vote, trample democracy and kill healthcare reform in the process.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/01/sirota/

Edited August 2, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[Ban Hammer 13,366]

This, however, isn't about the majority. These lawmakers, hailing mostly from small states and rural areas, together represent only 13 million people, meaning that those speaking for just 4 percent of America are maneuvering to impose their healthcare will on the other 96 percent of us.

false statistics - it assumes that 4% are against and the 96% are for.

if this was about majority rules, i doubt the healthcare issue would then pass.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I thought this thread title was healthcare tranny.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

She has her own show on WE

[Nagishkaw 510]

I thought this thread title was healthcare tranny.

And I was just going to say that!

[Tahoma 2,292]

Buying votes in Congress is the American way!

[mRx 16]

This is nicely offset by the cool $11M given by Wal-Mart in their altruist support of the bill.

Wal-Mart Endorses Employer Mandate

After years of strenuous opposition, Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, announced yesterday that it supports a controversial proposal requiring businesses to contribute to the cost of employee health insurance…company executives said they decided to back a federal “employer mandate” if certain conditions are met: It must be part of a broad health-care reform bill, it should exempt some small firms, and it must be pegged to a moderately priced benefits package similar to the coverage Wal-Mart offers most of its workers.

…large employers support an employer mandate as a way to “level the playing field,” said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents primarily Fortune 500 companies. “A lot of big companies in the retail business already provide it, and they feel that creates a competitive disadvantage for them,” she said.

Wal-Mart is a major political player, spending millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions in recent years. Its political action committee gave $3 million to federal campaigns during the 2008 cycle, primarily to Republicans, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. The donations included $12,000 to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading health-care reform efforts as head of the Senate Finance Committee.

[Wal-Mart] also spent more than $8 million on lobbying from January 2008 through March of this year, including a strong focus on health-care reform, according to Senate disclosure documents.

Source

Oh, how our uncorruptable politicians have our best interest at the forefront of their minds!

[Tahoma 2,292]

This is nicely offset by the cool $11M given by Wal-Mart in their altruist support of the bill.

Wal-Mart Endorses Employer Mandate

After years of strenuous opposition, Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, announced yesterday that it supports a controversial proposal requiring businesses to contribute to the cost of employee health insurance…company executives said they decided to back a federal “employer mandate” if certain conditions are met: It must be part of a broad health-care reform bill, it should exempt some small firms, and it must be pegged to a moderately priced benefits package similar to the coverage Wal-Mart offers most of its workers.

…large employers support an employer mandate as a way to “level the playing field,” said Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents primarily Fortune 500 companies. “A lot of big companies in the retail business already provide it, and they feel that creates a competitive disadvantage for them,” she said.

Wal-Mart is a major political player, spending millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions in recent years. Its political action committee gave $3 million to federal campaigns during the 2008 cycle, primarily to Republicans, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. The donations included $12,000 to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who is leading health-care reform efforts as head of the Senate Finance Committee.

[Wal-Mart] also spent more than $8 million on lobbying from January 2008 through March of this year, including a strong focus on health-care reform, according to Senate disclosure documents.

Source

Oh, how our uncorruptable politicians have our best interest at the forefront of their minds!

Sorry to inform you, but the $11 million does not "nicely offset" anything. As a matter of fact, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what is being spent by the industry in order to block any meaningful health care reform.

To anyone who has been following Wal-Mart for any length of time, their political playbook is easy to figure out. It is as simplistic as it is straightforward: they furiously lobby against such issues as raising the minimum wage, and against health care reform, until it becomes apparent that Congress is about act against their position. Then, Wal-Mart jumps on the bandwagon in order to get some good PR out of an otherwise losing proposition for them. Judging from another one of your postings, you are in complete denial about this.

I do agree with your sarcastic comment about (some) politicians not having our best interests in mind. However, insurance industry bureaucrats are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard.

[mRx 16]

Sorry to inform you, but the $11 million does not "nicely offset" anything. As a matter of fact, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what is being spent by the industry in order to block any meaningful health care reform.

To anyone who has been following Wal-Mart for any length of time, their political playbook is easy to figure out. It is as simplistic as it is straightforward: they furiously lobby against such issues as raising the minimum wage, and against health care reform, until it becomes apparent that Congress is about act against their position. Then, Wal-Mart jumps on the bandwagon in order to get some good PR out of an otherwise losing proposition for them. Judging from another one of your postings, you are in complete denial about this.

I do agree with your sarcastic comment about (some) politicians not having our best interests in mind. However, insurance industry bureaucrats are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard.

Que?

From the actual OP

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, health interests have given these 13 members of Congress $12 million in campaign contributions

Compared to Wal-Mart's $11 million. So, what the insurance industry contributed 9% more than Walmart. And Wal Mart's contribution is a drop in the bucket? And I'm in denial?

Also, you are clearly mistaken on all counts in your synopsis of Wal Mart's jump on the bandwagon in order to get some good PR out of an otherwise losing proposition for them. From MSNBC:

...Wal-Mart says it pays well above the minimum wage — an average of $10.11 an hour for full-time employees in the U.S.

...

Chief Executive Lee Scott, who made headlines last October when he first backed an increase in the $5.15 hourly pay rate, said Wednesday he still supports a raise...

Link

What good could it possibly do the mega-corporation Walmart to support an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, when they were already paying considerably more? You must be joking if you think it's for some pitiful PR.

Perhaps, because Walmart was already in a position to be unaffected by the minimum wage raise, whereas their competitors were not, and such an increase would abruptly force the costs of their competitors up.

That's why they did it.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Sorry to inform you, but the $11 million does not "nicely offset" anything. As a matter of fact, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what is being spent by the industry in order to block any meaningful health care reform.

To anyone who has been following Wal-Mart for any length of time, their political playbook is easy to figure out. It is as simplistic as it is straightforward: they furiously lobby against such issues as raising the minimum wage, and against health care reform, until it becomes apparent that Congress is about act against their position. Then, Wal-Mart jumps on the bandwagon in order to get some good PR out of an otherwise losing proposition for them. Judging from another one of your postings, you are in complete denial about this.

I do agree with your sarcastic comment about (some) politicians not having our best interests in mind. However, insurance industry bureaucrats are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard.

Que?

From the actual OP

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, health interests have given these 13 members of Congress $12 million in campaign contributions

Compared to Wal-Mart's $11 million. So, what the insurance industry contributed 9% more than Walmart. And Wal Mart's contribution is a drop in the bucket? And I'm in denial?

Also, you are clearly mistaken on all counts in your synopsis of Wal Mart's jump on the bandwagon in order to get some good PR out of an otherwise losing proposition for them. From MSNBC:

...Wal-Mart says it pays well above the minimum wage — an average of $10.11 an hour for full-time employees in the U.S.

...

Chief Executive Lee Scott, who made headlines last October when he first backed an increase in the $5.15 hourly pay rate, said Wednesday he still supports a raise...

Link

What good could it possibly do the mega-corporation Walmart to support an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, when they were already paying considerably more? You must be joking if you think it's for some pitiful PR.

Perhaps, because Walmart was already in a position to be unaffected by the minimum wage raise, whereas their competitors were not, and such an increase would abruptly force the costs of their competitors up.

That's why they did it.

A visit to the real world would result in the discovery that the health care industry spends their (our) dollars on more politicians than these 13 individuals. Have you seen the newly resurrected Harry and Louise television commercials that are playing in the major markets? Have you considered the big bucks the health care industry is throwing at think tanks in order to get their message out? How about the large sums spent on campaign advertisements and hit pieces against those politicians who opposed the Big Insurance agenda? The list goes on and on. Wal-Mart's money is a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Once again, you have chosen to ignore the crystal clear history of Wal-Mart's fight against raising the minimum wage. How do you explain their long fight against raising the minimum wage? You have an opportunity to explain it right here and right now.

Also, I see that you are still quoting complete distortions about Wal-Mart's pay structure in order to support your contention that Wal-Mart would not be affected by an increase in the minimum wage. Wal-Mart is indeed affected by raising the minimum wage. They have lots of minimum wage employees. Where did you get the idea that they don't?

You say that Wal-Mart is paying more than the minimum wage because they pay an "average" of $10.11 per hour (for full-time employees). What you don't say is that this includes long-time employees, assistant managers, and managers, etc., thus skewing the average upward. There are many employees who make only minimum wage at Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart does not deny this fact. If there are Wal-Mart employees making minimum wage, how is Wal-Mart not affected by legislation (either state or federal) which raises minimum wage? Oh yea, you forgot to include the part-time employees too. Most of those also make minimum wage.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Sorry to inform you, but the $11 million does not "nicely offset" anything. As a matter of fact, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what is being spent by the industry in order to block any meaningful health care reform.

To anyone who has been following Wal-Mart for any length of time, their political playbook is easy to figure out. It is as simplistic as it is straightforward: they furiously lobby against such issues as raising the minimum wage, and against health care reform, until it becomes apparent that Congress is about act against their position. Then, Wal-Mart jumps on the bandwagon in order to get some good PR out of an otherwise losing proposition for them. Judging from another one of your postings, you are in complete denial about this.

I do agree with your sarcastic comment about (some) politicians not having our best interests in mind. However, insurance industry bureaucrats are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard.

Que?

From the actual OP

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, health interests have given these 13 members of Congress $12 million in campaign contributions

Compared to Wal-Mart's $11 million. So, what the insurance industry contributed 9% more than Walmart. And Wal Mart's contribution is a drop in the bucket? And I'm in denial?

Also, you are clearly mistaken on all counts in your synopsis of Wal Mart's jump on the bandwagon in order to get some good PR out of an otherwise losing proposition for them. From MSNBC:

...Wal-Mart says it pays well above the minimum wage — an average of $10.11 an hour for full-time employees in the U.S.

...

Chief Executive Lee Scott, who made headlines last October when he first backed an increase in the $5.15 hourly pay rate, said Wednesday he still supports a raise...

Link

What good could it possibly do the mega-corporation Walmart to support an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, when they were already paying considerably more? You must be joking if you think it's for some pitiful PR.

Perhaps, because Walmart was already in a position to be unaffected by the minimum wage raise, whereas their competitors were not, and such an increase would abruptly force the costs of their competitors up.

That's why they did it.

A visit to the real world would result in the discovery that the health care industry spends their (our) dollars on more politicians than these 13 individuals. Have you seen the newly resurrected Harry and Louise television commercials that are playing in the major markets? Have you considered the big bucks the health care industry is throwing at think tanks in order to get their message out? How about the large sums spent on campaign advertisements and hit pieces against those politicians who opposed the Big Insurance agenda? The list goes on and on. Wal-Mart's money is a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Once again, you have chosen to ignore the crystal clear history of Wal-Mart's fight against raising the minimum wage. How do you explain their long fight against raising the minimum wage? You have an opportunity to explain it right here and right now.

Also, I see that you are still quoting complete distortions about Wal-Mart's pay structure in order to support your contention that Wal-Mart would not be affected by an increase in the minimum wage. Wal-Mart is indeed affected by raising the minimum wage. They have lots of minimum wage employees. Where did you get the idea that they don't?

You say that Wal-Mart is paying more than the minimum wage because they pay an "average" of $10.11 per hour (for full-time employees). What you don't say is that this includes long-time employees, assistant managers, and managers, etc., thus skewing the average upward. There are many employees who make only minimum wage at Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart does not deny this fact. If there are Wal-Mart employees making minimum wage, how is Wal-Mart not affected by legislation (either state or federal) which raises minimum wage? Oh yea, you forgot to include the part-time employees too. Most of those also make minimum wage.

Where do you get your stats? I have friends that work at Walmart. They have their problems for sure, but much of what is being reported as fact is not. Starting wage locally is $8.50/hr. They could expect regular raises, and after a year should make $9.50/hr. One lady working the softline for 15 years is making $18.50/hr. The medical after one year is pretty good, on par with most places for full time employees. Many retired folks work at Walmart just for the medical coverage. For a high school graduate, this may be the best employer out there, other than the Army.

Edited August 2, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[mRx 16]

Sigh.

Apparently, The Center for Responsive Politics is wrong in their statement of $12M being lobbied from the health insurance sector.

Apparantly, this non-profit, non-partisan company's 25 years of tracking down campaign contributions is no match for your acute real world assessment.

Apparantly, you are more acute to the wages and outlays of Walmart than the CEO himself, and see behind his company's switch from a neutral stance towards a minimum wage increase to a favored stance towards minimum wage increase and outright urging of Congress to raise the minimum wage as not a clever ploy to cripple local competition, but as a PR stunt designed to fool the masses into thinking Mr Scott is an alright fella.

Absolutely.Ridiculous.

But as I've learned from previous stimulating debates with you, data and facts are no match for your "common sense".

That fallacious tirade of Walmart's grand PR stunt that you use ad nauseum is the only rabbit ya' got in that hat.

[mRx 16]

Where do you get your stats?

Don't be silly, Mr Bill. He gets his stats from the real world.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Sorry to inform you, but the $11 million does not "nicely offset" anything. As a matter of fact, it's a drop in the bucket compared to what is being spent by the industry in order to block any meaningful health care reform.

To anyone who has been following Wal-Mart for any length of time, their political playbook is easy to figure out. It is as simplistic as it is straightforward: they furiously lobby against such issues as raising the minimum wage, and against health care reform, until it becomes apparent that Congress is about act against their position. Then, Wal-Mart jumps on the bandwagon in order to get some good PR out of an otherwise losing proposition for them. Judging from another one of your postings, you are in complete denial about this.

I do agree with your sarcastic comment about (some) politicians not having our best interests in mind. However, insurance industry bureaucrats are at the bottom of the barrel in this regard.

Que?

From the actual OP

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, health interests have given these 13 members of Congress $12 million in campaign contributions

Compared to Wal-Mart's $11 million. So, what the insurance industry contributed 9% more than Walmart. And Wal Mart's contribution is a drop in the bucket? And I'm in denial?

Also, you are clearly mistaken on all counts in your synopsis of Wal Mart's jump on the bandwagon in order to get some good PR out of an otherwise losing proposition for them. From MSNBC:

...Wal-Mart says it pays well above the minimum wage — an average of $10.11 an hour for full-time employees in the U.S.

...

Chief Executive Lee Scott, who made headlines last October when he first backed an increase in the $5.15 hourly pay rate, said Wednesday he still supports a raise...

Link

What good could it possibly do the mega-corporation Walmart to support an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage, when they were already paying considerably more? You must be joking if you think it's for some pitiful PR.

Perhaps, because Walmart was already in a position to be unaffected by the minimum wage raise, whereas their competitors were not, and such an increase would abruptly force the costs of their competitors up.

That's why they did it.

A visit to the real world would result in the discovery that the health care industry spends their (our) dollars on more politicians than these 13 individuals. Have you seen the newly resurrected Harry and Louise television commercials that are playing in the major markets? Have you considered the big bucks the health care industry is throwing at think tanks in order to get their message out? How about the large sums spent on campaign advertisements and hit pieces against those politicians who opposed the Big Insurance agenda? The list goes on and on. Wal-Mart's money is a drop in the bucket by comparison.

Once again, you have chosen to ignore the crystal clear history of Wal-Mart's fight against raising the minimum wage. How do you explain their long fight against raising the minimum wage? You have an opportunity to explain it right here and right now.

Also, I see that you are still quoting complete distortions about Wal-Mart's pay structure in order to support your contention that Wal-Mart would not be affected by an increase in the minimum wage. Wal-Mart is indeed affected by raising the minimum wage. They have lots of minimum wage employees. Where did you get the idea that they don't?

You say that Wal-Mart is paying more than the minimum wage because they pay an "average" of $10.11 per hour (for full-time employees). What you don't say is that this includes long-time employees, assistant managers, and managers, etc., thus skewing the average upward. There are many employees who make only minimum wage at Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart does not deny this fact. If there are Wal-Mart employees making minimum wage, how is Wal-Mart not affected by legislation (either state or federal) which raises minimum wage? Oh yea, you forgot to include the part-time employees too. Most of those also make minimum wage.

Where do you get your stats? I have friends that work at Walmart. They have their problems for sure, but much of what is being reported as fact is not. Starting wage locally is $8.50/hr. They could expect regular raises, and after a year should make $9.50/hr. One lady working the softline for 15 years is making $18.50/hr. The medical after one year is pretty good, on par with most places for full time employees. Many retired folks work at Walmart just for the medical coverage. For a high school graduate, this may be the best employer out there, other than the Army.

By law, Wal-Mart is required, at a minimum, to pay your state's minimum wage or the federal minimum wage, whichever is greater. There are still states where the state minimum wage is as low as the federal minimum wage. In the state of California, the minimum wage is $8.00 per hour. Federal minimum is much less, so Wal-Mart is bound by California's minimum wage. I'm glad that your local Wal-Mart is paying fifty cents above that. Do all new hires at your Wal-Mart start at that wage, including part-timers?

I have a relative who works at a California Wal-Mart. They start everyone at minimum wage...both the full-timers and the part-timers. You can rest assured that Wal-Mart has legions of employees who start at the federal minimum wage in states where the state minimum wage is as low as the federal minimum wage.

As for job opportunities for high school graduates in this economy, Wal-Mart (and other big boxes) and the Army are about it.

I am thankful every day that I don't have to make a living at a minimum-wage (or, close to it) job.

[Tahoma 2,292]

Sigh.

Apparently, The Center for Responsive Politics is wrong in their statement of $12M being lobbied from the health insurance sector.

Apparantly, this non-profit, non-partisan company's 25 years of tracking down campaign contributions is no match for your acute real world assessment.

Apparantly, you are more acute to the wages and outlays of Walmart than the CEO himself, and see behind his company's switch from a neutral stance towards a minimum wage increase to a favored stance towards minimum wage increase and outright urging of Congress to raise the minimum wage as not a clever ploy to cripple local competition, but as a PR stunt designed to fool the masses into thinking Mr Scott is an alright fella.

Absolutely.Ridiculous.

But as I've learned from previous stimulating debates with you, data and facts are no match for your "common sense".

That fallacious tirade of Walmart's grand PR stunt that you use ad nauseum is the only rabbit ya' got in that hat.

Of course, you realize, according to your own link, that you are citing only hard money donations to Congress during the current election cycle...or maybe you don't read the fine print. That would be from January 2009 to July 26, 2009 wouldn't it?

Of course, you realize, according to your own link, that in 2006 alone, the health industry spent $351 million on hard and soft lobbying. Big Pharma chipped in another $172 million.

Next, I suppose you will argue that soft money spending doesn't affect anything.

As for Wal-Mart's deathbed conversion in supporting a raise in the minimum wage, Wal-Mart's fight against raising the minimum wage is legendary and it's common knowledge. Please go look it up. I'm tired of doing your homework for you.

And, as for fantasy land, you are the poster who asserted that John D. Rockefeller had a monoply on drilling for oil during the years of 1888-1893. By that time in the debate, I had grown tired of all your misrepresentations, distortions, and fact-challenged diatribe, so I gave up on replying to you. However, for your future information, John D. Rockefeller did not produce a single drop of oil during those years. He wasn't even in the oil-drilling business.

At least I've got a hat.