So After Hillary Got $13 Million From Health Industry, She Says Single-Payer Will “Never, Ever Come

[snagglepuss]

I wonder if there's a word for that? Hmmm?








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hillary Clinton Gets $13 Million From Health Industry, Now Says Single-Payer Will “Never, Ever Come To Pass­”
BY DAVID SIROTA

Her declaration that Single_payer will never come is a reversal of her position two decades ago — which came before she received millions of dollars of campaign cash from the health industry.

She herself said in 1994 that a single-payer system was all but inevitable, saying: “I believe that by the year 2000 we will have a single payer system. I don’t think it’s — I don’t even think it’s a close call politically ... it will be such a huge popular issue in the sense of populist issue that even if it’s not successful the first time, it will eventually be.”


Between that declaration and her now saying single-payer can never pass, Clinton has vacuumed in roughly $13.2 million from sources in the health sector, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

That includes $11.2 million from the sector when Clinton was a senator and $2 million from health industry sources during her 2016 presidential campaign.

In a 2006 story about her relationship with the health industry, the New York Times noted that during her Senate reelection campaign, she was ... "the No. 2 recipient of donations from the industry."

The Intercept also reported that from 2013 to 2015, Clinton received more than $2.8 million in speaking fees from the health industry.








http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-gets-13-million-health-industry-now-says-single-payer-will-never

[VulgarPoet]

1. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck... nt

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. link please, so we can share it

[snagglepuss]

6. My bad. I've edited the OP.

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-gets-13-million-health-industry-now-says-single-payer-will-never

[Darb]

3. Her campaign got it, not her.

So not to confuse the bernies who like to conflate donations to the CGI with cash in her pocket.

No need to thank me.

Now, go ahead with the quid pro.............errrrrrr, unsubstantiated horseshit.

[Dragonfli]

11. Her campaign got the $2.8 million in speaking fees? She had no campaign when she took that money

It went directly into her shell company tax heaven (it would have gone straight into her pocket, but they pay in checks, not in cash these days).

Your statement is completely disingenuous, if not an outright lie, how do you explain the difference between the facts and the truth and your post? I really would like an answer as my question is not rhetorical.

[Darb]

29. No, the $13 mil referred to in the OP, derrrrrrrrr.

The $2.8 mil was because they wanted to hear her speak, derrrrrrr again.

[think]

40. $2.8 million to speak to corporations who have a vested interest in keeping health care

just the way it is.

Can you fathom at all how one might construe huge speaking fees to these corporations as a conflict of interest?

[Darb]

43. Corporations have a vested interest in pretty much everything.

They have a vested interest in having smart, connected, and powerful people speak to their employees, yes, they do. Are you pretending that we don't live in a capitalist economy? Or do you have some delusions about people doing things in their best interest? Or maybe you live under a rainbow, with a pony.

There is how things could be, or how things might be better, or even how things should be in one person's opinion, and there is how things are.

Who else spoke to these devils? Ever bother to find out?

[think]

44. Oh brother. I'm very sorry to have bothered you. Good bye.

[Darb]

45. No run along and find some perspective.

Bye.

[Dragonfli]

55. Something to consider regarding your exchange, perhaps...

[Dragonfli]

41. derp

Her campaign got it, not her.

So not to confuse the bernies who like to conflate donations to the CGI with cash in her pocket.

You not only did not make such a distinction, but you did "conflate" how she personally profits from them to the tune of millions with is far worse with the campaign contributions that leaves one beholding to the special interests that support one's campaign, contributions they make not out of altruism as you appear to naively believe, but rather as a calculated investment meant to influence policy.

You sir are a hypocrite at the very least and much worse which I dare not post here.

The personal bribery directly to her personal account in such large numbers, under the rather thin and translucent cover of wanting to "hear her speak" is a really great investment on their part as she appears to have done a 180° switch on policies that are after that turn, very profitable to them.

You would have loved the way things worked during the Tammany Hall days.

[Darb]

48. I am certain that you can prove that, if not, it's libelous.

So go ahead and prove that Hillary Clinton makes her decisions about, well, everything, based upon donations to CGI or to her campaign. Or speaking engagements.

[Dragonfli]

54. Really? You want me to run as a prosecutor to prove what everyone knows? You are naive or

a disingenuous Bullshit artist. They do it in such a way that the agreements need not be written and are difficult to prove, (I never said they were stupid), yet somehow, policies change "magically" in favor of the biggest corporate donors in ways that favor them at the expense of the people.

I doubt you believe that these companies would really donate to and give personal millions to, someone that will vote against or sign legislation against, their interests.

You do know that the one fiduciary imperative of all corporations is to make money for share holders, they are not charities, they are not altruists, and they do not make investments without at least some expectation of a return on that investment.

You have a lot of reading to do, as you appear (if you are not just being disingenuous) to be far to ill informed and intellectually challenged to debate anybody, let alone a politically informed policy wonks on a political discussion board.


For the record my take is you are not that uninformed , no one cold be that uninformed so that only leaves me with one conclusion, one that speaks poorly of your character.

I am no longer interested in hearing such complete and utter nonsense from someone such as yourself.

[arcane1]

27. You're right, millions of dollars in campaign donations have ZERO effect on a politician's stance.

That's why they give that money away: for nothing

[Darb]

31. Whatever you say, oh great and powerful Karnac the Magnificent.

If I was in a regulated industry like health care I would give too. It opens doors for sure. As for quid pro.....well, you know, go ahead and fucking prove it.

[arcane1]

32. I have to "fucking" prove it? Do you have a sad?

Her votes and positions are all the fucking proof I need. If you were honest, you would agree.

Actually, you probably DO agree, but you're pretending not to, which takes a toll on a person. That would explain why you have a sad and must resort to profanity.

You have my sympathy.

[Darb]

35. You don't have to prove anything, you can spew all you want.

Stop embarrassing your candidate.

[pdsimdars]

57. I think that story from Elizabeth Warren about the bankruptcy bill is the clearest example

If people want to deny that one . . well . . . .it proves they are shills.

[malokvale77]

33. I won't speak for you...

but some of us can put 2 and 2 together.

[Darb]

36. It's not 2 + 2 for you guys,

it's pony v. unicorn.

[Autumn]

59. No one, not one person on this site is conflating donations to the "CGI" with cash in her pocket

but I will come right out and say it, their donations to her and the amounts they pay her for her pretty little speeches to them are to influence policy, that's how it works. This ain't my first rodeo . Now you fucking go right on ahead and ignore the quid pro...

[Jackie Wilson Said]

4. It's a problem, for sure. Another reason to vote for Bernie.

And then if Bernie loses, it doesn't take a genius to figure out you will need to do everything in your power to vote for Hillary as she will protect ACA and the cons will destroy it.

Try having any illness and getting insurance, then.

[malokvale77]

38. "Try having any illness and getting insurance, then."

Try not being able to afford the useless ACA insurance and having any illness.

I won't be casting my vote to protect that worthless POS corporate giveaway legislation.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

47. ACA is a vast improvement over what was there before, you dont seem to understand

that or care.

And it sounds like you might be good with the GOP killing it and putting us back where we were.

[malokvale77]

56. No it is not.

It puts tax dollars into insurance instead of actual healthcare.

Obama did himself no favor by allowing his name to be attached to this RW atrocity. The Democratic party does itself no favor by clinging to it.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

58. You are wrong, of that there is no debate. You sound like someone who is stuck in the

area where what you have to pay through the exchange is more than you can afford, and that is a problem and why universal healthcare is surely the answer.

But the simple fact is, and this is not debatable, the situation is vastly improved by ACA.

But yes, single payer is badly needed. Medicare for all.

[malokvale77]

62. Agree to disagree. nt

[guillaumeb]

5. Do not interrupt the faux outrage with the truth.

Recommended.

But Clinton supporters might have another reason to explain her apparent evolution on this issue.

[malokvale77]

42. They're here 'splaining.

She won't be influenced, blah blah. Nobody wants single payer, blah blah. Something something, fuck poor people.

I've probably missed some.

ETA: Too much heavy lifting - as if anyone of them ever lifted anything heavier than a big fat check.

[Hoyt]

7. Well, she learned something in 1994. A lot of people are against single payer, even if it is the

the best system. Polls show over 40% of the electorate are opposed to single payer, and I suspect even more would be if they really knew the cost in dollars and steps we'd have to take to make it affordable.

That is why I think a Public Option is the best way forward. People will gravitate toward it if it is as good and affordable as we think. But, to try to force single payer upon the ignorant, will just lead to the GOPers giving us a crummy voucher system.

Clinton had a good health plan in 1994. But after its resounding defeat, it was 15 years before anyone had the guts to try for major healthcare reform. As stupid as that is, it is a fact.

[basselope]

9. So why don't we have a public option?

We had the votes to get it through on reconciliation?

Why did he sell it off??

[Hoyt]

13. Because getting the ACA through was a lot of heavy lifting. it was clear early that adding a Public

Option would have scuttled the whole thing. Now, the hundreds of pages of legislation have been enacted, it did not bankrupt the country, and the world has not ended, it will be much easier to extend Medicare as a Public Option. I don't think it will be as cheap as some people think/hope, but I'd sign up for it.

[basselope]

18. That doesn't make any sense.

We could have passed the ACA WITH the public option.

How was it going to "scuttle the whole thing"

The House passed the ACA WITH the public option.

The Senate without.

Reconciliation (which only required 50 votes) puts the public option back in.

They had the votes (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83641-sanders-senate-has-the-votes-to-pass-public-option-via-reconciliation)

But the White House didn't push.

The backdoor deal with private hospitals is LIKELY the answer, but we'll never know for sure. The only thing we know is we COULD HAVE had it, if he fought for it.

[Hoyt]

34. You've been believing Sanders' promises too long.

"The number of Senate Democrats voicing support for including a public option in the final healthcare bill — and for using reconciliation rules to pass that legislation in the Senate — grew to 25 Tuesday. But that’s still 25 votes short, with little to no chance of reaching the necessary 50."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/83153-hoyer-public-option-is-likely-dead


I guess Obama could have played Sanders' game and yelled at the sky -- "I support a public option" -- until legislation faltered and then said it wasn't his fault because he supported it. Truth is, it wasn't going to pass and pushing for it might have brought the whole deal down. Then, there would have been no significant healthcare legislation for another 15 years.

[Darb]

49. Stop making sense.

It is against the rules at the Democratic Socialist Underground.

[basselope]

63. BS

They had the votes.

Do you REALLY believe that Obama couldn't get 50 senators support this?

Was he really THAT weak of a leader?

Pathetic what people accept as leadership these days.

[Hoyt]

64. I believe you don't like Obama and won't accept anything good about him

even when the evidence is right in front of you.

[basselope]

65. I haven't seen any such "evidence"

I see an article about how they backed off the public option despite the fact that the votes were there.

I can say something good about him.

Obama is the best republican president of my lifetime.

I don't "dislike him", I just don't vote for Republicans.

[artislife]

70. A lot of people were against Marriage Equality in 1994.

The thing is that in the decades that have followed that year, the good jobs with benefits have left the country. In 1994, more people had access through their jobs for health care. The rise of the 32 hour week and 1099 workers has shifted the country.

The great thing about the ACA is that we don't have to stick with shitty jobs to keep our health care, especially if we have pre existing. But the workforce is changing. More people are working as their own boss or in smaller companies. The burden of health care should not be on employers.

I always found it interesting that no one got mad that corporations were able to lure the best because they were able to afford the great benefits. Once you shift benefits for living out of the hands of the employers, then they have to actually make the work environment enticing.

[Hoyt]

72. I agree, and the ACA makes that possible. But to be fair, there are still good jobs with benefits

here. Again, I agree health insurance should be decoupled from employment. In fact, for years before the ACA, I paid for a catastrophic policy on top of the small company benefits. I did it just so I could tell them to stuff it if it came to that. Interestingly, for years unions were against changes to the health system like Hillarycare or single payer, or decoupling insurance from employment because health benefits were/are a key component of the benefits of unions.

[NorthCarolina]

8. Plus after receiving about $353K from the fossil fuel industry, fracking makes water taste GREAT! nt

[Hoyt]

14. I think Clinton expressed her beliefs on fracking clearly --

"Hillary Clinton, though, needed more time to outline three conditions in a more nuanced answer on fracking. She's against it "when any locality or any state is against it," "when the release of methane or contamination of water is present," and "unless we can require that anybody who fracks has to tell us exactly what chemicals they are using."

"Until those conditions are met, "we've got to regulate everything that is currently underway, and we have to have a system in place that prevents further fracking."

""By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America where fracking will continue to take place," she added."

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/03/hillary-clinton-debate-fracking

[NorthCarolina]

19. That was after team Clinton put Al Franken on the TeeVee to sell Fracking=Good

and he bombed.

[anotherproletariat]

10. Because she is pratical, and knows that it would be almost impossible to make a 180 degree turn...

Those who work in the medical field put in the time and effort to get highly specialized educations, often forfeiting their youth, in order to attain the combination of helping others while making a comfortable living. Single payer would by necessity pay health providers less. Likely most services will be given by allied health workers, as is done in most countries with this system. People will choose not to go into medicine. Our research institutes will suffer, as will the quality of medical care. The problem with inserting an entirely socialist system within a capitalistic framework just does not work.

I think the best we can do is an expanded Medicaid type system, and even then it would be hard to find enough providers who are willing to accept the low reimbursements offered by this program.

A thorough overhaul of the system should focus on the insurance industry, which would be hard to restructure, but could allow for a lower cost product over many years. (No politician would be willing to eliminate so many jobs in a short period of time.)

[snagglepuss]

16. Hillary and others who supported trade deals & outsourcing weren't concerned when millions of jobs

disappeared. Why the concern with insurance jobs? The answer is that they don't give a fig about jobs, never have. The sole concern is insuring the insurance industry continues to rake in massive profits. Workers and the sick can be damned.

[artislife]

71. Why can other countries do it, this 180 turn?

Oh...maybe because they aren't an entirely under the thumbs of corporations. Their governments still actually think about the good of the country as a whole.

[AzDar]

12. Don't forget the 'Bankruptcy Bill' ...

She's for sale to the highest bidder...

[BreakfastClub]

15. You can't be serious. This is lunacy. nt

[Orsino]

17. Money buys behavior as well as access.

I'm thinking that puppetry might be a good gender-neutral metaphor rather than referencing prostitution.

In the worst politicians, control and even opinions are what is being ceded to corporate masters.

[m-lekktor]

20. ROFL!!

what could that WORD be? eerrrrrr ummmmmmmm.....

[Mike__M]

21. They will always argue that you can't PROVE

any quid pro quo.

Which is not the only reason it matters.
Certainly, we distinguish between the ethics of money given as a bribe and money given in the expectation that it will aid a cause in which the giver will benefit, but "this for that" or "that for this," it's the same money and the same result. The health industry's money holders expect to benefit from Hillary's success.

[malokvale77]

46. There has already been a demand to prove it on this thread.

My contempt grows daily.

[BernieforPres2016]

22. "But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation...

...that I ever received."

-Hillary Clinton, debate before the 2016 New Hampshire primary

[snagglepuss]

25. Truly nauseating. nt

[bvar22]

23. Remember ?

Remember when we were told we had to support the ACA because it was "A Step toward Single Payer".

Remember THAT?

There were those of us with deeper political acumen who asked, "How is a mandate to BUY Health Insurance from the For Profit Health Insurance Industry a step toward Single Payer?" "How do we get THERE from HERE?" Anyone with any cognitive ability could clearly see it was a step AWAY from Single Payer....and we said so, to much ridicule, insults, attacks, and slander on DU.

We also warned that we would be stuck with The Mandate and little effective price control for a LONG, LONG time. The ACA would establish the For Profit Health Insurance Industry as the GateKeepers to Health Care in America, and these GateKeepers would skim 15% (Billions) right off the top...15% (Billions) that would NOT go the Health Care for people who need it. We HAD a chance, a once in a generation chance, but it was squandered.

Well, here we are. The place we predicted.

I would like to congratulate those members of DU who were able to see through all the BullShit about the ACA and that bogus, "but its a step toward Single Payer" nonsense.

No it wasn't. It was and is a step AWAY from Single Payer that served us up to the Health Insurance cartel on a platter to be consumed at their leisure.

The Health Insurance Cartel:

*Manufactures NOTHING

*Provides NO useful Service

*Maintains NO inventory

*Creates NO Value Added Wealth

It is completely parasitic.
Why are we subsidizing this completely worthless, parasitic, Industry with BILLIONS of our Tax Dollars?
It is insane.

[cureautismnow]

60. + Infinity

?359

[mrdmk]

67. Now that you bring it up, ACA was Insurance reform for proping up Wall Street

who, at the time, just screwed the world, not to mention themselves. Well not really, Wall Street payed fines with money they collects years earlier, made money off of the recovery, and then took it off of their taxes.

One of the top Wall Street investors are the insurance companies. The insurance companies do not make money on the premiums you pay, they make money on their investments from the premiums they collect. They are regulated by laws like the ACA and also by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve uses the insurance companies to expand or contract the economy just like the banks depending on the economic needs. That was the reason for the law about persons who made so much money must buy their own insurance. More money to invest in Wall Street.

That is what I said at the time, still true today...

.

[Sheepshank]

24. was that found in the multi year, completely transparent, full tax disclosure she provided? n/t

[FreakinDJ]

26. That's shitty

[beam me up scottie]

28. Hillary Clinton’s Single-Payer Pivot Greased By Millions in Industry Speech Fees:

Hillary Clinton’s Single-Payer Pivot Greased By Millions in Industry Speech Fees

Hillary Clinton’s sudden attack on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is a dramatic break with Democratic Party doctrine that the problem with single-payer is that it is politically implausible — not that it is a bad idea.

Single-payer, the Canadian-style system in which the government pays for universal health care, takes the health insurance industry out of the picture, saving huge amounts of money. But the health insurance industry has become so rich and powerful that it would never let it happen.

That was certainly Clinton’s position back in the early 1990s, when she was developing her doomed universal coverage proposal for her husband, Bill.

But in the ensuing years, both Clintons have taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from the health care industry. According to public disclosures, Hillary Clinton alone, from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry.



Source: Public federal disclosures, Clinton campaign

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/hillary-clinton-single-payer/

[Impedimentus]

39. Did she donate the money to the poor?

I suspect she didn't.

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

[malokvale77]

50. There are no poor people on Planet Hillary. nt

[NuclearDem]

30. Saying that Bernie Sanders' particular proposal won't pass

is not the same as rejecting single payer outright. Sanders' plans are so poorly-formulated and thought-out they would be shot down within two hours of being proposed in Congress.

Dishonest headline.

[CorkySt.Clair]

37. It's pie in the sky like all of his promises

Free college.

College loan write offs for gullible millennials.

And on and on...

[malokvale77]

51. I remember Obama running on "a piece of the pie".

I had a sign in my window back then.

I never thought I'd see the day the Democratic Party lost it's soul. But here we are.

[CorkySt.Clair]

52. ...

[mrdmk]

68. Thank you for your honest and intellectual input on the matter, on ignore

.

[CorkySt.Clair]

73. I'm devastated.

[pdsimdars]

53. Let me see if I can follow your logic . . . . .

You're saying

(1) She said that single payer is inevitable
(2) Received $13.2 MILLION
(3) Now says we will never get single payer.

And for SOME REASON, you think that the money is what caused her "evolution" on this issue? Interesting hypothesis.

What you forgot was that Hillary, herself, has told us there is no connection between the money and her vote.

Silly David.

[malokvale77]

61. Every time Hillary says anything...

I feel a punch in the gut.

Every time one of her supporters spews David Brock slime, I become more aware of the GOP creep into the Democratic Party.

[Ferd Berfel]

66. In My home universe, that's called a bribe.

And it's illegal.

[Demnorth]

69. It does state in the article

that she said that "of Sanders' proposal". I see why.

[mrdmk]

74. K & R for more reviews