Progressives Raise $100,000 In One Day For Pro-Public Option Dems

I think the most interesting thing Jane said (0.00 / 0)

was about how for Rahm Emanuel this was more about keeping the big health care interests from giving money to the Republicans than about health care.

I have little doubt this is true and know I shouldn't be suprised because in the beltway EVERYTHING is about money and power but I was.This side of the story needs more exposure because if it's true Rahm needs to go.

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 14:23:36 PM UTC

Speaking of Rahm (0.00 / 0)

Wonder who this "senior White House adviser" granted anonymity by WaPo might be?

"I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo," said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform."

Might it be the same guy who recently called progressives "fucking stupid"?

---

by: tparty @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 15:30:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your Guess is Shared. (0.00 / 0)

On Kos, Rahm also was identified as the likely source of this remark. I guess high ranking officials can be stupid too . . .

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 16:15:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That quote (0.00 / 0)

says it all.

He might as well have said "I don't understand why health care reform has become the measure of Health care reform.Haven't those looneys on the left figurerd out yet that this was always about the insurance companies getting  their share of free money?Did you think we Corperate whores would stop the theft with the Banking industry."

---

by: ctkeith @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 16:27:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So none of the Sweet 65 are from CT? (0.00 / 0)

Seems a bit odd. Or a lot odd.

---

by: Scarce @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 14:34:26 PM UTC

Odd is a Charitable Characterization (4.00 / 1)

I might suggest a few other words, like passive, overly cautious, or (perhaps as Jon Kantrowitz has suggested) closet purple cows. . . .  Maybe somebody should do a piece on recent campaign contributions to these folks by pharmaceutical and insurance interests.

---

by: Ann Galloway @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 16:19:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Campaign Contributions by Insurance and Health (4.00 / 2)

This comes from doing a little digging around on Open Secrets for the 2009-10 election cycle.  I added the categories for insurance, health professionals, hospitals/nursing homes, health services/HMOs, pharmaceuticals/health products, and misc. health together and just called it insurance & health.  Individuals includes only those giving $200 or more.:

John Larson:
Grand Total raised - 664,683
Total PAC money - 286,300 (43% of grand total)

Total Insurance & Health - 93,023 (14% of grand total)
Insurance & Health individuals - 24,750
Insurance & Health PAC - 68,273

Joe Courtney:
Grand Total raised - 377,724
Total PAC money - 150,860 (40% of grand total)

Total Insurance & Health - 21,750 (6% of grand total)
Insurance & Health individuals - 3,750
Insurance & Health PAC - 18,000

Rosa DeLauro:
Grand Total raised - 330,209
Total PAC money - 216,368 (66% of grand total)

Total Insurance & Health - 29,000 (9% of grand total)
Insurance & Health individuals - 3,500
Insurance & Health PAC - 25,500

Jim Himes:
Grand Total raised - 948,320
Total PAC money - 383,217 (40% of grand total)

Total Insurance & Health - 55,430 (6% of grand total)
Insurance & Health individuals - 16,500
Insurance & Health PAC - 38,930

Chris Murphy:
Grand Total raised - 709,602
Total PAC money - 183,350 (26% of grand total)

Total Insurance & Health - 65,600 (9% of grand total)
Insurance & Health individuals - 30,600
Insurance & Health PAC - 35,000

---

by: Mr. Clean @ Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 18:45:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

and I just tossed in another ActBlue donation -- and here on in (4.00 / 1)

my contributions go to Democrats who support progressive policies -- period -- we need a strategy to build the party in red and purple states and regions, as Howard Dean was doing, but not at the expense of progressive policies like those that Gov Dean supports.

---

by: catchlightning @ Thu Aug 20, 2009 at 04:47:26 AM UTC

an analysis of Rahm's leading of the DCCC (4.00 / 1)

showed that his hit rate was far worse than the progressives. Yet he was lauded for getting the majority (mostly Blue Dogs like himself).

Rahm is the king of settlers. He debates with himself before even talking to the GOP and gives ground before he even meets with them in an effort to entice them to bipartisanship. The end result is a bill that starts to the right with over 50% of the progressive gains already eliminated before the GOP even see it.

Imagine the health care debate if the progressives had started it where it belonged, free health care for everyone. Then as the GOP complained it would slide to the right in an effort to get them on board to Single Payer. The last settlement would be a strong public option with a re-write of Medicare Plan B eliminating the doughnut hole and the Pharama deals.

Heck, we would have shown how much we wanted to work together and the GOP just stood in the way, no matter what we gave.

End result, a better health care plan, becuase we didn't let Rahm and the right wing of the Democratic Party start by debating both sides with themselves and giving in.
 

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 09:35:21 AM UTC

how to prevent public option from being private co. revolving door? (0.00 / 0)

the one question I have about a public option is:  With the revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms/contractors, what is the chance that the public option will not simply be populated with shills from insurance companies determined to neuter it or who simply have a mindset that makes it operate as poorly as the private firms now operate (administratively, e.g.)?

The reason I am asking is that I cannot forget what a friend of a friend told me, someone who got a job at Sallie Mae after being laid off at a B of A unit that was formerly MBNA.  This person's old boss at MBNA is now at Sallie Mae, and hired the former MBNA employee into Sallie Mae.  The employee said that upon arriving at Sallie Mae  and looking around, it was like Old Home Week -- it appeared that the criterion for getting a job was to be formerly from MBNA because many former colleagues were there.

When people take executive positions at private companies, they often hire in their acolytes from their former company affiliations, so perhaps this is not so unusual -- but it did give me pause about how difficult it might be to create an entity that is truly free of special interests or avoids a counterproductive mindset imported from the insurance industry.  I don't know how you keep this taint out of any language in a bill for a public option (or  even if this is where to look to do so), but a public option that is really made of players willing to fix the game (or simply keep on playing via  the practices of the status quo) would not be any change at all.

Comments from those more familiar with the political machinations of it all are welcome.

---

by: greenpeas @ Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 12:20:23 PM UTC