Skip to main content

Double standards on health care? Try triple....

.... which is what you get when, after accepting a $150 million advertising buy-in from the pharmaceutical companies in exchange for putting an upper limit on what reform could cost them, President Obama decides to hold a high-level, one-on-one consultation with former Senator Tom Daschle in the Oval Office:

According to the White House, Obama and Daschle "agreed that substantive reform that lowers costs, reforms the insurance industry, and expands coverage is too important to wait another year or another administration, and they agreed to stay in touch over the coming weeks and months as this critical effort moves forward."


Of course, this required significant spin, as WaPo reports, due to the inconvenient fact that Daschle's law firm represents one of the largest private insurers that is dead opposed to such reforms:

But Daschle is also working closely with lobbyists, through his job at the Alston and Bird law firm, as an adviser to United Health Group, one of the nation's largest insurance companies. The insurance industry opposes the public option.

White House aides said that Daschle's corporate work does not present a conflict of interest and that Obama counts the former Senate leader as a confidant. "The president knows and expects that, when he asks Senator Daschle a question, that he's getting the opinion of Senator Daschle and not anybody else," press secretary Robert Gibbs said.


Yeah. Sure, Bob.

But just what is United Health Group doing, based on the sage advice of legal counsel?

TPM:

At least one major insurer is urging its employees to participate in tea parties.

Last week, UnitedHealth Group--the second largest health insurance company in the country--sent out a letter to its employees urging them to call UHG's United for Health Reform Advocacy Hotline to speak with an advocacy specialist about health care reform. The advocacy specialist, according to the letter, is there to help UHG employees write personalized messages to elected officials, and to arm them with talking points to use at local events in order to better oppose the public health insurance option.


I tend to prefer Nancy Willing's characterization of Tom Daschle as a Greedy Two-faced Shill for Big Health Insurance.

Here's the deal that the Demopublicans don't want to acknowledge ... yet.

There will be health insurance reform passed this year, because the major constituencies, which are health insurance and pharmaceutical companies have now come on board through direct access to the President of the United States.

All of you out there who were hoping for a robust public option or single-payer are not actually considered stakeholders because you have not brought enough money or influence to the table.

Comments

Nancy Willing said…
I am glad you wrote this. When I saw the spin being spun in the news today I 'bout puked and didn't read any of it.

The guy is a total tool...and unfortunately that goes for most current members of Congress.

There was an interesting convo on Eschaton this afternoon about how to control election $$. One contribution:

What i think: that little box we check when we pay our taxes? that's all the money that should be spent on political campaigns. we should also mandate that teevee has to show so much political campaign time, limited to about 6 weeks before elections, for all qualifying parties, equally. and no more. every state should allocate a small fraction of a percentage of their budgets for political campaigns, which is distributed equally among all state candidates. i know this will take a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish, but i think it's time. I'll add that web based political ads should continue to be unregulated, and that "issue advocacy" advertising on teevee should also be highly regulated.

chicago dyke

We can dream, can't we? It's either control the terms or control the money. I also don't think that there should be pensions offered to elected officials. Elected Office shouldn't be a damned career.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...