Cha-ching! Health care reform means juicy campaign contributions
An alert reader, who spied our interest in the health care reform battle currently taking place in our nation's capital, referred us to this site, which has tons of information about who in the health care industry is contributing how much to whom in Congress. They've got a giant spreadsheet in there showing contributions from the health sector to all current members of Congress (including to their candidate committees and leadership PACs) since 1989.
Here's a goodly part of their tale of the tape on Oregon's congressmen:
Old Gatsby Wyden sure goes to the bank, doesn't he? Meanwhile, poor DeFazio. Apparently, when you can't be bought, they don't pay.
| Posted at 7:42 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (9)
DeFazio's low ranking on the money raising list isn't about "not being bought"
Posted by David E Gilmore | July 21, 2009 9:29 AM
Good to see that Merkley is stepping to the trough nice and quick in his senatorial career. Wouldn't want him to miss out on any cash...
Posted by MachineShedFred | July 21, 2009 9:33 AM
DeFazio's low ranking on the money raising list isn't about "not being bought"
Then, pray tell, what is it about? Break it down for us. You obviously have something to say. As much as I hate to use the word, DeFazio is one of the true "mavericks" in Congress.
Posted by Usual Kevin | July 21, 2009 10:07 AM
There will never be health care reform as long as the insurance companies are allowed to exist. Trusting our health care...our lives...to "for profit" organizations is a loser for everyone. Your doctor might care about you, but I guarantee you, no matter what the TV commercials say, HMOs do not. Profit is their motivator. And the only way they make a profit is to deny coverage.
And any congresscritter taking money from them just proves they dont give a hoot either.
Posted by Jon | July 21, 2009 10:19 AM
Jon, I must elaborate on your theme. Denial of coverage is not the only way they profit. Imagine how that profit will increase exponentially when everyone is required by the Gov. to have health insurance. Imagine further the annual premium increases they (insurance industry) will reap. If they price you out of the market, the taxpayers will be called upon to subsidize your premium payment. Is there any doubt as to why we must have the "public" option?
Posted by genop | July 21, 2009 11:24 AM
That troop of doctors and nurses following you around 24/7 on the Kaiser commercials is about as realistic as the guy on the Les Schwab TV ads who bursts out of the building the instant you drive up and runs to open your car door.
I must admit, though, that I've had better service at Les Schwab.
Posted by NW Portlander | July 21, 2009 11:30 AM
This is nothing new for Wyden.
I remember a bunch of years ago there was federal legislation pending a Senate vote haviong to do with amendments to either the '33 0r '34 Securities Act or Securities and Exchange Act, which would have increased the difficulty for plaintiffs in derivative actions and in actions against broker dealers. 'Ole Ron voted with the Wall Street folks, while he was at the same time heavily dialing for dollars with a copy of the OTLA membership list and phone book.
Ron has never walked away from a dollar.
Posted by Nonny Mouse | July 21, 2009 1:44 PM
But look! Add up Wu and Walden and they almost rake it in like the old Gray Panther.
Wu rarely disturbs the established, and Walden seems to care only about broadcast equal time rules.
So Oregon has at least two opportunities to raise the usefulness and production of the United States House to something smarter and better. A few more states do that and we might get a House that can actually understand health care.
Posted by peteonthebeach | July 21, 2009 8:08 PM
"I remember a bunch of years ago there was federal legislation pending a Senate vote haviong to do with amendments to either the '33 0r '34 Securities Act or Securities and Exchange Act, which would have increased the difficulty for plaintiffs in derivative actions and in actions against broker dealers."
That was in 1995. Ol' Chris Dodd, the senator for Aetna (CT), sponsored the legislation (& we are supposed to trust him to do the right thing on health care now?!). Clinton vetoed it and it was the only one of his 16 vetos congress overrode
Posted by Mike | July 22, 2009 11:56 AM