The private health care interests that cut sweetheart deals with Democrats haven’t stayed loyal.

[Better Believe It]

Health Care Industry Reminds Democrats Mercenaries Are Only in It for the Money
By Jon Walker
October 5, 2010

Health industry bolts Dems for GOP
By SARAH KLIFF
October 4, 2010

A new portrait of the health industry landscape has begun to take shape, with some of those major players shifting their dollars from the very Democrats who passed the law they seemingly endorsed at the White House.

Health professionals, bolting from the American Medical Association’s pro-reform position, have become the strongest supporters of the Tea Party Caucus, a coalition of conservative House members aligned with the movement born from a visceral rejection of the law.

Drugmakers, which invested millions in television advertising last spring and summer to promote passage of the bill, are sitting on their wallets in the run-up to the November elections.



Health industry leaders who stood with the president on health reform are now changing sides.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43058.html

This was just way too predictable. In 2003, Republicans basically tried to buy the support of the health care industry, specifically drug makers, with their massive corporate giveaway in the form of Medicare Part D. Democrats directly campaigned against these deals in 2006 and 2008.

Yet, when Democrats took power, all this was forgotten. The drug makers were more than prepared to abandon their traditional GOP allies in exchange for Obama promising to protect and expand their hugely profitable deals. In an act of collective, Rahm Emanuel-endorsed foolishness, the administration actually thought they could buy drug makers’ loyalty right after they proved their highest bidder “loyalty” by abandoning the GOP.

Now, Democrats face a tough election and might lose control of one or both houses of Congress, and, not surprisingly, the drug makers have abandoned them.

This is something the Democratic administration should have kept in mind when they betrayed their true allies in the health care fight (by dropping the public option and drug re-importation) in a failed attempt to buy corporate support. They are now left with a deeply unpopular health care law that does too little and fails to excite the base, while the corporate mercenaries have abandoned what looks like a losing battle.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/10/05/health-care-industry-reminds-democrats-mercenaries-are-only-in-it-for-the-money/

[librechik]

1. what a surprise--NOT--we told them over and over.

DFHs have no credibility, even though we are proven right repeatedly.

[bobbolink]

2. Any politician who is surprised by this doesn't deserve to keep her/his seat.

[USArmyParatrooper]

3. Hmmmm....

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

[derby378]

4. You SEE, President Obama? You SEE, Congress?

You fuck with your base and cozy up to those corporations who want to oppress your base, this is what you get.

[USArmyParatrooper]

5. Nice hyperbolic platitutes

In other news President Obama has an 84% approval rating among Liberal Democrats.

And since you're making the accusation by all means substantiate your claim Obama made secret "back door deals." Something credible - not a blog, editorial or a nameless health care lobbyist.

[derby378]

6. Might want to direct that to the OP instead

Bush enjoyed a >90% approval rating after September 11, 2001 - you sure you want to play this game?

[USArmyParatrooper]

9. No thanks. I'll direct it at a you.

"You fuck with your base and cozy up to those corporations who want to oppress your base, this is what you get."

Um... substantiated specifics please?

"Bush enjoyed a >90% approval rating after September 11, 2001"

And when Bush enjoyed supper high approval ratings with his base - saying, "You fuck with your base and cozy up to those corporations who want to oppress your base, this is what you get" would be pretty moronic. Wouldn't it?

"you sure you want to play this game?"

I'm glad you asked. ABSOLUTELY.

[derby378]

10. Good luck with that

We're talking about the Democratic base that put Obama in office, not the stolen election that put Bush in office. Might want to remember that.

[USArmyParatrooper]

11. Yep, and two things

1: You still haven't substantiated your hyperbolic comments. Don't worry, each time you ignore this I will repeat it.

2: You said, "That's what you get!" when in fact President Obama enjoys 84% approval ratings with Liberals - his BASE.

[derby378]

12. You can repeat that as much as you like...

...but since you really want to direct that to the OP, I'll ignore it as much as I like.

[USArmyParatrooper]

13. LOL!

Quote from Derby: "You SEE, President Obama? You SEE, Congress? You fuck with your base and cozy up to those corporations who want to oppress your base, this is what you get."

Derby, do you care to substantiate YOUR hyperbolic statements (above) with specifics and credible sources?

[Gravel Democrat]

14. NY Times Reporter Confirms Obama Made Deal to Kill Public Option

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

For months I've been reporting in The Huffington Post that President Obama made a backroom deal last summer with the for-profit hospital lobby that he would make sure there would be no national public option in the final health reform legislation. (See here, here and here). I've been increasingly frustrated that except for an initial story last August in the New York Times, no major media outlet has picked up this important story and investigated further.

Hopefully, that's changing. On Monday, Ed Shultz interviewed New York Times Washington reporter David Kirkpatrick on his MSNBC TV show, and Kirkpatrick confirmed the existence of the deal. Shultz quoted Chip Kahn, chief lobbyist for the for-profit hospital industry on Kahn's confidence that the White House would honor the no public option deal, and Kirkpatrick responded:
"That's a lobbyist for the hospital industry and he's talking about the hospital industry's specific deal with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee and, yeah, I think the hospital industry's got a deal here. There really were only two deals, meaning quid pro quo handshake deals on both sides, one with the hospitals and the other with the drug industry. And I think what you're interested in is that in the background of these deals was the presumption, shared on behalf of the lobbyists on the one side and the White House on the other, that the public option was not going to be in the final product."

Kirkpatrick also reported in his original New York Times article that White House was standing behind the deal with the for-profit hospitals: "Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal".

--much much more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

I'm expecting source bashing, this is mainly for lurkers

[USArmyParatrooper]

15. "I'm expecting source bashing"

Of course you are. I would too if I posted garbage. And when you follow the links of your editorial it leads to a New York Times article. And who do THEY source?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html

That's right. Unnamed "White House officials and lobbyists"

[jaxx]

7. I'm trying to remember when FDL went rogue.

When Scooter was on trial they were pretty good with the commentary. Since then nothing stands out except the sniping we read from them now. I just can't remember what started it.

:shrug:


edit a typo

[gratuitous]

8. Well, I don't think anyone could have anticipated . . .

*BLAM!!*