|
reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:01 PM by shortywarn
|
isn't that called lobbying,,,, or "being lobbyed"
this happens everyday in the halls of congress,,,, where's the outrage in that
in fact,,, at least all he did was yell,,,, what about when votes are bought that our represenatives vote for that clearly benefit a certain industry
or interest
'
isn't that even more outrageous????
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:07 PM by stevegmu
|
Originally posted by RussianScientists
reply to post by AllSeeingI
They need to kick that Congressman's xss, he is a low lying scum of the Earth person. Making $250,000 to say the President lies for some scum
sucking company. The government needs to go in and bull doze that company into the ground for crap like that and make an example out of it.
Good find All Seeing I, and Thanks for reporting an injustice.
Did you even read the article? He wasn't paid to say it like it is during Obama's reading from the TelePrompTers, that is the total amount he has
received from in campaign contributions from the health care industry throughout his entire political career.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:24 PM by Hemisphere
|
Originally posted by digger2381
reply to post by AshleyD
How does this look bad for him?
He has made 1/48th what Obama did from the same group, and Congressman Wilson has served 8 years as opposed to Obama's 5.
Per the same source, Obama received $12,075,383 as the junior senator from Illinois.
Source
So if we work it out, Senator Obama made $2,415,076.60 per year as opposed to Congressman Wilson's $31,250 per year.
Now who is REALLY in the pocket of the healthcare industry?
EDIT TO ADD:
Oops, I miscalculated a little. I was only counting contributions from healthcare professionals.
Once you add in those from hospitals and pharmaceutical companies, Congressman Wilson's grand total comes to $398,346 or $49,793.25 per
year.
Senator Obama's grand total comes to $15,553,452, which averages out to $3,110,690.40 per year.
Note: that shows no contributions to Obama from pharmaceutical companies. I don't know if he has received any, but it doesn't list him as having
done so, which seems odd considering the volume of contributions from the other fields.
But hey, that's just the facts, they don't mean a thing, right?
That does not look good for the president. He also will not promote medical tort reform as part of the health care reform. And so I'm not surprised
that the health care bill(s) has/have been bogged down. If the lawyers are tugging at one sleeve and the health care industry at the other, where do
you go to make ends meet on this reform? I can only imagine him taking more money from the treasury. The national debt is unimaginable. Who will pay
for health care with everyone on unemployment?
Obama won't take on the trial
lawyers tonight
Hard not to chuckle when one politician calls another a liar as that is traditionally reserved for the campaign. Oh well, maybe this is part of the
"change" we were promised.
[edit on 11-9-2009 by Hemisphere]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 10-9-2009 @ 11:59 PM by Hemisphere
|
Originally posted by schrodingers dog
As per usual:
Where are the lawyers at that table?
We've always suspected that fear of angering trial lawyers was the only reason President Obama refused to embrace tort reform as a crucial part of
achieving his goal of reduced health care costs. Now we know for sure. A moment of candor by Howard Dean, the former chairman of the DNC and an
enthusiastic backer of Obama's health reform initiative, confirmed our suspicions. "The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the
people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on," Dean said at a town hall meeting in
Virginia last week.
So much for Obama's insistence that cutting costs is dear to his heart. He's rejected, for purely political reasons, one of the most effective tools
for containing medical costs. It would upset a special interest group--well-heeled plaintiff's lawyers--that is one of the biggest funders of the
Democratic party.
Yet tort reform remains a key to paring costs. The president can make a stab at directly cutting back spending on health care, but that's bound to
add to the political unpopularity of Obamacare and is unlikely to pass even an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. In particular, shrinking Medicare
spending is a nonstarter, given the furious opposition of seniors.
Tort reform, in contrast, has the advantage of being popular. It would put sensible limits on medical malpractice lawsuits that have flooded the
courts and forced doctors to practice "defensive" medicine. Studies of the effects of such medicine put its price tag at a minimum of $100 billion a
year and probably more than $200 billion. - Fred Barnes for the Weekly Standard 9-7-09
Dean was right but didn't go far enough. Some of the people writing the bills are former trial lawyers. In September of 2007, 60 of the
serving US senators had law degrees. Eight from Harvard alone including Schumer, Stevens, Crapo, Dole, Obama, Feingold, Levin and Reed. Obviously not
all 60 trial lawyers but lawyers protect their own. Just my opinion but Howard Dean does the president no favors when he has these bouts of
"candid".
Defensive medicine is key to the rising costs. Doctors send patients for every test even mildly related to their condition just to avoid a future
suit.
The entire Barnes article:
Caving to Trial Lawyers
One could say that the lawyers are represented by the "politicians" in the illustration as I've noted the high percentage of lawyers in the
senate.
[edit on 11-9-2009 by Hemisphere]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:53 AM by AllSeeingI
|
You guys are comparing apples to oranges when comparing the amount of donations given to OBAMA and WILSON.
OBAMA IS THE FRICKIN President of the USA! With a two year long national campaign etc etc.. Versus a Congressman (1 out of 535) Not even a US
senator.
IT IS NO WONDER Obama has more contributions to him from the Health Care Industy. As he probably has much more contributions from all categories
compared to this Congressman; who holds just 1/535th of the Congressional power.
How can you even begin to insinuate that these two political entities are in the same ballpark when it comes to comparing contribution amounts.
A congressman compared to the President? Gee I wonder who got more money! 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:04 AM by AllSeeingI
|
Opponent of 'You Lie' Rep. raises nearly $600,000 in a
day
Joe Wilson's lifetime contributions from health care: $250,000+
Donations to his opponent in the last two days since his outburst: $600,000+
The fewest words ever used to ensure you are on your last term: 2 (you lie)
HEY JOE.....
Was it worth it?
na na na na, NA NA NA NA, HEY HEY HEY Goodbye.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 03:53 AM by AllSeeingI
|
Originally posted by shortywarn
isn't that called lobbying,,,, or "being lobbyed"
this happens everyday in the halls of congress,,,, where's the outrage in that
in fact,,, at least all he did was yell,,,, what about when votes are bought that our represenatives vote for that clearly benefit a certain industry
or interest
'
isn't that even more outrageous????
I am against the notion of lobbying and lobbyists. These elected politicians should be wise enough to make their own decisions on what is right or
wrong based on their own beliefs and the reflection of the beliefs of the constituents which LEGALLY elected them.
There should not even exist the profession of a lobbyist. Between the politician and their staff they should be able to make the decisions without
some paid lobbyist telling them what to think with $.
The politician is accountable by election for their decisions and it should be the VOTES of the citizens which sway elections.
These days when I hear newsheads talking about election donations and equating those numbers as victory indicators. It seems that people are buying
elections.
We must not let elections be bought in this way anymore.
Massive reform required.
This system only lends itself to corruption because of the money involved, it becomes a tool of the wealthy business owners to further their goals to
increase profit... which unfortunately 99% of the time goes against what would be in the ethical best interest of the citizenry.
[edit on (9/11/09) by AllSeeingI]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 07:55 AM by AllSeeingI
|
Originally posted by Highground
If you're all concerned about "best interests" and who is paying who, why not make a thread about how Obama is in the pocket of big healthcare? You
are falling right in step with the party line, you are now marching in the rank-and-file. How does it feel?
How does it feel?
Its very enlightening to be aware. 
Yet I feel sad that I cannot get through to SOME PEOPLE. 
Marching with the rank and file?
I think not.
You dont know me.
You only think you do.
Quit trying to derail this thread into something personal. 
The rank and file huh?
Like the mindless idiots who follow FoxNews without question and accept ludicrous disinformation about death panels and the like. Lies spread by the
rich to delay this eventual health care revolution which will create an ethical system where everyone gets equal healthcare once and for all.
YOU START A THREAD about Obama being in the pocket of healthcare. I will check it out.
Dont tell me to start a thread when you are in a thread of mine already. LOL
Because I have not seen any proof that he his. Or by his actions.... so far all I see is Obama trying to push for healthcare reform which will give
healthcare to everyone... instead of the rich select-few getting the best care, and the poor made to scrape buy with clinics and overdue overpriced
medical bills.
[edit on (9/11/09) by AllSeeingI]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 08:19 AM by Hemisphere
|
Originally posted by AllSeeingI
You guys are comparing apples to oranges when comparing the amount of donations given to OBAMA and WILSON.
OBAMA IS THE FRICKIN President of the USA! With a two year long national campaign etc etc.. Versus a Congressman (1 out of 535) Not even a US
senator.
IT IS NO WONDER Obama has more contributions to him from the Health Care Industy. As he probably has much more contributions from all categories
compared to this Congressman; who holds just 1/535th of the Congressional power.
How can you even begin to insinuate that these two political entities are in the same ballpark when it comes to comparing contribution amounts.
A congressman compared to the President? Gee I wonder who got more money!
The point was made that the actions of the congressman were driven by the contributions. These are both only men and both subject to outside influence
despite the lofty positions. If the congressman was thought to be driven by his supporters, "medical professionals" for the most part, then the
president could rightly be thought to be driven by his. I think he's likely driven more by the backing of George Soros than the piddling millions
listed here. As you insinuated, it would take substantially more funds to influence a president than a 1/535th share holder in the congress. You are
dead on when you say this is apples to oranges. I agree there is no comparison. Excellent point AllSeeingI!
These lobbies are what is slamming the brakes on health care reform.
Using campaign appearances, e-mails to supporters, and Iowa TV ads, Illinois Senator Barack Obama has repeatedly reminded voters that his presidential
campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, casting his decision as a noble departure from the ways of
Washington.
He hit the theme hard again in Tuesday's Democratic debate in Chicago as he sought to capitalize on rival Hillary Clinton's remark last weekend that
taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans."
"The people in this stadium need to know who we're going to fight for," Obama said at Soldier Field. "The reason that I'm running for president
is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that's a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate." -
Scott Helman, the Boston Globe, August 9, 2007
He was running for president "because of you", what is he doing for the folks who wrote the "big checks"?
The entire Boston Globe article:
PACs and lobbyists aided Obama's rise
Another excerpt:
Though Obama has returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from registered federal lobbyists since he declared his candidacy in
February, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58.9 million he collected through
the first six months of 2007. Obama has raised more than $1.4 million from members of law and consultancy firms led by partners who are lobbyists, The
Los Angeles Times reported last week. And The Hill, a Washington newspaper, reported earlier this year that Obama's campaign had reached out to
lobbyists' networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base. - Scott Helman, the Boston Globe, August 9, 2007
The Globe is very Democrat friendly. This article seems almost scathing looking back. They must have been backing Clinton at that stage of the
campaign. The return of "thousands of dollars" sounds magnanimous but was just a smoke screen. There are ways to "launder" truly large
contributions. There was too much at stake for the likes of a George Soros for instance and Clinton was too far to the center and not distinct enough
from McCain. I am certain that both Clinton and Obama were backed by the same people, these people don't take chances and the levels of
contributions, although staggering, are not a problem.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 08:46 AM by AllSeeingI
|
reply to post by Hemisphere
Thanks for your eloquent input.
Personally I would have chosen Ron Paul. I am not a blind Obama supporter. But I strongly agree with getting every human quality affordable healthcare
and I believe that is what Obama is trying to do.
Our current system is a business.... Human welfare SHOULD NEVER BE A BUSINESS.
As soon as you put business into HOSPITALS, JAILS, SCHOOLS, LAW ENFORCEMENT....
They lose the focus of what they are trying to do and instead they try to make MONEY.
We must remove business from these human needs.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 08:50 AM by Pillar
|
www.youtube.com...
Here the clip where promise not to insure illegal immigrants, and stirrs up ruckus along with rep. Wilson out burst.
It is a FACT Illegal immigrants get the same level of healthcare currently as citizens, making Wilson outburst not so self serving. I think
this bride is just a SET UP to cull the little bit of opposition actually for the PEOPLE OF THE US.
Obama has just deliver a lie in front of the American ppl and will continue to do so as he is a puppet for the NWO. So Lets get the truth out there
before the lies pile up over them.
[edit on 11-9-2009 by Pillar]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 08:57 AM by AllSeeingI
|
reply to post by Pillar
OK HONESTLY!
Where is your heart?
Who are we to deny ANY human being health care?
I hear everyone whining and complaining about how much it costs to insure everyone. "OH NO THE DEFICIT WILL INCREASE!"
Well lets cute military, defense R+D secret black ops funding and we would have enough money to INSURE, FEED, and clothe, EVERYONE on the planet.
The trillions dumped into for-profit wars and defense is unimaginable.
Ask any priest or doctor, we must take care of everyone. Because.... NEWSFLASH... Its the right thing to do.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 09:07 AM by Sestias
|
Originally posted by digger2381
Note: that shows no contributions to Obama from pharmaceutical companies. I don't know if he has received any, but it doesn't list him as having
done so, which seems odd considering the volume of contributions from the other fields.
[edit on 10-9-2009 by digger2381]
It's very interesting that Big Pharma contributed nothing to Obama's campaign. It was probably because they knew he wanted to overhaul health care,
and because they already contributed so much to Hillary Clinton's campaign (surprising, considering her role in trying to reform health care in the
90's). I like Hillary Clinton very much, but she was in the pocket of Big Pharma and that's one reason I didn't vote for her.
Yes, it looks suspicious that Wilson received so much of his funding from the healthcare or healthcare-related industries.
But these lobbies give lots of money to lots of people to keep their wheels greased.
I would like a better idea of how much they give to the average Republican senator or congressman.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 09:20 AM by marg6043
|
reply to post by AllSeeingI
Actually Obama did lie about no coverage for illegals, if you have a "valid looking" SS card like many illegals have and one of the
biggest problem with identity theft in America right now, they get medical care pay by tax payer.
I know my sister works for the health care system and she is been told no to look to much into names and identification cards of suspicious
individuals and not to ask to many questions.
So actually Illegals will still get their health care.
Now as for the private insurance they are the ones to win with mandatory health care as the money gravy train will be hitting the pockets of
Americans that already have health care and those that can afford it but don't get it.
We already have government health care for the needy and poor, is call Medicare and Medicaid.
So the whole health care reform is nothing than a scam to fall into the private health care insurance, with the IRS making sure that every
tax payer and worker pay for insurance the ones provided by the same scam artist that are gouging Americans.
Still we to pay for the public option that will only be for those in excruciating situations, Medicare and Medicaid will not be gone or
reform.
Double dipping People, double dipping.
Wake up American is not such thing as universal health care for the people in America and neither public option but with
restrictions.
But you still will be owned by the private insurance cartel. 
Deceptions and more deceptions. 
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 09:31 AM by Pillar
|
Originally posted by AllSeeingI
reply to post by Pillar
OK HONESTLY!
Where is your heart?
Who are we to deny ANY human being health care?
I hear everyone whining and complaining about how much it costs to insure everyone. "OH NO THE DEFICIT WILL INCREASE!"
Well lets cute military, defense R+D secret black ops funding and we would have enough money to INSURE, FEED, and clothe, EVERYONE on the planet.
The trillions dumped into for-profit wars and defense is unimaginable.
Ask any priest or doctor, we must take care of everyone. Because.... NEWSFLASH... Its the right thing to do.
There not going to be a DEFICIT too increase if American citizens are to sick to work. Citizen all always be around illegal immigrants can go back to
there native land if there's a economic collapse. This childish is not going to fit in with reality forever, sooner are later someone like china is
going to want a refund...then this ponzi scheme of a system will collapse.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 10:42 AM by Highground
|
reply to post by AllSeeingI
Again, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. You choose to see what you want to see, and you tend to ignore everything else. Mr. Obama received 500k in his
2001-2006 term ALONE, from Health Care Professionals and Insurers. I'm sorry this doesn't fall in line with the line you're trying to sell so hard,
but it's time to take an unbiased look at these numbers. You cannot honestly try to say that Sen. Wilson is "in the pocket of the healthcare
industry" after ~250k after 20 years, and then turn around and defend Mr. Obama who has received ~500k from the same industries in 6 ( before
he was running for president).
I think you should look at things objectively, rather than as a heavy drinker of the Kool-Aid. If you believe so readily that Mr. Wilson is so heavily
influenced by 250k over 20 years, why on Earth do you think Mr. Obama is not influenced by 500k over 6?
And very nice, adding me to your foes list. I see you're really up for a good debate. You didn't even respond to my other posts in your thread. You
only see what you find convenient, I'm afraid.
Mr. Obama's 2001-2006 Campaign Contributors
As for your, "Where is your heart?" What is Medicaid for? Medicare? If someone cannot afford insurance, they should get Medicaid. If they were
disabled, Medicare. What is wrong with these existing programs that have been around since Social Security? Why not reform them? Why make everything
MANDATORY? I have been fine without insurance, and I don't have another $500/month to hand out just because Mr. O says so. I cannot, for the life of
me, figure out why it is in our best interests to finance the tearing down of a house just to fix a leaky roof.
[edit on 11-9-2009 by Highground]
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 11:50 AM by hotrodturbo7
|
Obama's senate contributions
Obama got over $12 MILLION in the same category for his senate campaigns.
So who should be drawn and quartered?
Which do you think owes more to the health industry?
Your lack of research makes me
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:21 PM by stevegmu
|
Originally posted by AllSeeingI
You guys are comparing apples to oranges when comparing the amount of donations given to OBAMA and WILSON.
OBAMA IS THE FRICKIN President of the USA! With a two year long national campaign etc etc.. Versus a Congressman (1 out of 535) Not even a US
senator.
IT IS NO WONDER Obama has more contributions to him from the Health Care Industy. As he probably has much more contributions from all categories
compared to this Congressman; who holds just 1/535th of the Congressional power.
How can you even begin to insinuate that these two political entities are in the same ballpark when it comes to comparing contribution amounts.
A congressman compared to the President? Gee I wonder who got more money!
A politician doesn't have to accept contributions from any group. They are free to reject the donations and send the checks back. Is there any
evidence Obama rejected campaign contributions from said lobbyists?
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:24 PM by stevegmu
|
Originally posted by AllSeeingI
reply to post by Pillar
OK HONESTLY!
Where is your heart?
Who are we to deny ANY human being health care?
I hear everyone whining and complaining about how much it costs to insure everyone. "OH NO THE DEFICIT WILL INCREASE!"
Well lets cute military, defense R+D secret black ops funding and we would have enough money to INSURE, FEED, and clothe, EVERYONE on the planet.
The trillions dumped into for-profit wars and defense is unimaginable.
Ask any priest or doctor, we must take care of everyone. Because.... NEWSFLASH... Its the right thing to do.
No one in the US is denied health care.
|
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 11-9-2009 @ 02:34 PM by mental modulator
|
Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by AshleyD
Respectfully disagree oh mighty mod. . .
He stated that when Obama stated that illegal folks would not be covered by the universal plan.
Not about any corporate issue.
It would not be optional to anyone in the public, one would have to work for a company that does not offer health insurance to even qualify. As part
of legal hiring practices a person would need to have SSN and a valid drivers license to even acquire legal employment. An individual signing up for
the option would then have the money
directly taken out of pay checks (like payroll taxes) which would go towards such coverage. As part of this, employers who knowingly participate in
hiring a person who falsifies record would, with the "options" activation, face very heavy penalties as a deterrent. This insures participants are
in fact paying taxes based upon the documents they provide for legal employment.
So yes if you are working illegally you cannot access the system unless your are paying taxes and therefore legally employed by definition. A
undocumented cook in the back could not pay into the system to receive benefits unless he has an SSN that is registered with the employer and that SSN
is not in use else where.
It can hardly even be called a public option, more like public option**
Thanks for convincing me to read the bill Mike
|
copyright & usage
|
|
<< 1 2 3 >>
|
|
|
