$380 Million Spent Lobbying Against US Health Reform

[FireNexus]

The Guardian

Revealed: millions spent by lobby firms fighting Obama health reforms

Six lobbyists for every member of Congress as healthcare industry heaps cash on politicians to water down legislation

Demonstrators protest Obama's healthcare reform plan

A demonstration in Washington against Obama's healthcare reform plan. Photograph: Rex Features

America's healthcare industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to block the introduction of public medical insurance and stall other reforms promised by Barack Obama. The campaign against the president has been waged in part through substantial donations to key politicians.

Supporters of radical reform of healthcare say legislation emerging from the US Senate reflects the financial power of vested interests ‑ principally insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms and hospitals ‑ that have worked to stop far-reaching changes threatening their profits.

The industry and interest groups have spent $380m (£238m) in recent months influencing healthcare legislation through lobbying, advertising and in direct political contributions to members of Congress. The largest contribution, totalling close to $1.5m, has gone to the chairman of the senate committee drafting the new law.

A former member of Bill Clinton's cabinet says fears that the industry could throw its money behind the populist rightwing backlash against public insurance have scared the Obama White House into pulling back from the most significant reforms in return for healthcare companies not trying to scupper the entire legislation.

Drug and insurance companies say they are merely seeking to educate politicians and the public. But with industry lobbyists swarming over Capitol Hill ‑ there are six registered healthcare lobbyists for every member of Congress ‑ a partner in the most powerful lobbying firm in Washington acknowledged that healthcare firms' money "has had a lot of influence" and that it is "morally suspect".

Reform groups say vast spending, and the threat of a lot more being poured into advertisements against the administration, has helped drug companies ensure there will be no cap on the prices they charge for medicines ‑ one of the ways the White House had hoped to keep down surging healthcare costs.

Insurance companies have done even better as the new legislation will prove a business bonanza. It is not only likely to kill off the threat of public health insurance, which threatened to siphon off customers by offering lower premiums and better coverage, but will force millions more people to take out private medical policies or face prosecution.

"It's a total victory for the health insurance industry," said Dr Steffie Woolhander, a GP, professor of medicine at Harvard University and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Programme (PNHP).

"What the bill has done is use the coercive power of the state to force people to hand their money over to a private entity which is the private insurance industry. That is not what people were promised."

PNHP blames a political process it says is corrupted by millions of dollars poured into the election campaigns of members of Congress and influencing the discourse about health reform by funding advertising campaigns, supposedly independent studies and patients rights organisations that press the industry's interests.

A primary target of criticism is Senator Max Baucus, the single largest recipient of health industry political donations and chairman of the finance committee that drafted the legislation criticised by Woolhander.

The committee this week twice voted against including public insurance in the legislation, with Baucus opposing it both times.

Baucus took $1.5m from the health sector for his political fund in the past year. Other members of the committee have received hundreds of thousands of dollars. They include Senator Pat Roberts, who last week tried to stall the bill by arguing that lobbyists needed three days to read it.

Baucus holds dinners for health industry executives at which they pay thousands of dollars each to be at the table, and an annual fly-fishing and golfing weekend in his home state of Montana that lobbyists pay handsomely to attend. They have included John Jonas, who represents healthcare firms for Patton Boggs, widely regarded as the top lobbying firm in Washington. Jonas, who formerly worked on the congressional staff, acknowledges that political contributions are intended to buy influence and says it works.

"It would be very naive to say they're not influenced. The contributors certainly hope they're influencing and the recipients probably ultimately are influenced," he said. "I think it's a morally suspect practice, and then you have to look at its application to see if it's morally bankrupt ... I think what's bad about the system is it's got more and more lax over time.

"When I started in this practice you did not talk issues at a fundraiser. It was impolite. And then with this need for money, the system has got coarser over time so that they go around the room asking what issues you're interested in, much more of a linkage of dollars to a discussion of the issues now."

The health industry permeates the process in other ways. At Baucus's side, drafting much of the wording of the reform, was Liz Fowler, a senate committee counsel whose last position was vice-president of the country's largest health insurer, Wellpoint, which stands to be a principal beneficiary of the new law.

Health companies and their lobby firms also recruit heavily among congressional staffers as a means of maintaining influence.

Baucus declines to discuss political donations but told Montana's Missoulian newspaper earlier this year that "no one gets special treatment".

Robert Reich, the labour secretary in the Clinton administration, says the Obama White House, mindful of how the health industry killed off Clinton's attempts at reform, has grown so fearful of industry money that it has quietly reached agreement to pull back from price caps and public health insurance.

"The White House made a Faustian bargain with big pharma and big insurance, essentially scuttling both of these profit-squeezing mechanisms in return for these industries' agreement not to oppose healthcare legislation with platoons of lobbyists and millions of dollars of TV ads."

The pharmaceutical companies are apparently pleased enough that they are now putting $120m into advertising supporting the emerging legislation.

Jonas described the bill emerging from the Senate as "in realm of what is politically possible".

"Is the bill overly distorted by money? I don't think it actually is," he said. "It's a good bill in the sense that it's a net improvement in the system ... but it's a bad bill if you think it's supposed to be a comprehensive solution to the US healthcare problems."

It is un-fucking-believable that such a small group can exert so much pressure on on the highest level of government. And this is small potatoes compared to what happens ordinarily. It's hard to think that this can get any better any time soon, too. The people entrusted by the public to solve it all seem totally corrupted by it.

[Duckie]

There's an obvious solution to this: Leave America. Get out. Take your money and your families and your career and go to a country that isn't a shithole, if you at all can. In a country that has health care and civil rights and a working political system, it'll be exactly like America, only speaking in a different accent (or possibly a different language) and with health care, civil rights, and a working political system, among other things.

In addition to personal benefits any person will derive from this plan, the brain drain will ultimately force the US to civilize or die, regardless of any amounts of lobbyists.

And if it doesn't work- if the US doesn't ever reform itself, then the person who left still wins far more than those stuck there or willing to stay.

Staying seems like a sucker's game to me. Fight the good fight until you can get out, then turn over the mantle of fighting to fix the US to the people working their way towards leaving themselves or staying behind due some reason. The only real problem that I can find with this plan is that most people can't leave, which is unfortunate for them, but unavoidable. Bunches of people staying in the US when they don't need to doesn't matter, since the US does not work on a democratic system so there's no benefit to progressives staying. (For example, supermajority support for the public option and healthcare reform in Montana, so you might as well affix "Baucus (D-BCBS)" to the man's name rather than dignify him by calling him a popularly elected senator.)

[FireNexus]

There's an obvious solution to this: Leave America. Get out. Take your money and your families and your career and go to a country that isn't a shithole, if you at all can. In a country that has health care and civil rights and a working political system, it'll be exactly like America, only speaking in a different accent (or possibly a different language) and with health care, civil rights, and a working political system, among other things.

In addition to personal benefits any person will derive from this plan, the brain drain will ultimately force the US to civilize or die, regardless of any amounts of lobbyists.

And if it doesn't work- if the US doesn't ever reform itself, then the person who left still wins far more than those stuck there or willing to stay.

Staying seems like a sucker's game to me. Fight the good fight until you can get out, then turn over the mantle of fighting to fix the US to the people working their way towards leaving themselves or staying behind due some reason. The only real problem that I can find with this plan is that most people can't leave, which is unfortunate for them, but unavoidable. Bunches of people staying in the US when they don't need to doesn't matter, since the US does not work on a democratic system so there's no benefit to progressives staying. (For example, supermajority support for the public option and healthcare reform in Montana, so you might as well affix "Baucus (D-BCBS)" to the man's name rather than dignify him by calling him a popularly elected senator.)

So those with less than a certain amount of resources or intellect become a permanent under-class, and most of the people working for their interests get up and leave. How very progressive of you, Duckie. You must have bruises on your nipples from how fast and hard you began beating your chest on this one.

[Duckie]

And at least I acknowledge it as a failure of such a plan- it isn't a plan to fix America, it's a plan for a limited number of people who can to admit defeat and leave, and hope everything goes better for the people who can't. If you can come up with a better one for maximizing the amount of Americans who aren't stuck with a country that is like the current America, I'd love to hear it.

But you know what? Maybe I'm wrong. I made fun of that guy who wanted progressives to withdraw from national politics and focus on improving progressive states so that the conservative states would rot and/or see how much better it was the proper way. Is this plan just a bitter 'Let America Rot' version of that? Maybe. It's certainly not a plan for collective action- it's a plan for individuals to cut losses, and as such isn't going to directly fix anything. But I'm tired of bullshit like this- unfixable bullshit buried deep in the political and cultural foundations of a nation that cannot be removed short of tearing it down and rebuilding it. There comes a point where it becomes far easier just to give up and move to a country that doesn't suck.

[FireNexus]

And at least I acknowledge it as a failure of such a plan- it isn't a plan to fix America, it's a plan for a limited number of people who can to admit defeat and leave, and hope everything goes better for the people who can't. If you can come up with a better one for maximizing the amount of Americans who aren't stuck with a country that is like the current America, I'd love to hear it.

That plan might well maximize the number of Americans not stuck in a country with a current-America level of shittiness. But it will also be pretty likely to have the effect of making sure everyone left behind is in an even shittier place. I feel a sense of despair at the situation, sure. But the depression might be a blessing in disguise, in that regard. As things get worse, we'll be forced more and more into a new New Deal. Things might stagnate or get worse, but I feel a strange loyalty to my countrymen, such that even if I could leave I don't think I would. I would use those resources to, instead, make things better here.

But I'm tired of bullshit like this- unfixable bullshit buried deep in the political and cultural foundations of a nation that cannot be removed short of tearing it down and rebuilding it. There comes a point where it becomes far easier just to give up and move to a country that doesn't suck.

I'm tired of the shit, too. I agree that it would be easier, too. I feel like this society has given me so much, though, that it would be dishonorable to basically say "So long and thanks for all the fish" rather than trying to make it better for everyone else.

Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. Is it corrupt and shitty in a lot of ways? Sure it is. But no problem is unsolvable, and I have hope that eventually enough of the people will get fed up with this garbage and we'll be able to really fix things. I'm also a glory hog and I want to be able to claim credit if/when that happens.

Look on the bright side: The boomers (who are responsible for all this shit) will be dead soon. Let's hope they didn't irreparably damage us.

[Oskuro]

Won't anyone think of the Insurance Company executives?

(guess this is the best place to add this, move/delete/set on fire as needed)

[Chris OFarrell]

Seriously, why don't the proponents of Public Health Care and serious reform not unite and buy a crapload of airtime in the districts of all the politicians who are taking these kickbacks -and that is exactly what they are- in which they loudly publish who is giving them money, how much money they are getting, and then say make contrasts to how far that money would go in say paying medical bills?

Seriously this is nothing more then fucking BRIBE MONEY for the love of God, why the HELL aren't there people blasting them from the rooftops as traitors and working to destroy them?

Probably because Obama has to contend with a complete lack of party discipline where he has a technical majority of Government, but they all do whatever the hell they want...

[Erik von Nein]

Doesn't help that there are plenty of democrats also taking kickbacks, as well. Baucas is easily the most prominent of them all.

It's still amazing that even though so much money is being poured into keeping any kind of health reform down 65% or so of the public still want a public option. You'd think in the face of such massive opposition such a large proportion still wanting decent reform would be a huge signal to politicians that they, too, need to support reform. But, no. Instead you get the finance committee killing the public option and giving us a bill that's just as neutered (dangerous, even) as the Markey-Waxman climate change bill.

[Big Orange]

I don't think this can carry on forever, the whole corrupt system will inevitably end up cannibalizing itself completely if it carries on like this, since the bribe money will lose all value after US businesses continue to implode and unemployment goes over 30% threatening civil stability, while the lack of UHC starts to decimate the baby-boomers horrifically, which most people wouldn't ignore.

On a jokey note why do you allegedly get nutty military officers who want to launch a coup against Obama just because, when you've got a huge chunk of other politicians corrupted by corporate blood money from business oligarchs? They seem like a more blatant target for revolting mobs waving pitch forks...

[Chris OFarrell]

Doesn't help that there are plenty of democrats also taking kickbacks, as well. Baucas is easily the most prominent of them all.

Out them all; the US political system has gotten to the point that you need to simply cut off these kinds of liabilities or you'll get NOTHING done! It might make the rest of this term little more then a massive bloodbath, but Obama has been able to do jack and shit in terms of REAL progress because his party is a hedgepodge of interests with utterly no central unity or control.

A few high profile examples also *might* convince lesser problems to shut up and tow the line.

But watching the Democrats implode into a civil war every time the Republicans start saying 'nasty things' is really starting to get old. Where the hell is Howard Dean when you need him...

[Duckie]

Snubbed for appointment to SecHHS and leadership of the Health Care Reform effort because he pissed off the Blue Dogs and their friend Rahm, unusually considering it's his brilliance that actually made the Blue Dogs exist as a potent force.

(Let's not kid ourselves, too, it's a good thing we have Blue Dogs in a way. I'd rather have rural, corporate bought Blue Dogs than rural, corporate bought Republicans. Corporate-bought senators aren't as vindictive, malicious, or destructive to liberty as a Republican is and they still vote with the Democrats more than even the liberalest Republicans.)

[ThomasP]

How and why are lobbyists even legal? The entire concept seems like such an over the top obvious way for wealthy people and corporations to effectively buy their laws that I have trouble seeing why it's not outright illegal.

Do they serve any real function, or is this just plutocracy in action?

[The Romulan Republic]

There's an obvious solution to this: Leave America. Get out. Take your money and your families and your career and go to a country that isn't a shithole, if you at all can. In a country that has health care and civil rights and a working political system, it'll be exactly like America, only speaking in a different accent (or possibly a different language) and with health care, civil rights, and a working political system, among other things.

This seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me. America has Civil Rights, not perfect perhaps but that's true of everywhere. America may not be top in the world for every minority group, but its still better than a lot of places. Its only a "shithole" compared to some other First World nations, not when compared to the real shitholes in the Third World and developing nations.

And while this is perhaps an off-topic tangent, I would take at least certain elements of the US political system over the Canadian one any day of the week.

In addition to personal benefits any person will derive from this plan, the brain drain will ultimately force the US to civilize or die, regardless of any amounts of lobbyists.

It will deprive America of reformers and moderates, increasing the likelihood of its descent into true "shithole" status.

America won't nessisarily die any time soon because all the non-anarchists and Bible belters leave (unless its run by someone actually stupid enough to start WW3). Perhaps it'll just stagger on at the level of Iraq or Iran, to the detriment of the rest of the world.

But if it does die, that death is sure to be painful and horrible for hundreds of millions of people. And their is no garuntee (nor likelihood) that what replaces it will be better.

And if it doesn't work- if the US doesn't ever reform itself, then the person who left still wins far more than those stuck there or willing to stay.

So get out while you can and leave the rest to their own devices?

Credit to FireNexus for pointing out this flaw in logic.

Staying seems like a sucker's game to me. Fight the good fight until you can get out, then turn over the mantle of fighting to fix the US to the people working their way towards leaving themselves or staying behind due some reason. The only real problem that I can find with this plan is that most people can't leave, which is unfortunate for them, but unavoidable.

They're poor, so fuck them. Right?

Bunches of people staying in the US when they don't need to doesn't matter, since the US does not work on a democratic system so there's no benefit to progressives staying. (For example, supermajority support for the public option and healthcare reform in Montana, so you might as well affix "Baucus (D-BCBS)" to the man's name rather than dignify him by calling him a popularly elected senator.)

Saying that America is not democratic is not entirely fair. It is not completely democratic, no, but to suggest that it is so far gone that popular pressure and political opposition are irrelevant is both false, I think, and dangerous. That kind of defeatist attitude is more likely to bring dictatorship and true Third World status to America in our lifetime than anything the lobbyists can do by themselves, I think.

On that note: the public option is not dead because it was removed from one of several bills. Obama has not failed because he didn't snap his fingers and made everything change in a week. America is not a Third World hell hole because not every state recognizes gay marriage. These things bloody well take time.

Now, if someone wants to get out, that's there choice. Not everyone has the guts, the dedication, or the means to stay and fight oppression and injustice. There are also many other worthwhile things one can do with their life. I will not condemn someone as a bad person for leaving America. But to say that everyone who can get out should get out, should cut their losses, and leave America to sink to Third World status (pity about all the poor innocent people still stuck there and the incredible damage to the world resulting from the social and economic collapse of America), is a position that is quite bluntly cynical, callous, and unjustifiable based on the facts.

For God's sake, the liberals are winning. The last year has seen multiple states allow gay marriage. It has seen the Republicans take crushing political losses (and if you think that too little progress is being made, consider the rapid movement in the other direction that would be taking place if the Right held the White House and Congress). And the Health Care Bill is not yet dead. Not even close. We're winning, and you want to get out and abandon the country to the most ignorant, violent, fantical 30%? To be blunt: what the hell is wrong with you? Is it too much to ask for people to maintain some perspective?

[Duckie]

I'm searching for a reason lobbyists actually are legal like the question was asked. I mean, logically businesses need to tell the government what's important to them so the government actually knows what farmers want if it tries to help farmers, for example. (Not that any farmers exist nowadays besides agricorps).

However, the entire idea of a PAC and businesses and the wealthy donating campaign money and so for doesn't serve and reasonable purpose as far as I know.

[The Romulan Republic]

And at least I acknowledge it as a failure of such a plan- it isn't a plan to fix America, it's a plan for a limited number of people who can to admit defeat and leave, and hope everything goes better for the people who can't.

Hope is cheap. Actions make things get better.

If you can come up with a better one for maximizing the amount of Americans who aren't stuck with a country that is like the current America, I'd love to hear it.

Keep working at improving things and accept that it'll take more than a few years?

But you know what? Maybe I'm wrong. I made fun of that guy who wanted progressives to withdraw from national politics and focus on improving progressive states so that the conservative states would rot and/or see how much better it was the proper way. Is this plan just a bitter 'Let America Rot' version of that? Maybe. It's certainly not a plan for collective action- it's a plan for individuals to cut losses, and as such isn't going to directly fix anything. But I'm tired of bullshit like this- unfixable bullshit buried deep in the political and cultural foundations of a nation that cannot be removed short of tearing it down and rebuilding it. There comes a point where it becomes far easier just to give up and move to a country that doesn't suck.

In a globalized world, one country's suckiness has a way of spilling over. Especially if that nation is as powerful as America.

[Duckie]

There's an obvious solution to this: Leave America. Get out. Take your money and your families and your career and go to a country that isn't a shithole, if you at all can. In a country that has health care and civil rights and a working political system, it'll be exactly like America, only speaking in a different accent (or possibly a different language) and with health care, civil rights, and a working political system, among other things.

This seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me. America has Civil Rights, not perfect perhaps but that's true of everywhere. America may not be top in the world for every minority group, but its still better than a lot of places. Its only a "shithole" compared to some other First World nations, not when compared to the real shitholes in the Third World and developing nations.

America isn't Sudan, therefore it's fine. . Massive Tu Quoque fallacy. America might have de jure civil rights (in some parts) for several types of minorities but I'd prefer not to stay in a country where it's statistically proven that no matter where I am I'm more likely* to be murdered than die a natural death. I beg your understanding of my unworthy, unpatriotic self.

So get out while you can and leave the rest to their own devices?

Yes. If you expect me to stay behind and martyr myself to a slow death from a disease that isn't profitable for health insurance companies to cover for the sake of other Americans, unless I instead get a violent death from these same citizens I'm supposed to be saving, then I expect you'll be disappointed.

On that note: the public option is not dead because it was removed from one of several bills. Obama has not failed because he didn't snap his fingers and made everything change in a week. America is not a Third World hell hole because not every state recognizes gay marriage. These things bloody well take time.

Haha, wow. You think Civil Rights are Gay Marriage, and that the US isn't a hellhole because it's slowly legalising Gay Marriage and might be getting somewhere by the time I die. If I had children, I suppose maybe by the time my children die they'd see the culture stop being horrific too. (Except for racism, that's never going away.) Clearly all is right in the world. However could I complain? (Let alone that Gay Marriage is such an unimportant issue)

I'd like my right-to-not-be-dead-due-to-lack-of-health-care first personally, and I'd like it before I'm dead. I'd also like to see a tolerant country before I'm dead, which means I have to pick a country that doesn't suck.



With that said.

But, however, I did type that post in the heat of anger. Leaving the country is not a viable way to fix it, and obviously every progressive cannot leave. I would still argue the most logical way to get a progressive country or proper healthcare in a timely fashion is simply to swap countries, but obviously everyone can't or won't do this and it did not really contribute to the thread much to advocate it. Further, not everyone is in the same situation of me, so it's not like everyone has an incentive to leave America or harbours such grievances against it that they have to leave.

So, I guess this is a partial concession. Partial as in an almost full concession, since my reasoning for why it makes sense to abandon ship only applies to me, and 'imitate me and leave' isn't a viable or even logical strategy to improve America. My claim that it could be was probably attempting to rationalise leaving as beneficial (which is odd, considering I don't have any conscious loyal to the concept of America. Must be a cultural subconscious thing).

*Supplemental: Possibly. The Data have a very high margin of error with this statement, but I make it anyway 'close' counts in horseshoes and this.

[The Romulan Republic]

America isn't Sudan, therefore it's fine. . Massive Tu Quoque fallacy.

No, that's a straw man.

I never said it was fine. I merely suggested that you exaggerated.

America might have de jure civil rights (in some parts) for several types of minorities

There are of course certain rights that apply to minorities nation-wide, so I would not say that America's civil rights exist only in some part of the country (on paper at least).

There are undoubtably injustices, but exaggerating them accomplishes absolutely nothing so far as I can see.

but I'd prefer not to stay in a country where it's statistically proven that no matter where I am I'm more likely* to be murdered than die a natural death.

Source?

I beg your understanding of my unworthy, unpatriotic self.

I don't give a damn if you're unpatriotic. What I have a problem with is suggesting that everyone who's trying to make America (or anywhere else in the world) better should just wash their hands of it and leave those who can't get out to suffer and die. That, and your apparent exaggeration of the severity of the problems in America.

Its bad, yes. Is it hopeless/Third-World/as bad as it was a hundred years ago? I really don't think so.

Yes. If you expect me to stay behind and martyr myself to a slow death from a disease that isn't profitable for health insurance companies to cover for the sake of other Americans, unless I instead get a violent death from these same citizens I'm supposed to be saving, then I expect you'll be disappointed.

As I said already, I'm not going to hold it against anyone who gets out (for any of a number of reasons). But to say that America is hopeless, and everyone who can should just get out and leave the country to collapse with all that that entails...

Haha, wow. You think Civil Rights are Gay Marriage, and that the US isn't a hellhole because it's slowly legalising Gay Marriage and might be getting somewhere by the time I die.

I would appreciate it if you don't straw man my posts.

Its called using an example. I can't list every single problem in America and the level of progress/regression on each of them in one paragraph. How you get "Civil Rights are Gay Marriage" from that I can't imagine.

If I had children, I suppose maybe by the time my children die they'd see the culture stop being horrific too. (Except for racism, that's never going away.)

Is racism ever going to be completely extinct? In the US or anywhere else? Probably not.

Has a lot of progress been made on the issue, and is more progress possible? Absolutely. Unless of course everyone concludes that its not/it isn't worth the effort.

Clearly all is right in the world. However could I complain? (Let alone that Gay Marriage is such an unimportant issue)

Another straw man. I don't really need to flame you though, as I expect there are plenty of other people here who will torch you for that last bit.

I'd like my right-to-not-be-dead-due-to-lack-of-health-care first personally, and I'd like it before I'm dead. I'd also like to see a tolerant country before I'm dead, which means I have to pick a country that doesn't suck.

And fuck all the poor people who can't get out? All the other people around the world who will see their economies weakened, their environment polluted, their homes bombed because of America's decay?

With that said.

But, however, I did type that post in the heat of anger. Leaving the country is not a viable way to fix it, and obviously every progressive cannot leave. I would still argue the most logical way to get a progressive country or proper healthcare in a timely fashion is simply to swap countries, but obviously everyone can't or won't do this and it did not really contribute to the thread much to advocate it. Further, not everyone is in the same situation of me, so it's not like everyone has an incentive to leave America or such harbour such grievances against it.

So, I guess this is a partial concession. Partial as in a Seven Sigma concession, since my reasoning for why it makes sense to abandon ship only applies to me. Cancel your canadian citizenships, guys, you're gonna have to stay

Certainly, some of us have valid reasons to leave, weather personal, political, or whatever. I don't blame anyone for leaving. But I do oppose taking America's very real problems and exaggerating them to the conclusion that the entire country is a hopeless cause and/or should simply be abandoned, or saying that everyone who can should leave, consequences for the world and those left behind be damned.

*Supplemental: Possibly. The Data have a very high margin of error with this statement, but I make it anyway 'close' counts in horseshoes and this.

Leaving aside the reliability of the data, I'd like to actually see the source, as this is a stat I don't believe I've ever run into before.

[Duckie]

What the hell more do you want? I conceded that there's no reason for everyone else to leave, which is why my responses to you all spoke in the first person and not the general- because everything in that post only applies to me (and some other people I guess, since there's 300 million people so I imagine the same situations and conditions will line up a lot of times). Do you want me to concede that I shouldn't leave too, or something? If I get out of this place alive, it's not going to cause the downfall of America by itself, so all those poor people who can't leave will be fine. The Marginal lowering of GDP by several thousands, loss of 1 progressive vote that would be in a progressive state anyhow, and slight population decline America experiences will be survivable, one would hope.

[The Romulan Republic]

What the hell more do you want? I conceded that there's no reason for everyone else to leave, which is why my responses to you all spoke in the first person and not the general- because everything in that post only applies to me (and some other people I guess, since there's 300 million people so I imagine the same situations and conditions will line up a lot of times).

I want you to retract the straw men and provide a source for a specific claim. That's all.

Do you want me to concede that I shouldn't leave too, or something?

No. That would be absurd, and in fact I repeatedly stated otherwise. It is possible however that you misunderstood me, and its possible that this is my fault, in which case I apologise.

So far as I can see, most of my last post was engaged in questioning the factual accuracy of certain statements and refuting specific misrepresentations of my points, not criticizing any hypothetical actions of your's. I can see one point however where it might have appeared that I was criticizing you personally for wanting to leave, namely the following:

I'd like my right-to-not-be-dead-due-to-lack-of-health-care first personally, and I'd like it before I'm dead. I'd also like to see a tolerant country before I'm dead, which means I have to pick a country that doesn't suck.

And fuck all the poor people who can't get out? All the other people around the world who will see their economies weakened, their environment polluted, their homes bombed because of America's decay?

That particular paragraph was poorly considered, and I apologise for it.

[ThomasP]

I'm searching for a reason lobbyists actually are legal like the question was asked. I mean, logically businesses need to tell the government what's important to them so the government actually knows what farmers want if it tries to help farmers, for example. (Not that any farmers exist nowadays besides agricorps).

However, the entire idea of a PAC and businesses and the wealthy donating campaign money and so for doesn't serve and reasonable purpose as far as I know.

The thing that gets me about that is that if I want to talk to my Congressperson or Senator, I get to either call his/her office and leave a message w/ the receptionist, or I get to write a letter and get my form letter in return. That's about as good as I can do, individually, to get my interests heard.

So why can't big corporate interests be stuck with the same process? They slip in a few bucks for "campaign contributions" and suddenly they get a pass to cut in the line.

It's gonna come down to that no matter how much complaining happens, I realize. The political system is just too entrenched in money to change, and big collective blocks of people will always have a louder voice than the individual.

The entire lobbying process just seems really shady if you're still trying to put on the appearance of a democracy, though, and it seems that there's little check on the influence of big money.

[Simon_Jester]

How and why are lobbyists even legal? The entire concept seems like such an over the top obvious way for wealthy people and corporations to effectively buy their laws that I have trouble seeing why it's not outright illegal.

Do they serve any real function, or is this just plutocracy in action?

They can, in theory, serve as spokesmen for public organizations that need a face in Washington to talk to Congress and that legitimately speak for an actual voting bloc.* In practice... well, the difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.

More cynically, when was the last time you saw pigs vote to outlaw troughs? Politicians need money to run election campaigns, more now than they used to; they have to get the money from somewhere. That creates a demand for a group of professional 'faces' who carry interactions between the politicians and the people who have the money.

*Like, say, the NRA; whether or not you agree with their politics, they definitely represent a real constituency of American voters.
_________

The one notable catch is that the voting process is still, by and large, honest. The reason the current system holds together is that corrupt politicians can effectively buy votes, or (in the case of the far right) get them for free from a propagandized base. But I submit that there's a limit on how far people will put up with that.

For example, how well is Max Baucus going to do the next time he goes back for reelection in Montana, to face those voters who overwhelmingly support the public option? Who are mostly poor enough that the Baucus plan, which would force them to buy insurance or pay thousand-dollar-range penalties is really bad for them? Will Baucus be able to appeal to the classic incumbent's argument that his seniority gives his state advantages that a rookie senator wouldn't have, when he has clearly used his power in the Senate against the wishes and interests of his own constituents?

You'll note that the core of the corporatist resistance to public health care is in the Senate. That's true for a reason: many of the Senators were not up for reelection in 2008 and did not have to deal with the growing popular frustration with thieves in high office. That's going to change, at least to some extent.

[Duckie]

Baucus won reelection by 60 points in Montana. He's an incumbent with millions of dollars. He can win without even breaking a sweat even if he ate a kitten just by buying hours of television for his ads in Montana. Even winning by 20 points means you're usually invincible save to a scandal and a strong challenge.

Also, his only challenger was a perennial office seeker who's lost elections 15 times before, a sort of minor Ralph Nader figure. Many Senators can get away running unopposed simply because the other party knows they're invincible.

[The Spartan]

(Not that any farmers exist nowadays besides agricorps).

Um, just to clarify, are you saying this as a generalization or do you literally believe that that's all that's left?

Cause if it's the latter, well, Bobolink farm. They raise their own grass-fed cattle that they milk for cheese and slaughter for meat and also sell the hides. Then there was the recent episode of No Reservations that took place in Montana no less where he went to a working ranch (which is really just a specific kind of farm) that is family owned. They're struggling, or so they claim, but they are there. Then there's Marburger Orchard a farm where you can pick your own fruit that I went to back in April and that also grows and sells vegetables at a farmer's market near to them. You can find similar kinds of farm all over Texas.

[Big Orange]

Duckie, why would some random nutcase more likely kill you in certain areas? Just to put the civil rights issues into context. In the South only a decade or so ago I heard about a black man being dragged down the road by a truck and getting shredded apart.

Instead of this crony corporate lobbying why not publically fund the political parties?