The New York Times

WASHINGTON - In a reversal from past election cycles, Democratic candidates for president are outpacing Republicans in donations from the health care industry, even as the leading Democrats in the field offer proposals that have caused deep anxiety in some of its sectors.

Health sector puts its money on Democrats



Hard to believe a sector whose profits are threatened by Democratic campaign promises is pouring its money into those candidates! I guess it pays to get in goods with the enemy, or maybe there's something else going on?

__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Blind acceptance is a dangerous practice.

It's very surprising to me as well. A single payer system would obviously completely destroy their entire industry.


Well, this type of thing is done defensively at times. They might be trying to buy their way out of a tight spot... But I don't think it will work for them - because Queen Hillary must have her way at all costs... Regardless, even if they donate money to those they perceive are against their interests, they should still donate more to those who would actually protect their interests.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

No, I don't think it is surprising. For one thing, the Dem's proposals do not eliminate private insurers (unfortunately). If the country adopts a Clinton or Edwards type plan insurers will probably benefit with increased enrollment. The health care industry wants a seat at the table in shaping the next form for health care in America. They would be fools not to give the Dems money. If not for Iraq, it would be the no.1 concern for Americans. The current system is unsustainable and the Repubs. should know this.

That's what I'm screamin'. They stand to lose big time if Hitlery gets in office. (Or Dems in general)

You're right - she must have her way at all costs. That's one thing that scares me about her potential Dem nomination. Although, part of me thinks that it's not even a question anymore, unless Obama really steps it up. However, I believe he's got a universal health care plan too, doesn't he? Not sure on that one...

I can't imagine the industry would rather have a Dem than a Rep! I don't think neocons give health care reform the time of day. haha They'd just assume let everyone make their money and go on to the next health care bill veto.

The more I think about universal health care, the less I like it. I'd rather vote for someone who was pushing health care reform as opposed to socialized medicine.

Why can't there be a more moderate candidate???

__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Blind acceptance is a dangerous practice.

I don't see how eliminating the private sector will be SO beneficial. I mean sure, it will give everyone access to health care, but the quality will be crap. Can't we keep the private sector and have some kind of hybrid system to take care of everyone who doesn't want to pay for added benefits?

That's a pretty big assumption. The Clinton plan would create legislation so that carriers will have to offer coverage to everyone at reasonable prices. First of all - that won't fly. You can't force a company to offer a service to someone. Also, the carriers stand to lose big time because they will be taking on a ton of added risk while getting little compensation for it.

That, I agree with. Money = politics. Politics = money.

Oh they know it, they just don't care.

__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Blind acceptance is a dangerous practice.

You're assuming she's telling the truth. What was her ORIGINAL plan????

She knows she can't openly promote what she really wants. That's why were getting the Clinton-lite version of health care reform.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

The question is "why"? The answer: BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT. The government is screwing our health care system up:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap5.html
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap6.html

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Wait a minute... are you trying to tell me there's a candidate out there who isn't telling me everything up front before the election?!?!?

__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Blind acceptance is a dangerous practice.

Yep. Bingo. That's what I'd do too - look "back" to find out where she started on this. 'Cause there's always a difference between "what she wants" and "what she can actually do", right? Yep, right on TB, good detective..

RW, I understand your question ,and it's the same one I've been asking too.

The answer I've come up with, has to do with the way the corps are getting into bed with the government. The answer is, that the government is now becoming the pharma's biggest customer.

Who whoever's in charge of government, is in fact "the customer", right?

I mean, in politics, it's "pretty typical" for the corps to donate to both sides, right? "Whoever's in charge", is who they want to influence.

Keep in mind, that in any kind of "socialized medicine", the market doesn't change - it's only the payor who might change - and even that part, isn't entirely clear, right?

The only difference is, that instead of selling directly to the consumer, they're now selling to an "agency" that then sells to the consumer.

But RW, you do know that Hillary's a statist, right? She's a "big government Democrat", she's one of the folks who likes stuff like the military-industrial complex.

She believes that government should be the "partner" of both individuals and corporations. Kinda like Bushie, in a way, when you think about it from that angle.....

Um. Duh... That's why I can't vote for her. I want the government to have as little control as possible while still ensuring our freedom and safety.

I think Hillary is kinda creepy and a potentially dangerous leader. I'm not sure that putting a Dem in office during war is a great idea, but I certainly can't handle another republican for at least 8 years.

Again I ask - Why isn't there a more moderate candidate???

__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Blind acceptance is a dangerous practice.